The spouse and I are off to Ohio to spend time with loved ones from the heartland. We have family - a son, daughter-in-law, two grandsons and a granddaughter – and long time friends in the Columbus area, and we enjoy interacting with all of them in an effort to interpret life from the point of view of good folks outside the Beltway.
But before I go, I have to fire a couple of shots at celebrities: Don Rumsfeld and Rush Limbaugh.
I’ll begin with everybody’s pal, el Rushbo. Today, from the EIB - Excellence in Broadcasting - Headquarters, in Downtown Manhattan where he had set up to deliver his daily diatribe in the far north safety from Hurricane Ernesto that was threatening to pummel the EIB center in Miami, the Great One railed against the drive by media and the National Hurricane Center in Miami for outlandish alarmism. His attacks were unending on the fools in the media and the bureaucrats in the Weather Service for creating panic among the chickenhearted Floridians when the object of their affection was nothing more than “a rainstorm.” Can you believe it? Ernesto is nothing but rain?
To the bureaucrats and the drive byes, every piddling storm becomes a potential Katrina and the media spreads Chicken Little type fear and panic everywhere. Ernesto is nothing – not even a tropical storm, yet the drive byes and its information source, the hurricane experts of the (even the word is difficult for him to say without breaking into a sweat) government. These people have created panic causing all the fearful Florida folk to run whenever the word `h-------‘ is uttered. Can you believe it? Every girly man in Miami ran from nothing but a spot of rain.
Oh, I forgot to listen to his explanation of how he – the Great One – happened to be scared all the way to New York City by a shower. It must be disgust at the sight of bureaucrats and reporters fanning the flames of fear among the chicken hearted in Florida.
On to Don Rumsfeld! Don’s firing away with the Islamic Fascist jargon that’s catching on with the neocons and the other elements of the hard right as we approach the election. As I indicated in a posting some days ago, the label is not without some merit, and I applaud the guy or gal who thought it up. If there’s any word that’ll scare the hell out of everyone it’s `fascist’. Having found a great pre-election buzzword that will panic everyone in the Republican base, the neocons are compounding the fears of their army by charging that anyone for withdrawing from Iraq is `appeasing’ these fascists. How’s that for doubling down on your bets?
The neocons – and now Rummy – are saying that anyone not willing to stay the course in Iraq is ignorant of history and that they’ve forgotten the last time the Fascists were appeased. Great linkage, eh? For those few of you who don’t know, those are code words for letting Hitler have the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia without a fight in hopes that he wouldn’t ask for more. As all those, according to Don, who don’t know what happened then: World War II broke out then and there as a result of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of the Fuehrer.
I’ve never thought Rummy was likeable – I’m sure he doesn’t care in the least - nor do I think he’s above twisting words; he’s an expert at it, but I never thought he’d twist them to the point that he’d look like a fool. But in intimating that those opposed to staying the course in Iraq are appeasing somebody – whom or what I don’t know and can’t imagine – he’s shown that himself to be both a fool and a charlatan.
To appease is to pacify by buying off parties to a disagreement. The American public is not for appeasing anyone. The people recognize that a huge blunder was made by our leaders when they attacked Iraq under false conditions. There were no weapons of mass destruction threatening us or our allies in the region, and there was never any cooperation between Saddam’s government and al Qaeda in world terror. The war was an act of hubris by George Bush and his advisors, and they are twisting in the wind unable to get away from it.
More than twenty-six hundred American servicemen and women have died over a false premise. Twenty thousand troops have been wounded; among these, a huge number has been horribly maimed. $300 billion has been wasted and the long term outlook is for a total approaching $2 trillion of our national treasure. More than 40,000 Iraqis have been killed and tens of thousands more are homeless.
Question for George Bush and Don Rumsfeld – just who are we appeasing? NO ONE, that’s who. Fire Don now! This is the worst blow of the war so far. The presidency is failed and they want us to stay the course. Give me a break!
Had enough? Vote Democrat!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
P.S. I’ll be back on duty on Thursday next.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Saturday, August 26, 2006
I'm a Divider Now
It’s time for a change! I don’t mean George Bush and the Republicans in Congress; well not just them. I mean it’s time to marginalize the neoconservatives and the hard Republican right wing. There is no doubt that America is a conservative country, and I place myself to the right of center, a moderate conservative if you will. As I’ve admitted before, I voted for George Bush in his race against Al Gore; I was for a moderate intent on being a uniter not a divider. Got it; yeah, right.
Recently, I asked friends to suggest reading material for me and Allan Patterson of Washington State responded with a recommendation for Barbara W. Tuchman’s The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. I read the book for altogether different reasons than the purpose of this posting. I had read her earlier work and was particularly impressed with her book about Vinegar Joe Stilwell, Stilwell and the American Experience in China.
But in The March of Folly I was unable to avoid reading Tuchman’s analysis of our Vietnam experience without reflecting on today’s crisis. It has never been my objective to compare what I consider the great blunder of Iraq with our earlier catastrophe in Vietnam. But I must say that while there are many more differences between the two follies than similarities, the old canard usually attributed to Mark Twain (who said everything Oscar Wilde and Yogi Berra didn’t) that `History doesn’t repeat itself but it rhymes,’ popped into mind - many times.
Since almost three and half years have passed since on May 2, 2003 President Bush landed on the desk of the USS Abraham Lincoln and under the banner `Mission Accomplished’ announced the end of major combat operations in Iraq, I intend to begin blogging in earnest on the similarities between the two calamities in the not too distant future.
But something even deeper struck me in Tuchman’s writing: the depth and virulence of the right wing reaction to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policies and his leadership in WW II. It is Tuchman’s view that the rise of Senator Joseph McCarthy, McCarthyism, and the extreme right wing of the Republican Party as we’ve known it since WW II arose in Reaction to FDR. She does not dwell on this analysis, but I believe it is an accurate portrait.
Her principal early point on Vietnam is that John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State under President Eisenhower, set what became the inevitable course for the nation in the conflict. This course was channeled so narrowly that no administration that followed was able to change the direction until the nation was completely humiliated. The domino theory was established by Dulles and stated by Eisenhower, and no amount of rationality was adequate to turn the ship of state sufficiently to prevent failure.
The Democrats, especially President Lyndon Johnson and the large majority in both Houses of Congress, are most responsible for the historic damage done to America in Vietnam. But it was their fear of the right wing reaction if they had not continued the madness that ultimately ruined Johnson and did much damage to Richard Nixon (who was able to find his own way to self destruction.) Despite the fact that our failure to achieve our aims in Vietnam never led to our loss of super power status as was the trumpet call of the right, no administration could get out of the war without be tarred as being weak and cowardly in the face of world wide communism. The Vietnam War was never in the vital interests of the United States. We could not prevail at any reasonable price, and the black wall near the Lincoln Memorial is the primary reminder of our folly.
Now we’re engaged in another war in which the words of the consequences of failure rhyme almost perfectly. Even George Bush has been forced finally to acknowledge that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, yet somehow we must persist. Why? Because if we don’t the hard right will punish all connected with appeasement.
What appeasement? According to our generals, there are fewer than a thousand al Qaeda agents in Iraq. The rest of the killing is being accomplished by sectarian warriors really not intent on doing 9/11 type damage to the U.S. They just want us out of their country so they can have it out. Meanwhile, we’ve lost our focus on the world terrorist organizations that do want to kill our citizens, wreck our infrastructure, and destroy us as a world power. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, among others, are well beneath our radar screen as we waste time, lives and resources on a conflict which we started for no valid reason and that we can terminate in a reasonable time period, although not without impact on those we tried to help.
It’s time we turned our attention to these neoconservatives and evangelicals who bludgeon our politicians. We must challenge them, not from the positions of the supporters of the likes of Cindy Sheehan and other `crazy leftists’ such as Michael Moore but from the perspective of cloth coat Republicans and independents. These neocons and hard right Christians are the ones who must be beaten back. Republican administrations have been unable to stand up to them, and certainly the Democrats who are tarred daily by the talk show handlers who sic their baying hounds on the cowardly `liberals’ must know that the middle is standing with those demanding reason in the war on terror.
We must have divided government and backbone implants for our politicians. Vote Democrat – this time.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Recently, I asked friends to suggest reading material for me and Allan Patterson of Washington State responded with a recommendation for Barbara W. Tuchman’s The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. I read the book for altogether different reasons than the purpose of this posting. I had read her earlier work and was particularly impressed with her book about Vinegar Joe Stilwell, Stilwell and the American Experience in China.
But in The March of Folly I was unable to avoid reading Tuchman’s analysis of our Vietnam experience without reflecting on today’s crisis. It has never been my objective to compare what I consider the great blunder of Iraq with our earlier catastrophe in Vietnam. But I must say that while there are many more differences between the two follies than similarities, the old canard usually attributed to Mark Twain (who said everything Oscar Wilde and Yogi Berra didn’t) that `History doesn’t repeat itself but it rhymes,’ popped into mind - many times.
Since almost three and half years have passed since on May 2, 2003 President Bush landed on the desk of the USS Abraham Lincoln and under the banner `Mission Accomplished’ announced the end of major combat operations in Iraq, I intend to begin blogging in earnest on the similarities between the two calamities in the not too distant future.
But something even deeper struck me in Tuchman’s writing: the depth and virulence of the right wing reaction to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal policies and his leadership in WW II. It is Tuchman’s view that the rise of Senator Joseph McCarthy, McCarthyism, and the extreme right wing of the Republican Party as we’ve known it since WW II arose in Reaction to FDR. She does not dwell on this analysis, but I believe it is an accurate portrait.
Her principal early point on Vietnam is that John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State under President Eisenhower, set what became the inevitable course for the nation in the conflict. This course was channeled so narrowly that no administration that followed was able to change the direction until the nation was completely humiliated. The domino theory was established by Dulles and stated by Eisenhower, and no amount of rationality was adequate to turn the ship of state sufficiently to prevent failure.
The Democrats, especially President Lyndon Johnson and the large majority in both Houses of Congress, are most responsible for the historic damage done to America in Vietnam. But it was their fear of the right wing reaction if they had not continued the madness that ultimately ruined Johnson and did much damage to Richard Nixon (who was able to find his own way to self destruction.) Despite the fact that our failure to achieve our aims in Vietnam never led to our loss of super power status as was the trumpet call of the right, no administration could get out of the war without be tarred as being weak and cowardly in the face of world wide communism. The Vietnam War was never in the vital interests of the United States. We could not prevail at any reasonable price, and the black wall near the Lincoln Memorial is the primary reminder of our folly.
Now we’re engaged in another war in which the words of the consequences of failure rhyme almost perfectly. Even George Bush has been forced finally to acknowledge that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, yet somehow we must persist. Why? Because if we don’t the hard right will punish all connected with appeasement.
What appeasement? According to our generals, there are fewer than a thousand al Qaeda agents in Iraq. The rest of the killing is being accomplished by sectarian warriors really not intent on doing 9/11 type damage to the U.S. They just want us out of their country so they can have it out. Meanwhile, we’ve lost our focus on the world terrorist organizations that do want to kill our citizens, wreck our infrastructure, and destroy us as a world power. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, among others, are well beneath our radar screen as we waste time, lives and resources on a conflict which we started for no valid reason and that we can terminate in a reasonable time period, although not without impact on those we tried to help.
It’s time we turned our attention to these neoconservatives and evangelicals who bludgeon our politicians. We must challenge them, not from the positions of the supporters of the likes of Cindy Sheehan and other `crazy leftists’ such as Michael Moore but from the perspective of cloth coat Republicans and independents. These neocons and hard right Christians are the ones who must be beaten back. Republican administrations have been unable to stand up to them, and certainly the Democrats who are tarred daily by the talk show handlers who sic their baying hounds on the cowardly `liberals’ must know that the middle is standing with those demanding reason in the war on terror.
We must have divided government and backbone implants for our politicians. Vote Democrat – this time.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Friday, August 25, 2006
Divided Government Forever
In his wonderful book, The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced By War, Andrew Bacevich shows that the making of American Defense policy has been snatched from professional military officers (and even their civilian leadership) and gathered into the clutches of high priests of policy from a small number of elite institutions such as the Rand Corporation, The American Enterprise Institute, The Brookings Institution, and a very small number of elite universities. In reading the book and observing what has happened during the presidential administrations since WW II, I am convinced that Bacevich has it right.
Administrations change and one set of military intellectuals takes over as those formerly in power scramble for fellowships and tenured vacancies in Cambridge, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Palo Alto. With the appointment of Robert S. McNamara to the head of DOD a new trend line was established; no longer could old time amateurs line up for appointments at the Pentagon. The days were over for the likes of Charlie Wilson of, “What’s good for General Motors is good for America,” fame, and the beginnings of Bacevich’s priesthood can be seen – with discursions for highly qualified old bulls from Congress such as Melvin Laird and Les Aspin.
More than that, however, prior to the Cold War, creating foreign policy was the responsibility of the U.S. Department of State. The Foreign Service – the professional corps of the department - was the principal source of intelligence and American policy direction. When times were good, the secretary - usually highly qualified semi-pros such as Dean Acheson or Christian Herter - was the key figure in establishing policy. Under darkening war clouds and strong presidents, the White House became the center of our relations with other powers with the diminished secretary acting as a coordinator.
But as the Cold War heated, information and communication technology was revolutionized, and the priesthood sponsored by the military industrial complex became ascendant. During the period roughly encompassing the presidencies from Kennedy through Reagan, the making of foreign policy shifted inexorably from the Foggy Bottom to the Pentagon. Again, the intellectual horsepower of the presidents and luminary Secretaries of State such as Henry Kissinger clouded the situation, and it is only in retrospect that the diminution of the professionals at the State Department becomes obvious despite having more titled Career Ambassadors than ever walking around Virginia Avenue. More and more those in the front office of the State Department were able to deal directly with foreign leaders without the need for information historically supplied by professionals.
Some time between WW II and the middle of the Cold War, professional diplomatic stars such as Robert Murphy, and George Kennan passed from the service - never to be replaced at the professional level - and were supplanted by the nearly invisible thinkers from the institutions shown above. All the while, the information provided by the CIA, DIA, NSA and elsewhere in the now vast federal system flowed away from Foreign Service and military professionals – also despite more generals and admirals than ever - to the front offices of Defense and State and to the White House with it’s souped up national security staff.
As with the downward slide of Foreign Service luminaries, generals and admirals declined in visibility. During and after WWII generals with brains could have panache as well. Four stars such as Maxwell Taylor and even three star Jim Gavin were celebrities. No more; generals and top Foreign Service officers recite the news according to text supplied in Washington when they get on TV and editorialize at their peril.
But if the executive has been captured by representatives of the military industrial complex, Congress has suffered even greater decline. In Iraq, it took strong – and secure – senators and representatives to stand against information that in retrospect was highly flawed but which was pushed by the full weight of the executive and its external claque.
In reviewing our time in Vietnam, it is interesting to read the history of that war’s near declaration, The Tonkin Gulf Resolution, and see a document at least as badly flawed as the document that sent our troops into Iraq. It is also educational to see how the Congress, then Democrat led, was no match for the White House in that tragedy as well. And look where that led us to as a nation.
Now we are spectators as right wingers scare the hell out of us with regard to the failure of the bureaucrats – military and civilians – to do their jobs in getting the dangers posed by Iran to the hands of policy makers so that they can defend the American people.
There is only one answer as far as the neocon priests presently in charge: apply American power.
If our representatives on Capitol Hill can’t or won’t provide oversight in the process of life and death for the nation, the future is bleak indeed. A Congress that is unable to do anything but rubber stamp what the president says is no legislature at all, and the Constitution itself is badly wounded. Unified government during Vietnam and now in Iraq failed the country. The Democrats failed us in the sixties and the Republicans are leading us to ruin now. Divided government is a must if we are to remain a free republic.
It’s time for a change! Vote Democrat in November.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Administrations change and one set of military intellectuals takes over as those formerly in power scramble for fellowships and tenured vacancies in Cambridge, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Chicago and Palo Alto. With the appointment of Robert S. McNamara to the head of DOD a new trend line was established; no longer could old time amateurs line up for appointments at the Pentagon. The days were over for the likes of Charlie Wilson of, “What’s good for General Motors is good for America,” fame, and the beginnings of Bacevich’s priesthood can be seen – with discursions for highly qualified old bulls from Congress such as Melvin Laird and Les Aspin.
More than that, however, prior to the Cold War, creating foreign policy was the responsibility of the U.S. Department of State. The Foreign Service – the professional corps of the department - was the principal source of intelligence and American policy direction. When times were good, the secretary - usually highly qualified semi-pros such as Dean Acheson or Christian Herter - was the key figure in establishing policy. Under darkening war clouds and strong presidents, the White House became the center of our relations with other powers with the diminished secretary acting as a coordinator.
But as the Cold War heated, information and communication technology was revolutionized, and the priesthood sponsored by the military industrial complex became ascendant. During the period roughly encompassing the presidencies from Kennedy through Reagan, the making of foreign policy shifted inexorably from the Foggy Bottom to the Pentagon. Again, the intellectual horsepower of the presidents and luminary Secretaries of State such as Henry Kissinger clouded the situation, and it is only in retrospect that the diminution of the professionals at the State Department becomes obvious despite having more titled Career Ambassadors than ever walking around Virginia Avenue. More and more those in the front office of the State Department were able to deal directly with foreign leaders without the need for information historically supplied by professionals.
Some time between WW II and the middle of the Cold War, professional diplomatic stars such as Robert Murphy, and George Kennan passed from the service - never to be replaced at the professional level - and were supplanted by the nearly invisible thinkers from the institutions shown above. All the while, the information provided by the CIA, DIA, NSA and elsewhere in the now vast federal system flowed away from Foreign Service and military professionals – also despite more generals and admirals than ever - to the front offices of Defense and State and to the White House with it’s souped up national security staff.
As with the downward slide of Foreign Service luminaries, generals and admirals declined in visibility. During and after WWII generals with brains could have panache as well. Four stars such as Maxwell Taylor and even three star Jim Gavin were celebrities. No more; generals and top Foreign Service officers recite the news according to text supplied in Washington when they get on TV and editorialize at their peril.
But if the executive has been captured by representatives of the military industrial complex, Congress has suffered even greater decline. In Iraq, it took strong – and secure – senators and representatives to stand against information that in retrospect was highly flawed but which was pushed by the full weight of the executive and its external claque.
In reviewing our time in Vietnam, it is interesting to read the history of that war’s near declaration, The Tonkin Gulf Resolution, and see a document at least as badly flawed as the document that sent our troops into Iraq. It is also educational to see how the Congress, then Democrat led, was no match for the White House in that tragedy as well. And look where that led us to as a nation.
Now we are spectators as right wingers scare the hell out of us with regard to the failure of the bureaucrats – military and civilians – to do their jobs in getting the dangers posed by Iran to the hands of policy makers so that they can defend the American people.
There is only one answer as far as the neocon priests presently in charge: apply American power.
If our representatives on Capitol Hill can’t or won’t provide oversight in the process of life and death for the nation, the future is bleak indeed. A Congress that is unable to do anything but rubber stamp what the president says is no legislature at all, and the Constitution itself is badly wounded. Unified government during Vietnam and now in Iraq failed the country. The Democrats failed us in the sixties and the Republicans are leading us to ruin now. Divided government is a must if we are to remain a free republic.
It’s time for a change! Vote Democrat in November.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Monday, August 21, 2006
Saddam Hussein is a Bad Man
This posting is for your grandchildren - and you if you'd like it clear and simple.
You’ll note that my title is not qualified. I didn’t say Saddam is alleged to be a bad man; I didn’t say some people think Saddam is a bad fellow. I said he was a bad guy. So sue me, Saddam; you’re a bad guy. I’m a straight shooter compared to Don Rumsfeld; he says and knows that Saddam’s a bad actor, but he used to make kissy face with him back when we liked him, a flip flop if there ever was one.
George Bush and Joe Lieberman keep saying that Saddam is a bad guy and toppling him from power was a good thing. Let me be very clear; I agree with George Bush and Joe Lieberman that Saddam is bad and toppling him was a good thing. Regrettably, I don’t agree with them that the United States was the power that should have removed him from power. Had the Shiites revolted and toppled him, I’d be cheering the end of a bad guy. Had the Kurds turned him out, I’m on the cheer leading team. Had his sons overthrown him; whoa, they were even worse.
Kim Jong Il is a bad man and I hope he gets toppled. Yeah, you can sue me too Kimmy. More than a few of the Iranians are bad dudes and should bite the dust. And there are some African dudes who need changes of venue. But unless they pose a threat to us or our allies, sending troops in to fight and die shouldn’t be done. By the way, Iran and North Korea are very close to posing direct threats to us and our friends; when are they going down? Screwed up in Iraq and can’t muster the support for what’s really needed boys?
George and Joe begin all of their speeches with the canard, S. bad/ toppling S good. I’ll grant both parts of that premise all day long and twice on Sunday. But I can’t grant the next assumption in their argument: we were the ones to do it. Bottom line: the Iraq War was an illegal preventive war based on cooked intelligence that Saddam posed a danger to the United States. He didn’t. George knew it. He goes back Crawford in disgrace, a failed president.
Joe may not have known that Saddam didn’t pose a threat to the U.S., so pushing for the attack by Lieberman – and lots of other Senators and Representatives – can be forgiven. But Joe persists in saying Saddam was bad and should have been deposed by us. Wrong, Joe, wrong! Bottom line: Joe’s wrong to continue to insist that the U.S. should have attacked Iraq; Connecticut Democrats were right to dump him.
Joe’s running as an Independent. Wrong, Joe, wrong! Joe’s still defending the Iraq War as needed. Saddam did not pose a threat to the U.S. There were no WMD. There was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. America goes to war when it or its treaty allies are in mortal danger.
In Iraq, nearly three thousand Americans have died, twenty thousand Purple Hearts have been awarded. $300 billion has been spent, $2 trillion is the likely total bill, tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, and hundreds of thousands are homeless because of that terrible decision. Those responsible must be held accountable. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and a number of others knew the truth. Their decision to attack Iraq has diminished our ability to fight terror. They should all resign. They won’t!
Joe Lieberman didn’t know Saddam was all baloney in February 2003. Nothing wrong, Joe; say it was a mistake and get reelected. Persist in saying we were right to attack Iraq and get trounced in the primary. Run as an Independent and say you were right some more and get whipped in the general election.
Both George and Joe say we just can’t walk away from Iraq. I’m not saying they are wrong. But they were wrong for going in and continue to be wrong when they say we were right to attack Iraq. George and Joe were wrong. Send them a message. Vote against all those who continue support the war in Iraq as the right thing.
This war is the worst blunder in American foreign policy history. If your representative persists in saying we were right to topple Saddam, throw the bum out! Get some oversight in Iraq, the war on terror, and homeland security. Those in charge have made huge errors and continue to compound them every day.
Had enough? Vote Democrat!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
You’ll note that my title is not qualified. I didn’t say Saddam is alleged to be a bad man; I didn’t say some people think Saddam is a bad fellow. I said he was a bad guy. So sue me, Saddam; you’re a bad guy. I’m a straight shooter compared to Don Rumsfeld; he says and knows that Saddam’s a bad actor, but he used to make kissy face with him back when we liked him, a flip flop if there ever was one.
George Bush and Joe Lieberman keep saying that Saddam is a bad guy and toppling him from power was a good thing. Let me be very clear; I agree with George Bush and Joe Lieberman that Saddam is bad and toppling him was a good thing. Regrettably, I don’t agree with them that the United States was the power that should have removed him from power. Had the Shiites revolted and toppled him, I’d be cheering the end of a bad guy. Had the Kurds turned him out, I’m on the cheer leading team. Had his sons overthrown him; whoa, they were even worse.
Kim Jong Il is a bad man and I hope he gets toppled. Yeah, you can sue me too Kimmy. More than a few of the Iranians are bad dudes and should bite the dust. And there are some African dudes who need changes of venue. But unless they pose a threat to us or our allies, sending troops in to fight and die shouldn’t be done. By the way, Iran and North Korea are very close to posing direct threats to us and our friends; when are they going down? Screwed up in Iraq and can’t muster the support for what’s really needed boys?
George and Joe begin all of their speeches with the canard, S. bad/ toppling S good. I’ll grant both parts of that premise all day long and twice on Sunday. But I can’t grant the next assumption in their argument: we were the ones to do it. Bottom line: the Iraq War was an illegal preventive war based on cooked intelligence that Saddam posed a danger to the United States. He didn’t. George knew it. He goes back Crawford in disgrace, a failed president.
Joe may not have known that Saddam didn’t pose a threat to the U.S., so pushing for the attack by Lieberman – and lots of other Senators and Representatives – can be forgiven. But Joe persists in saying Saddam was bad and should have been deposed by us. Wrong, Joe, wrong! Bottom line: Joe’s wrong to continue to insist that the U.S. should have attacked Iraq; Connecticut Democrats were right to dump him.
Joe’s running as an Independent. Wrong, Joe, wrong! Joe’s still defending the Iraq War as needed. Saddam did not pose a threat to the U.S. There were no WMD. There was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. America goes to war when it or its treaty allies are in mortal danger.
In Iraq, nearly three thousand Americans have died, twenty thousand Purple Hearts have been awarded. $300 billion has been spent, $2 trillion is the likely total bill, tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, and hundreds of thousands are homeless because of that terrible decision. Those responsible must be held accountable. George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and a number of others knew the truth. Their decision to attack Iraq has diminished our ability to fight terror. They should all resign. They won’t!
Joe Lieberman didn’t know Saddam was all baloney in February 2003. Nothing wrong, Joe; say it was a mistake and get reelected. Persist in saying we were right to attack Iraq and get trounced in the primary. Run as an Independent and say you were right some more and get whipped in the general election.
Both George and Joe say we just can’t walk away from Iraq. I’m not saying they are wrong. But they were wrong for going in and continue to be wrong when they say we were right to attack Iraq. George and Joe were wrong. Send them a message. Vote against all those who continue support the war in Iraq as the right thing.
This war is the worst blunder in American foreign policy history. If your representative persists in saying we were right to topple Saddam, throw the bum out! Get some oversight in Iraq, the war on terror, and homeland security. Those in charge have made huge errors and continue to compound them every day.
Had enough? Vote Democrat!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Gray Clouds Above
George Bush is a lightweight! Wild Bill’s not saying that; George Will, Joe Scarborough, and a host of other conservative pundits are chucking the poor lad overboard even before half his second term is up. These right wing mavens are flat out saying that he’s simply not up to the job and can’t compare intellectually with his predecessors of living memory. Quack, Quack!
It takes a strong constitution to stand in the face of a hurricane and spit into the raging wind that Iraq’s not in a civil war. George plants his feet and lets go but you might wish to re-read the paragraph above to see why he’s getting the blowback. The Washington Post Outlook Section in today’s paper pulls no punches; Iraq’s factions are in a deadly struggle that we have little power to stop. Even the neocons are beginning to admit it; as if we didn't know. Is it time for an exit strategy from the right?
The old bull elephant is badly hurt and the hyenas of his own party have him surrounded and are tearing the flesh away pound by pound. Do you suppose he wishes he’d been on the wrong end of that Supreme Court decision in 2000?
Joe Lieberman has a big lead in the Connecticut senatorial race. The Republicans are dropping their own candidate and backing Joe. Initially, it looks like a cake walk for him, but I think Lamont will win going away. Those Democrats who stuck with Joe in the primary – mostly reluctantly – will drop him like a hot spud, and the independents and moderate Republicans who don’t like what they see in Iraq will drift toward Lamont or stay home. Joe’s icing a very stale cake, but there’s still time for him to come to his senses.
George Allen also had a bad week. He may (may) still win his senate seat in November, but he’s going straight to jail without passing go as a candidate to succeed his buddy, George Bush in 2008. He joins Mel Gibson in the wishes he hadn’t said that department.
A genius in another arena has feet of clay that seems to be metastasizing up his spinal column. Boston Red Sox General Manager Theo Epstein, the boy wonder who brought Bean Town its first World series Championship in eighty-four years, watched forlornly as the Sox caved three times (so far) before the mighty New Yorkers right in Friendly Fenway. The Knights of the Keyboard dropped their adoring façade and gave Theo a resounding Bronx cheer. He had walked away from Boston early in the year but was lured back. Sorry about that, Theo.
And you think you’ve got it rough.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
It takes a strong constitution to stand in the face of a hurricane and spit into the raging wind that Iraq’s not in a civil war. George plants his feet and lets go but you might wish to re-read the paragraph above to see why he’s getting the blowback. The Washington Post Outlook Section in today’s paper pulls no punches; Iraq’s factions are in a deadly struggle that we have little power to stop. Even the neocons are beginning to admit it; as if we didn't know. Is it time for an exit strategy from the right?
The old bull elephant is badly hurt and the hyenas of his own party have him surrounded and are tearing the flesh away pound by pound. Do you suppose he wishes he’d been on the wrong end of that Supreme Court decision in 2000?
Joe Lieberman has a big lead in the Connecticut senatorial race. The Republicans are dropping their own candidate and backing Joe. Initially, it looks like a cake walk for him, but I think Lamont will win going away. Those Democrats who stuck with Joe in the primary – mostly reluctantly – will drop him like a hot spud, and the independents and moderate Republicans who don’t like what they see in Iraq will drift toward Lamont or stay home. Joe’s icing a very stale cake, but there’s still time for him to come to his senses.
George Allen also had a bad week. He may (may) still win his senate seat in November, but he’s going straight to jail without passing go as a candidate to succeed his buddy, George Bush in 2008. He joins Mel Gibson in the wishes he hadn’t said that department.
A genius in another arena has feet of clay that seems to be metastasizing up his spinal column. Boston Red Sox General Manager Theo Epstein, the boy wonder who brought Bean Town its first World series Championship in eighty-four years, watched forlornly as the Sox caved three times (so far) before the mighty New Yorkers right in Friendly Fenway. The Knights of the Keyboard dropped their adoring façade and gave Theo a resounding Bronx cheer. He had walked away from Boston early in the year but was lured back. Sorry about that, Theo.
And you think you’ve got it rough.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Islama-fascism
The Republicans have coined a new term in connection with the war on terror that is at once clever, compelling, and incorrect. They are now calling every anti-government movement in Muslim lands `Islama-fascism.’
While quite a number of governments and movements in Islamic countries would appear to be covered by some sort of broad brush treatment of labeling them `fascist’, many do not, but, of course, the term has deeper meanings designed to differentiate between Republicans and Democrats in the upcoming congressional election and the ’08 presidential election. And we know who’s weak and who’s strong on national security, eh?
Without getting technical, fascists have classically reacted to the world of modernity and represent a conservatism that’s often based on race, class, or ethnicity. Anyone familiar with the ousting of the Shah and the present theocratic regime in Iran would have to see a darn good match, and, obviously, any reading of al Qaeda propaganda would draw one to a similar conclusion as it relates to the goals of Osama bi Laden and his followers.
The definition begins to fall apart when it - consciously – covers many other groups in Islamic countries that do not neatly fit the simplistic definition above. For example, one of the groups giving us great trouble in Iraq, the Baathists, does not appear to qualify. They were – and still are - a largely secular group of thugs formerly led by Saddam designed to impose their will and government on that country as we knew it prior to March 2003.
But if we lump the Baathists with the Shiite reactionaries in Iraq, who do seem to fall quite neatly under the new label, it is only a short step in justifying the Iraq War as part of the larger war on terror. If you buy that, I’ve got bridge that I want to sell the toll rights to that you might be interested in.
Last night on CNN, I saw Ed Rollins, a Republican insider who is almost always very clever in making his points without leaving right wing finger prints, move far right and imply that the Democrats were soft on terror and Islama-fascism. The evidence submitted in support of the thesis was the Democrat repudiation of Joe Lieberman ‘for voting his conscience’ in the Iraq War. That was clever, nasty, and wrong. Lieberman was dumped for a whole host of reasons not including his initial support of the war but for his insistence that the conflict was going well despite the constant pictures to the contrary being viewed by his constituents.
The Democrats seem far better organized this year - helped mightily by the obvious failure of our government’s efforts to impose democratic governance at the point of our guns - and they cannot cede the national security issue to the Republicans. If anything, the Republican led Iraq War has created more security issues than it has solved, and the far more dangerous members of the president’s Axis of Evil, Iran and North Korea, have far more flexibility in dealing with us than they would had we not unilaterally attacked Iraq.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
While quite a number of governments and movements in Islamic countries would appear to be covered by some sort of broad brush treatment of labeling them `fascist’, many do not, but, of course, the term has deeper meanings designed to differentiate between Republicans and Democrats in the upcoming congressional election and the ’08 presidential election. And we know who’s weak and who’s strong on national security, eh?
Without getting technical, fascists have classically reacted to the world of modernity and represent a conservatism that’s often based on race, class, or ethnicity. Anyone familiar with the ousting of the Shah and the present theocratic regime in Iran would have to see a darn good match, and, obviously, any reading of al Qaeda propaganda would draw one to a similar conclusion as it relates to the goals of Osama bi Laden and his followers.
The definition begins to fall apart when it - consciously – covers many other groups in Islamic countries that do not neatly fit the simplistic definition above. For example, one of the groups giving us great trouble in Iraq, the Baathists, does not appear to qualify. They were – and still are - a largely secular group of thugs formerly led by Saddam designed to impose their will and government on that country as we knew it prior to March 2003.
But if we lump the Baathists with the Shiite reactionaries in Iraq, who do seem to fall quite neatly under the new label, it is only a short step in justifying the Iraq War as part of the larger war on terror. If you buy that, I’ve got bridge that I want to sell the toll rights to that you might be interested in.
Last night on CNN, I saw Ed Rollins, a Republican insider who is almost always very clever in making his points without leaving right wing finger prints, move far right and imply that the Democrats were soft on terror and Islama-fascism. The evidence submitted in support of the thesis was the Democrat repudiation of Joe Lieberman ‘for voting his conscience’ in the Iraq War. That was clever, nasty, and wrong. Lieberman was dumped for a whole host of reasons not including his initial support of the war but for his insistence that the conflict was going well despite the constant pictures to the contrary being viewed by his constituents.
The Democrats seem far better organized this year - helped mightily by the obvious failure of our government’s efforts to impose democratic governance at the point of our guns - and they cannot cede the national security issue to the Republicans. If anything, the Republican led Iraq War has created more security issues than it has solved, and the far more dangerous members of the president’s Axis of Evil, Iran and North Korea, have far more flexibility in dealing with us than they would had we not unilaterally attacked Iraq.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
It's Not Easy Being Right
It’s not easy representing the far right in politics, and it’s doubly so if you make it to the White House and get into serious political trouble.
I listened to President Bush’s second Mission Accomplished speech on the recent Israeli Hezbollah war in Lebanon and couldn’t make any sense of it at first. On one channel, I see poor Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert fighting for his political life over charges that his government had failed the nation by attaining none of its original objectives in Lebanon. Flipping channels, I see Dubya proclaiming that Hezbollah was the ultimate loser in the conflict.
On the way home from the golf course this afternoon, I tuned in to el Rushbo, and he was smashing Ehud and Condy Rice - but not Dubya - for blowing the war with Hezbollah. Ehud is weak, indecisive, spineless, and I don’t know how many kinds of stupid. Condy is such a disappointment to Rush that I can’t even begin to explain. The great man was explaining to his intellectually heavyweight audience exactly how the war on terror should be fought, and let me tell you it’s not the way those namby pambies Ehud and Condy are doing it. You’ve got to make an example of these terrorists and wipe them out to a man – everywhere.
Thinking back to poor Dubya; it was easy to see that all he was doing was feeding the wild beasts on his right. Tough job the presidency when things aren’t going the way your base thinks it ought to be. Hang in, George, only two and a half years and you’ll be back on the ranch without having to ever wear a suit again.
Are all of you folks out there running for president sure that you want the job? I bet George would rather be running a baseball club right now.
Whatever!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
I listened to President Bush’s second Mission Accomplished speech on the recent Israeli Hezbollah war in Lebanon and couldn’t make any sense of it at first. On one channel, I see poor Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert fighting for his political life over charges that his government had failed the nation by attaining none of its original objectives in Lebanon. Flipping channels, I see Dubya proclaiming that Hezbollah was the ultimate loser in the conflict.
On the way home from the golf course this afternoon, I tuned in to el Rushbo, and he was smashing Ehud and Condy Rice - but not Dubya - for blowing the war with Hezbollah. Ehud is weak, indecisive, spineless, and I don’t know how many kinds of stupid. Condy is such a disappointment to Rush that I can’t even begin to explain. The great man was explaining to his intellectually heavyweight audience exactly how the war on terror should be fought, and let me tell you it’s not the way those namby pambies Ehud and Condy are doing it. You’ve got to make an example of these terrorists and wipe them out to a man – everywhere.
Thinking back to poor Dubya; it was easy to see that all he was doing was feeding the wild beasts on his right. Tough job the presidency when things aren’t going the way your base thinks it ought to be. Hang in, George, only two and a half years and you’ll be back on the ranch without having to ever wear a suit again.
Are all of you folks out there running for president sure that you want the job? I bet George would rather be running a baseball club right now.
Whatever!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Monday, August 14, 2006
Trouble in River City
We don’t get it! War is changing and the traditional powers are trailing the lesser lights in understanding how to cope with the new paradigm. We sent 500,000 troops (at a time) to Vietnam and could not defeat a poorly armed but highly motivated insurgency. We send more than 130,000 troops (at a time) to Iraq and we cannot stamp out groups intent on killing other Iraqis and Americans.
According to the New Yorker Magazine’s Seymour Hirsch, Israel and the United States had seen the provocation from Hezbollah coming in Lebanon for a long time and had decided to stamp them out at the sign of a convenient border incident. Both countries were confident that Hezbollah could be destroyed in short order and that the techniques used would be transferable to Iran where the U.S. was contemplating taking out the nuclear program under development.
After a month of heavy fighting and tremendous air attacks on Lebanese infrastructure and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, the Israelis were unable to put Hezbollah out of business. A heavy propaganda war intended to make Hezbollah the bad guy among non-Shiite Lebanese and other Arabs also fizzled, and the U.S. and Israel are wearing the black hats across the Islamic world - and in European countries.
I have no idea if Hirsch is right, but he has a solid track record for unearthing such intelligence. All in all, the neocons do not seem to realize there is a limit to American power, especially if it is used unilaterally or nearly thus.
This is extremely unfortunate as it appears that Iran is indeed highly dangerous and clearly has a connection with at least one world terrorist organization, Hezbollah. But this administration has shunned talking with Tehran, perhaps with good reason in the halls of American power. But failing to talk with a nation because we don’t agree with it can be counterproductive.
The administration manipulated intelligence to topple Saddam. There were no WMD and no working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. But here with Iran we have a larger more powerful opponent that admits to working on advanced nuclear technology, but not on nuclear weapons. In a few weeks, the United Nations is going to have an answer to its demands for Tehran to stop its so called `peaceful program’, and if they won’t who’s going to do what?
The neocon spear appears blunted, but we have a problem. Are the unilateralists going to cry uncle for once and actually try to negotiate? We were perceived as stalling in New York while the Israelis knocked out Hezbollah but got caught in an embarrassing situation when they successfully held out against the modern military force.
In the face of Vietnam, Iraq, Lebanon and other insurgencies, will we attack again? This time it appears that a menace to us and our allies is truly out there, but Bush and the neocons have lost the support of the vast majority of Americans for wild adventurism. We’re lower than whale manure with the U.N., and many competitors and rivals want to use it to check us.
We’ve sunk so low, that we’ve had to deal with France to help us save face in Lebanon. No wonder the president felt the need to provide back rubs at the last G-8 Meeting.
Folks, there’s trouble in River City and it ain’t pool. The scariest part is that these guys and gals ain’t up to dealing with it.
Had enough? Vote Democrat?
Blog on!
Wild Bill
According to the New Yorker Magazine’s Seymour Hirsch, Israel and the United States had seen the provocation from Hezbollah coming in Lebanon for a long time and had decided to stamp them out at the sign of a convenient border incident. Both countries were confident that Hezbollah could be destroyed in short order and that the techniques used would be transferable to Iran where the U.S. was contemplating taking out the nuclear program under development.
After a month of heavy fighting and tremendous air attacks on Lebanese infrastructure and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, the Israelis were unable to put Hezbollah out of business. A heavy propaganda war intended to make Hezbollah the bad guy among non-Shiite Lebanese and other Arabs also fizzled, and the U.S. and Israel are wearing the black hats across the Islamic world - and in European countries.
I have no idea if Hirsch is right, but he has a solid track record for unearthing such intelligence. All in all, the neocons do not seem to realize there is a limit to American power, especially if it is used unilaterally or nearly thus.
This is extremely unfortunate as it appears that Iran is indeed highly dangerous and clearly has a connection with at least one world terrorist organization, Hezbollah. But this administration has shunned talking with Tehran, perhaps with good reason in the halls of American power. But failing to talk with a nation because we don’t agree with it can be counterproductive.
The administration manipulated intelligence to topple Saddam. There were no WMD and no working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. But here with Iran we have a larger more powerful opponent that admits to working on advanced nuclear technology, but not on nuclear weapons. In a few weeks, the United Nations is going to have an answer to its demands for Tehran to stop its so called `peaceful program’, and if they won’t who’s going to do what?
The neocon spear appears blunted, but we have a problem. Are the unilateralists going to cry uncle for once and actually try to negotiate? We were perceived as stalling in New York while the Israelis knocked out Hezbollah but got caught in an embarrassing situation when they successfully held out against the modern military force.
In the face of Vietnam, Iraq, Lebanon and other insurgencies, will we attack again? This time it appears that a menace to us and our allies is truly out there, but Bush and the neocons have lost the support of the vast majority of Americans for wild adventurism. We’re lower than whale manure with the U.N., and many competitors and rivals want to use it to check us.
We’ve sunk so low, that we’ve had to deal with France to help us save face in Lebanon. No wonder the president felt the need to provide back rubs at the last G-8 Meeting.
Folks, there’s trouble in River City and it ain’t pool. The scariest part is that these guys and gals ain’t up to dealing with it.
Had enough? Vote Democrat?
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Show 'em some skin
Heavyweight Boxing Champion Joe Lois was right when he once said of challenger Billy Conn, “He can run but he can’t hide.” But that was obviously a reference to the squared circle about which the world sports media hovered and not the public arena of the twenty-first century. Clearly, Louis had little understanding of the sophisticated techniques of the future White House of George W. Bush to hide from his constituents and the press.
Today’s Washington Post describes a White House that is in hiding from the media and from the American people - a president so isolated by the Iraq War that he can no longer stand the scrutiny of the light of day. His pronouncements on policy and reactions to events are made to small bands of loyalists who pay exorbitant sums to see these private performances. Audiences bereft of reporters and local Congressmen – who gladly take their cut from the gate at these burlesque shows but who dare not be seen with the president in public for fear of being tainted in the eyes of the voters.
The president has become a caricature of a public official, exposing himself only to the faithful on a circuit of true believers – a peep show for loyalists. It is akin to pornography for capitalists, Evangelical Christians, and neocon wannabees. They pay huge entrance fees and watch the performance as the president tells them that everything is going great but that only he and his sidekicks can defend them from the evil outside the tent – but he's not allowed to go outside without sun block.
While only George W. Bush can defend us from terrorists and axes of evil that he finds behind every bush – no pun intended - he cannot come into the light to be viewed by ordinary men and women or by big bad reporters who ask those ridiculous questions like: Where are the WMD? What’s the connection between Saddam and Osama? If everything is going so swimmingly, why are they killing each other?
Well, you get the drift; it’s a sign of bad times when a president can't find a real baby to kiss.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081101834.html?nav=most_emailed
(Unfortunately, I've goofed up my site - I think while registering it with a blogers site, so you may want to read this in the Post. It's the thrid most popular article to be emailed today.)
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Today’s Washington Post describes a White House that is in hiding from the media and from the American people - a president so isolated by the Iraq War that he can no longer stand the scrutiny of the light of day. His pronouncements on policy and reactions to events are made to small bands of loyalists who pay exorbitant sums to see these private performances. Audiences bereft of reporters and local Congressmen – who gladly take their cut from the gate at these burlesque shows but who dare not be seen with the president in public for fear of being tainted in the eyes of the voters.
The president has become a caricature of a public official, exposing himself only to the faithful on a circuit of true believers – a peep show for loyalists. It is akin to pornography for capitalists, Evangelical Christians, and neocon wannabees. They pay huge entrance fees and watch the performance as the president tells them that everything is going great but that only he and his sidekicks can defend them from the evil outside the tent – but he's not allowed to go outside without sun block.
While only George W. Bush can defend us from terrorists and axes of evil that he finds behind every bush – no pun intended - he cannot come into the light to be viewed by ordinary men and women or by big bad reporters who ask those ridiculous questions like: Where are the WMD? What’s the connection between Saddam and Osama? If everything is going so swimmingly, why are they killing each other?
Well, you get the drift; it’s a sign of bad times when a president can't find a real baby to kiss.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081101834.html?nav=most_emailed
(Unfortunately, I've goofed up my site - I think while registering it with a blogers site, so you may want to read this in the Post. It's the thrid most popular article to be emailed today.)
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Friday, August 11, 2006
Door? What Door?
We began by knocking on the door. Now we’re knocking the damn thing down.
Check this out from the LA Times:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Brooks: Antiwar Wackadoos Are Winning
Opposing the war in Iraq is no longer fringe -- it's American.
August 11, 2006
WHAT DO YOU have to do to get a little peace and quiet around here? It used to be possible to adopt an antiwar platform and be left entirely alone by most mainstream Americans. Sure, you'd be sneered at by the media, ostracized by the major political parties and, from time to time, your in-laws would accuse you of living on the radical fringe.
But at least it was quiet out there on the fringe.
That's the whole point of fringes, right? They're not supposed to be too populated. The antiwar fringe used to be sort of like the frontier: nothing but virgin territory, big sky and social misfits. Yep, in those days, you could stand on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and shout, "Hey, the whole war in Iraq thing, it's a huge mistake!" And no matter how loud you were shouting, it would be a big empty space all around you as senators and representatives scurried to avoid antiwar contamination.
But lately the antiwar fringe has been getting awfully crowded.
First there were the MoveOn.org types — rowdy, tech-savvy youngsters who sent too many e-mails and sometimes even showed up on your doorstep. By 2004, blogs opposed to the war in Iraq had started to multiply like bunnies: Suddenly you couldn't take a step in the blogosphere without tripping over them.
Then somebody started giving the antiwar bloggers money and letting them publish books on real paper and inviting them to grown-up conferences. By the end of 2005, John Kerry as well as a battalion of retired generals were repudiating the war in Iraq.
Today, the antiwar fringe is starting to resemble California during the Gold Rush of 1849. When gold was discovered in 1848, California had a nonnative population of 14,000 and technically belonged to Mexico. By the end of 1849, the lure of gold had brought the nonnative population up to a boisterous 100,000 — and California had been formally absorbed into the United States.
Similarly, when the war in Iraq began in 2003, only about a quarter of Americans disapproved of President Bush's Iraq policies. But by this month, the trend had reversed, with 60% of Americans telling CNN pollsters that they oppose the war and savvy politicians rushing to stake out an antiwar claim before it's too late. (To paraphrase Kerry, who knows a thing or two about this, who wants to be the last politician to go down for failing to admit the war in Iraq was a mistake?)
Opposing the war in Iraq isn't fringe anymore — it's become part of what defines ordinary Americans.
You wouldn't know it, though, from listening to the pundits. As far as many in the "mainstream" media are concerned, those who oppose the war in Iraq are still oddball extremists.
Take the reaction to antiwar candidate Ned Lamont's successful effort to oust incumbent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman in this week's Connecticut primary. Lieberman spent the last five years cozying up to the president, defending the administration's foreign policies more vigorously than many Republicans. Given the widespread public opposition to the Iraq war, Lamont's victory was hardly a shocker — yet the media persist in furthering Lieberman's fantasy that he lost only because "the Democratic Party … has been taken over by people who are not from the mainstream of America."
Back in May, Jonathan Chait worried in these pages that Lieberman's opponents were "left-wing activists … exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s."
Jonah Goldberg, in his Thursday post-mortem on the outcome, comes to a similar conclusion: "The Democratic Party is, simply, a McGovernite party…. But … that is not necessarily where the voters are." In the New York Daily News, Michael Goodwin doesn't bother with subtlety, calling Lieberman's defeat a win for "the wackadoo wing of the party."
No, fellas. What happened was just that the whole democracy thing worked just the way it's supposed to, for once. A majority of citizens oppose the war in Iraq, so they went to the polls and voted for the guy who shares their views, instead of the guy who doesn't.
Lieberman's defeat only illustrates what most Americans already know: Mainstream Americans are tired of watching young Americans come home in coffins from an unnecessary war, tired of reckless foreign policies that have increased rather than decreased the threat of terrorism and really, really tired of incumbents who still don't get it.
But with antiwar views now as ubiquitous as cellphones on Main Street U.S.A., where can you go if you just want a little solitude?
For those of you who just can't stand being mainstream, here's a thought: Maybe it's time to go visit the neocons. It looks like they're getting a little bit lonely out there.
Neoconservatism: It's the new fringe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Check this out from the LA Times:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Brooks: Antiwar Wackadoos Are Winning
Opposing the war in Iraq is no longer fringe -- it's American.
August 11, 2006
WHAT DO YOU have to do to get a little peace and quiet around here? It used to be possible to adopt an antiwar platform and be left entirely alone by most mainstream Americans. Sure, you'd be sneered at by the media, ostracized by the major political parties and, from time to time, your in-laws would accuse you of living on the radical fringe.
But at least it was quiet out there on the fringe.
That's the whole point of fringes, right? They're not supposed to be too populated. The antiwar fringe used to be sort of like the frontier: nothing but virgin territory, big sky and social misfits. Yep, in those days, you could stand on the steps of the U.S. Capitol and shout, "Hey, the whole war in Iraq thing, it's a huge mistake!" And no matter how loud you were shouting, it would be a big empty space all around you as senators and representatives scurried to avoid antiwar contamination.
But lately the antiwar fringe has been getting awfully crowded.
First there were the MoveOn.org types — rowdy, tech-savvy youngsters who sent too many e-mails and sometimes even showed up on your doorstep. By 2004, blogs opposed to the war in Iraq had started to multiply like bunnies: Suddenly you couldn't take a step in the blogosphere without tripping over them.
Then somebody started giving the antiwar bloggers money and letting them publish books on real paper and inviting them to grown-up conferences. By the end of 2005, John Kerry as well as a battalion of retired generals were repudiating the war in Iraq.
Today, the antiwar fringe is starting to resemble California during the Gold Rush of 1849. When gold was discovered in 1848, California had a nonnative population of 14,000 and technically belonged to Mexico. By the end of 1849, the lure of gold had brought the nonnative population up to a boisterous 100,000 — and California had been formally absorbed into the United States.
Similarly, when the war in Iraq began in 2003, only about a quarter of Americans disapproved of President Bush's Iraq policies. But by this month, the trend had reversed, with 60% of Americans telling CNN pollsters that they oppose the war and savvy politicians rushing to stake out an antiwar claim before it's too late. (To paraphrase Kerry, who knows a thing or two about this, who wants to be the last politician to go down for failing to admit the war in Iraq was a mistake?)
Opposing the war in Iraq isn't fringe anymore — it's become part of what defines ordinary Americans.
You wouldn't know it, though, from listening to the pundits. As far as many in the "mainstream" media are concerned, those who oppose the war in Iraq are still oddball extremists.
Take the reaction to antiwar candidate Ned Lamont's successful effort to oust incumbent Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman in this week's Connecticut primary. Lieberman spent the last five years cozying up to the president, defending the administration's foreign policies more vigorously than many Republicans. Given the widespread public opposition to the Iraq war, Lamont's victory was hardly a shocker — yet the media persist in furthering Lieberman's fantasy that he lost only because "the Democratic Party … has been taken over by people who are not from the mainstream of America."
Back in May, Jonathan Chait worried in these pages that Lieberman's opponents were "left-wing activists … exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early 1970s."
Jonah Goldberg, in his Thursday post-mortem on the outcome, comes to a similar conclusion: "The Democratic Party is, simply, a McGovernite party…. But … that is not necessarily where the voters are." In the New York Daily News, Michael Goodwin doesn't bother with subtlety, calling Lieberman's defeat a win for "the wackadoo wing of the party."
No, fellas. What happened was just that the whole democracy thing worked just the way it's supposed to, for once. A majority of citizens oppose the war in Iraq, so they went to the polls and voted for the guy who shares their views, instead of the guy who doesn't.
Lieberman's defeat only illustrates what most Americans already know: Mainstream Americans are tired of watching young Americans come home in coffins from an unnecessary war, tired of reckless foreign policies that have increased rather than decreased the threat of terrorism and really, really tired of incumbents who still don't get it.
But with antiwar views now as ubiquitous as cellphones on Main Street U.S.A., where can you go if you just want a little solitude?
For those of you who just can't stand being mainstream, here's a thought: Maybe it's time to go visit the neocons. It looks like they're getting a little bit lonely out there.
Neoconservatism: It's the new fringe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Are We Safer?
Are we safer now than before 9/11? Who knows? My guess is yes and no.
Two distinct lines played out in the wake of the British breakup of the most recent airline plot. I watched with pride as Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff described the Department’s actions in response to what appeared to a real, deadly, and gigantic plot to kill trans-Atlantic passengers.
Chertoff was professional and apolitical in tone and in his description of what the United States’ response was to the events and its cooperation with his U.K counterparts. The Secretary and the Department have come under tremendous pressure and criticism for internal failures to communicate and coordinate and for obvious failures in real events such as Hurricane Katrina. Unlike the leaders of the Departments of State, Justice and Defense, Chertoff did not spin the event for political or bureaucratic advantage.
On the other hand politicians of both parties reacted to the foiled plot and to the defeat of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman in completely partisan manners and sought advantage in November. The Republicans said the plot proved that they were on top of the terrorism situation, we are at war with an implacable foe, and the win by Ned Lamont shows that the Democrats are weak on national security and sending the wrong message to the terrorists.
The Democrats, naturally enough, found the opposite answers in these same tea leaves. The plot shows that we have not turned the corner on terrorism, that the Iraq War is creating more terrorists than we are eliminating, and any erroneous messages being sent to those who would harm us are the result of a failed administration policy of dealing with the problem and not by Connecticut’s voters.
Had we found WMD or a connection between Saddam’s government and al Qaeda, the Republicans would have won yesterday’s food fight with ease. But we didn’t find either and the Republicans find themselves on the defensive. Iraq was not working with al Qaeda, but the war is now certainly generating both terrorists and even greater hatred for America.
The war is also not going nearly as well as the administration said it would. I think Iraq is a lot closer to civil war than the administration will admit, and it is now the commonly held view that the leaders are doing their damnedest to hold on until the end of Bush’s term and leave it to the next president to withdraw our troops as the situation becomes obvious, making it possible for those slinking into the sunset to claim the debacle was the result of the Democrats failing to stay the course.
Unfortunately for the administration and its neocon supporters and drivers of both parties, the Lamont victory is not being perceived by the majority of Americans as the liberal wing of the Democrats effort to derail a successful national policy but rather an intervention in a failed and foolish diversion from the true war on terror that all Americans fully support. Thus no matter how cynically Dick Cheney proclaims that Joe’s defeat is a victory for al Qaeda, the vast majority of Americans - including a growing share of Republicans - are convinced that Iraq was a foolish blunder that is undermining the war on terror and the safety of our citizens.
Bush, Cheney and Republican Party leaders are less and less successful in painting the Democrats weak on national security. The American military fatalities in Iraq are fast approaching the number of deaths from 9/11, and the public no longer sees a direct connection between the two situations.
The Republicans won the last two national elections by playing the strong on national security card, but the public now sees the flaws in the argument; the most blatant hole being the canard that we’ve chosen to fight them in Iraq so we won’t have to do it here. The plot in Britain shows that our enemies continue to plot to kill Americans in our own planes in our own air space. Obviously, the Iraq War is not stopping plotting outside the war zone. Case closed!
Theorists in this country and Britain believe that the television pictures from Iraq and Lebanon are generating more jihadists than we’re eliminating in the various wars across the globe from Lebanon to Russia, China, and the Southwest Pacific.
Sixty percent of Americans now see the Iraq War as a mistake. This figure is growing daily and will continue to increase as November approaches. It is no wonder that that our leaders look more weary every day. They are stuck with a failed policy, and no matter how well intentioned they were, they have failed and must be turned out of office by the voters.
We are safer through the better performances of Homeland security, the FBI, the CIA and others, but we are endangered by our national policy in dealing with the terroists in Muslim lands. Yes and no!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Two distinct lines played out in the wake of the British breakup of the most recent airline plot. I watched with pride as Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff described the Department’s actions in response to what appeared to a real, deadly, and gigantic plot to kill trans-Atlantic passengers.
Chertoff was professional and apolitical in tone and in his description of what the United States’ response was to the events and its cooperation with his U.K counterparts. The Secretary and the Department have come under tremendous pressure and criticism for internal failures to communicate and coordinate and for obvious failures in real events such as Hurricane Katrina. Unlike the leaders of the Departments of State, Justice and Defense, Chertoff did not spin the event for political or bureaucratic advantage.
On the other hand politicians of both parties reacted to the foiled plot and to the defeat of Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman in completely partisan manners and sought advantage in November. The Republicans said the plot proved that they were on top of the terrorism situation, we are at war with an implacable foe, and the win by Ned Lamont shows that the Democrats are weak on national security and sending the wrong message to the terrorists.
The Democrats, naturally enough, found the opposite answers in these same tea leaves. The plot shows that we have not turned the corner on terrorism, that the Iraq War is creating more terrorists than we are eliminating, and any erroneous messages being sent to those who would harm us are the result of a failed administration policy of dealing with the problem and not by Connecticut’s voters.
Had we found WMD or a connection between Saddam’s government and al Qaeda, the Republicans would have won yesterday’s food fight with ease. But we didn’t find either and the Republicans find themselves on the defensive. Iraq was not working with al Qaeda, but the war is now certainly generating both terrorists and even greater hatred for America.
The war is also not going nearly as well as the administration said it would. I think Iraq is a lot closer to civil war than the administration will admit, and it is now the commonly held view that the leaders are doing their damnedest to hold on until the end of Bush’s term and leave it to the next president to withdraw our troops as the situation becomes obvious, making it possible for those slinking into the sunset to claim the debacle was the result of the Democrats failing to stay the course.
Unfortunately for the administration and its neocon supporters and drivers of both parties, the Lamont victory is not being perceived by the majority of Americans as the liberal wing of the Democrats effort to derail a successful national policy but rather an intervention in a failed and foolish diversion from the true war on terror that all Americans fully support. Thus no matter how cynically Dick Cheney proclaims that Joe’s defeat is a victory for al Qaeda, the vast majority of Americans - including a growing share of Republicans - are convinced that Iraq was a foolish blunder that is undermining the war on terror and the safety of our citizens.
Bush, Cheney and Republican Party leaders are less and less successful in painting the Democrats weak on national security. The American military fatalities in Iraq are fast approaching the number of deaths from 9/11, and the public no longer sees a direct connection between the two situations.
The Republicans won the last two national elections by playing the strong on national security card, but the public now sees the flaws in the argument; the most blatant hole being the canard that we’ve chosen to fight them in Iraq so we won’t have to do it here. The plot in Britain shows that our enemies continue to plot to kill Americans in our own planes in our own air space. Obviously, the Iraq War is not stopping plotting outside the war zone. Case closed!
Theorists in this country and Britain believe that the television pictures from Iraq and Lebanon are generating more jihadists than we’re eliminating in the various wars across the globe from Lebanon to Russia, China, and the Southwest Pacific.
Sixty percent of Americans now see the Iraq War as a mistake. This figure is growing daily and will continue to increase as November approaches. It is no wonder that that our leaders look more weary every day. They are stuck with a failed policy, and no matter how well intentioned they were, they have failed and must be turned out of office by the voters.
We are safer through the better performances of Homeland security, the FBI, the CIA and others, but we are endangered by our national policy in dealing with the terroists in Muslim lands. Yes and no!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Note to Joe
Don’t, Joe, please. It’s hard, I know, but don’t bolt the party that permitted you the opportunity to become the great man you are. Everyone - including those who voted against you - recognizes you for a lifetime of achievement and grace, so don’t run against the party that you still call your own.
You didn’t get it until it was too late. Like most highly successful mortals, you believed that you knew what was best and forgot that sovereignty rests with the people. It’s no sin. It’s a flaw, and you lost. No big deal. You’ll get over it in a few months, and there’s much to do. You can still be a star if only you don’t run as an independent.
Surely you know there are only four potential outcomes if you run as an independent and none of them will turn out as you might be thinking today.
You win and caucus with the Democrats; you have to know they’ll strip you of your seniority and committee assignments. That’s death.
You win and caucus with the Democrats but find out that they’ve disowned you and you move to the other side. That’s worse than death. It repudiates everything you’ve ever worked for.
You lose and the Republican wins. Worse than death; see above.
You lose and Ned Lamont wins. Who’s going to listen to you then? NOBODY!
Be graceful. Support Ned and work to help the ’08 nominee. Surely, the Democrats will win. You, Joe Lieberman, will be in line for a very senior Executive Branch job - Secretary of Defense, State, or Homeland Security, or head of National Intelligence, Director of CIA, whatever, something very big. You’ll cap your career with honors galore, and you’ll play a major role for four more years.
You’re sixty-four years old, Joe. Down deep you know that when you go to the dance, ya have to stick with the girl what brung ya. Think about it; don’t run.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
You didn’t get it until it was too late. Like most highly successful mortals, you believed that you knew what was best and forgot that sovereignty rests with the people. It’s no sin. It’s a flaw, and you lost. No big deal. You’ll get over it in a few months, and there’s much to do. You can still be a star if only you don’t run as an independent.
Surely you know there are only four potential outcomes if you run as an independent and none of them will turn out as you might be thinking today.
You win and caucus with the Democrats; you have to know they’ll strip you of your seniority and committee assignments. That’s death.
You win and caucus with the Democrats but find out that they’ve disowned you and you move to the other side. That’s worse than death. It repudiates everything you’ve ever worked for.
You lose and the Republican wins. Worse than death; see above.
You lose and Ned Lamont wins. Who’s going to listen to you then? NOBODY!
Be graceful. Support Ned and work to help the ’08 nominee. Surely, the Democrats will win. You, Joe Lieberman, will be in line for a very senior Executive Branch job - Secretary of Defense, State, or Homeland Security, or head of National Intelligence, Director of CIA, whatever, something very big. You’ll cap your career with honors galore, and you’ll play a major role for four more years.
You’re sixty-four years old, Joe. Down deep you know that when you go to the dance, ya have to stick with the girl what brung ya. Think about it; don’t run.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
In The Great Big Sandbox
In my very naïve and amateur view, George Bush is much more than simply a neoconservative. The neocon philosophers have been very successful in appealing to the president’s messianic view of the world and to all outward appearances he is following their game plan line by line with all of the `i’s dotted and all of the `t’s crossed.
The president’s speeches are filled with images of freedom, democracy, and universal prosperity and, more menacingly, of the apocalypse should we fail to follow his commands. But in my view, there is more, much more to the president than a great father figure reading from stone tablets; there is a little boy playing with rockets, planes, tanks and soldiers in a sandbox in which his orders are never questioned by his forces or by those opposing him behind the little dunes and rises. Unfortunately, the real world is not George’s sandbox, and America’s enemies, rivals, opponents, and even its friends and allies do not jump to the bidding of the master of the playpen. And George – and his philosopher kings - cannot comprehend why the world does not jump to America’s bidding.
All that the president desires for friend and foe alike is freedom and prosperity for everyone, an end to fighting and dieing, and eternal happiness for all peoples and nations. It’s as if Woodrow Wilson has been reborn – on steroids. Who can possibly argue with this idealistic world view? If I correctly read my daily paper and information websites and the pictures coming into my house on television, quite a lot of folks, starting with most Americans (including many in his own party), the vast majority of the citizens and governments of our traditional Western allies, an even higher proportion of the peoples and leaders of the Muslim world.
Of course there are many who are pleased to see America hard at work on this great vision. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and others watch our daily progress in Iraq and elsewhere and are encouraged by our idealism – so long as we’re too bogged down to help them democratize their shares of the planet.
On 9/11, the American people were unified in our horror at the attacks upon us and in our resolve to punish those who perpetrated the atrocity. This vision was supported by most of those now opposed to George’s vision. The president’s initial moves against el Qaeda and the Taliban government of Afghanistan drew protests from almost no one in the civilized world. But the neocon vision of a peaceful world presided over by the United States as defined by George Bush has brought us to our sorry state where almost every one in the play area is kicking sand in George’s face – and ours with him.
The world is not full of people wanting to do right according to the messianic image of George Bush. It is populated by human beings with differing views of the world, with different economic, political, and social ideas and, most importantly, interests. These people are willing to resist America, and our super power capacity is of limited use when we deal with these people who have studied the ways and means of thwarting our military and economic might.
We have to regain the initiative in dealing with those who would hurt us. And we must think in terms of doing it initially where possible by means of diplomacy, economic and political assistance rather than at the point of a gun.
Had enough? Vote Democratic in November?
Blog on!
Wild Bill
The president’s speeches are filled with images of freedom, democracy, and universal prosperity and, more menacingly, of the apocalypse should we fail to follow his commands. But in my view, there is more, much more to the president than a great father figure reading from stone tablets; there is a little boy playing with rockets, planes, tanks and soldiers in a sandbox in which his orders are never questioned by his forces or by those opposing him behind the little dunes and rises. Unfortunately, the real world is not George’s sandbox, and America’s enemies, rivals, opponents, and even its friends and allies do not jump to the bidding of the master of the playpen. And George – and his philosopher kings - cannot comprehend why the world does not jump to America’s bidding.
All that the president desires for friend and foe alike is freedom and prosperity for everyone, an end to fighting and dieing, and eternal happiness for all peoples and nations. It’s as if Woodrow Wilson has been reborn – on steroids. Who can possibly argue with this idealistic world view? If I correctly read my daily paper and information websites and the pictures coming into my house on television, quite a lot of folks, starting with most Americans (including many in his own party), the vast majority of the citizens and governments of our traditional Western allies, an even higher proportion of the peoples and leaders of the Muslim world.
Of course there are many who are pleased to see America hard at work on this great vision. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and others watch our daily progress in Iraq and elsewhere and are encouraged by our idealism – so long as we’re too bogged down to help them democratize their shares of the planet.
On 9/11, the American people were unified in our horror at the attacks upon us and in our resolve to punish those who perpetrated the atrocity. This vision was supported by most of those now opposed to George’s vision. The president’s initial moves against el Qaeda and the Taliban government of Afghanistan drew protests from almost no one in the civilized world. But the neocon vision of a peaceful world presided over by the United States as defined by George Bush has brought us to our sorry state where almost every one in the play area is kicking sand in George’s face – and ours with him.
The world is not full of people wanting to do right according to the messianic image of George Bush. It is populated by human beings with differing views of the world, with different economic, political, and social ideas and, most importantly, interests. These people are willing to resist America, and our super power capacity is of limited use when we deal with these people who have studied the ways and means of thwarting our military and economic might.
We have to regain the initiative in dealing with those who would hurt us. And we must think in terms of doing it initially where possible by means of diplomacy, economic and political assistance rather than at the point of a gun.
Had enough? Vote Democratic in November?
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Monday, August 07, 2006
Good Morning
Well we survived the heat wave; day after day of heat indexes above the one hundred degree mark do take a toll. It’s actually quite cool here in the garden this morning, and the ice coffee is just what the doctor ordered. I don’t see why we can’t start making tee times again.
Not much happening, the paper shows nothing but the same old stuff. 40 Lebanese civilians killed at Houla; 15 Israeli soldiers and civilians blown to bits at a kibbutz; 700 hundred Lebanese and almost a hundred Israelis dead in the last twenty-six days – with no end in sight. Murder, pillage and rape seem to be at normal levels in Darfur, and the usual thirty or forty Iraqis moving on to the next life each day.
Oh, and we’re staying the course in Iraq. More than ninety-five percent of our casualties have come since the President announced that the mission had been accomplished. Thank goodness we won. eh?
Oh, and a round of applause for the U.N. The latest Security Council resolution will certainly be read with interest and awe in Beirut and Jerusalem. Those diplomats sure know how to stop carnage in its tracks.
I guess the new Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, isn’t quite on board the spin machine. He admitted that the take home pay of ordinary Americans is not increasing as rapidly as the costs of energy and health care. What can you expect with Karl Rove spending more time worrying about his legal situation than to what administration officials are saying? Now that it’s clear that he won’t be indicted for outing Valerie Plame, he should have time to take Henry to the woodshed.
Hope your world is good. I’ve got to cut this off to make a reservation at the course.
Ciao.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Not much happening, the paper shows nothing but the same old stuff. 40 Lebanese civilians killed at Houla; 15 Israeli soldiers and civilians blown to bits at a kibbutz; 700 hundred Lebanese and almost a hundred Israelis dead in the last twenty-six days – with no end in sight. Murder, pillage and rape seem to be at normal levels in Darfur, and the usual thirty or forty Iraqis moving on to the next life each day.
Oh, and we’re staying the course in Iraq. More than ninety-five percent of our casualties have come since the President announced that the mission had been accomplished. Thank goodness we won. eh?
Oh, and a round of applause for the U.N. The latest Security Council resolution will certainly be read with interest and awe in Beirut and Jerusalem. Those diplomats sure know how to stop carnage in its tracks.
I guess the new Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, isn’t quite on board the spin machine. He admitted that the take home pay of ordinary Americans is not increasing as rapidly as the costs of energy and health care. What can you expect with Karl Rove spending more time worrying about his legal situation than to what administration officials are saying? Now that it’s clear that he won’t be indicted for outing Valerie Plame, he should have time to take Henry to the woodshed.
Hope your world is good. I’ve got to cut this off to make a reservation at the course.
Ciao.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Stupid? Cowardly? NOT!!!
We Americans are living in a dream world. We hear that al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and many other groups are cowardly for failing to fight us straight up and that basically they’re all cut from the same cloth. This comes from the propaganda emanating from the White House and its apologists. I don’t blame them for putting out this malarkey since previous administrations did the same thing with world communism during the Cold War. But that’s how we got enmeshed in Vietnam with communism being seen as a lock step monolith directed straight from the Kremlin. Unfortunately – and unforgivably – the names on the wall of the Vietnam Memorial are mute testimony that when we left that beleaguered country nothing much happened, except the fall of much of world communism as we thought we knew it.
Whenever I tune in on el Rushbo, I learn that the cowards of Hezbollah are hiding behind the innocent residents of Southern Lebanon and undermining the Israelis’ efforts to kill them. Am I missing something here? Hezbollah terrorists should stand up and exchange fire with the obviously superior force in front of them? Let’s begin with the assumption that anyone standing up to superior firepower simply to show they’ve got guts is stupid and unbalanced. I’m pretty much convinced that that’s not the case. As a boy, I played the old card game of whist for hours on end with Arabs and can assure you that many of them are mighty smart – a lot smarter than a lot of Irish Americans. Intelligence is not one of their short suits.
There is a letter to the editor in today’s Washington Post from Raymond V. Rush of Stanardsville, Virginia that inspired this posting - it’s the last letter of three, in case you click onto the link – which points out the obvious stupidity of the traditional view of insurgencies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/04/AR2006080401370_2.html
First, let’s try to back down some of the propaganda. Labels limit our ability to see these people for what they are. Hezbollah has far different goals than al Qaeda. Sunni Baathists in Iraq may well be blowing up Shiites, but they’re quite different in their goals from al Qaeda and Hezbollah. Hamas is significantly different from Hezbollah. While Hamas and Hezbollah both want to damage – even destroy – Israel, they have significantly very different objectives.
If we can’t see that most of the insurgents, terrorists, and whatever other bad labels we apply to people revolting against the status quo around the world are not products of the same cookie cutter, we’ll never get anywhere in attempting to deal with the problems at hand. Much of the confusion goes back to the initial reaction to 9/11 by President Bush. He lumped together every group at war with established governments as international terrorists, and we’ve spent the next five years trying to separate them in our minds.
One thing that is becoming clearer to me – and which I’ve recently started blog about – is that modern armed forces are no longer organized properly to deal with their enemies. Massed attacks are no longer viable. The Battle of the Bulge, Stalingrad, and the human wave attacks by the Chinese army during the Korean are out – period. The overwhelming fire power of modern armies makes such attacks suicidal. Insurgencies and terrorism are the tools of choice by nations and groups who can’t stand up to their adversaries frontally.
So in Iraq, we find the fire power of our forces insufficient to overcome the insurgents. The war raging in Lebanon is beginning to show that the best and most modern army in the region – that of Israel – is not equipped to deal with the problem of rousting out dedicated foes fighting in the guise of local residents.
Israel and the U.S. have re-think their positions in the region. The overwhelming conventional advantages that carried the Israelis to rapid victories over Arab states in the past are not nearly as effective as they used to be. The insurgents in Lebanon are extremely well trained and adequately equipped. Clearly, they’ve been paying attention to Vietnam, the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and our own ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are not stupid. They are not cowardly. They learned a lot over the past decades, and we seem not to have kept pace.
It is also clear that much of the reasoning behind the maintenance of land conquered in previous Israeli victories is suspect. To occupy territory as a buffer against infantry, armored and artillery incursions against Israel proper no longer makes sense if such attacks aren’t coming. It also doesn’t make sense to spend lives and treasure defending territory from artillery when rocket attacks clearly demonstrate that the range of these weapons is well beyond all the strategic territory that can be defended.
As Lebanon and Palestinians in Gaza suffer and as Israelis die fighting amorphous insurgencies – call them terrorists if it makes the reader feel better - the strongest power in the region, Iran, becomes stronger by the day without losing a single soldier.
The rationale for all of our actions in the region over the past five years appears wrong to me. We’ve got to create divided government in November and elect a Democrat president in ’08. This crowd is all wrong as far as I can see. Their only answer is to stay the course, and that ain’t gonna do it.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Whenever I tune in on el Rushbo, I learn that the cowards of Hezbollah are hiding behind the innocent residents of Southern Lebanon and undermining the Israelis’ efforts to kill them. Am I missing something here? Hezbollah terrorists should stand up and exchange fire with the obviously superior force in front of them? Let’s begin with the assumption that anyone standing up to superior firepower simply to show they’ve got guts is stupid and unbalanced. I’m pretty much convinced that that’s not the case. As a boy, I played the old card game of whist for hours on end with Arabs and can assure you that many of them are mighty smart – a lot smarter than a lot of Irish Americans. Intelligence is not one of their short suits.
There is a letter to the editor in today’s Washington Post from Raymond V. Rush of Stanardsville, Virginia that inspired this posting - it’s the last letter of three, in case you click onto the link – which points out the obvious stupidity of the traditional view of insurgencies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/04/AR2006080401370_2.html
First, let’s try to back down some of the propaganda. Labels limit our ability to see these people for what they are. Hezbollah has far different goals than al Qaeda. Sunni Baathists in Iraq may well be blowing up Shiites, but they’re quite different in their goals from al Qaeda and Hezbollah. Hamas is significantly different from Hezbollah. While Hamas and Hezbollah both want to damage – even destroy – Israel, they have significantly very different objectives.
If we can’t see that most of the insurgents, terrorists, and whatever other bad labels we apply to people revolting against the status quo around the world are not products of the same cookie cutter, we’ll never get anywhere in attempting to deal with the problems at hand. Much of the confusion goes back to the initial reaction to 9/11 by President Bush. He lumped together every group at war with established governments as international terrorists, and we’ve spent the next five years trying to separate them in our minds.
One thing that is becoming clearer to me – and which I’ve recently started blog about – is that modern armed forces are no longer organized properly to deal with their enemies. Massed attacks are no longer viable. The Battle of the Bulge, Stalingrad, and the human wave attacks by the Chinese army during the Korean are out – period. The overwhelming fire power of modern armies makes such attacks suicidal. Insurgencies and terrorism are the tools of choice by nations and groups who can’t stand up to their adversaries frontally.
So in Iraq, we find the fire power of our forces insufficient to overcome the insurgents. The war raging in Lebanon is beginning to show that the best and most modern army in the region – that of Israel – is not equipped to deal with the problem of rousting out dedicated foes fighting in the guise of local residents.
Israel and the U.S. have re-think their positions in the region. The overwhelming conventional advantages that carried the Israelis to rapid victories over Arab states in the past are not nearly as effective as they used to be. The insurgents in Lebanon are extremely well trained and adequately equipped. Clearly, they’ve been paying attention to Vietnam, the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and our own ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are not stupid. They are not cowardly. They learned a lot over the past decades, and we seem not to have kept pace.
It is also clear that much of the reasoning behind the maintenance of land conquered in previous Israeli victories is suspect. To occupy territory as a buffer against infantry, armored and artillery incursions against Israel proper no longer makes sense if such attacks aren’t coming. It also doesn’t make sense to spend lives and treasure defending territory from artillery when rocket attacks clearly demonstrate that the range of these weapons is well beyond all the strategic territory that can be defended.
As Lebanon and Palestinians in Gaza suffer and as Israelis die fighting amorphous insurgencies – call them terrorists if it makes the reader feel better - the strongest power in the region, Iran, becomes stronger by the day without losing a single soldier.
The rationale for all of our actions in the region over the past five years appears wrong to me. We’ve got to create divided government in November and elect a Democrat president in ’08. This crowd is all wrong as far as I can see. Their only answer is to stay the course, and that ain’t gonna do it.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Friday, August 04, 2006
Scary Times
It is not my habit to watch Congressional hearings but yesterday, anticipating fireworks, I tuned in on the Senate hearing on the situation in Iraq. Senator Hillary Clinton lit her fuse but I thought that her presentation was a complete dud. She denounced Secretary Rumsfeld personally and bitterly but there was no effort at soliciting information needed for Senatorial oversight or for public enlightenment. It was very disappointing as she is the front runner for the Democrats in ’08.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), as usual, was a star. His simple questions seeking the number and types of enemies of orderly government in Iraq drew equally straightforward answers from Rumsfeld’s top generals. Bottom line, the generals guessed that there were about 40,000 terrorists and insurgents of one kind or another. Graham then quickly extrapolated that 40,000 outlaws in a population of some 25 million (about one in 600) certainly could be quelled if the major populations (Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd) were intent on forming a viable government and nation. There was no ready answer from the DOD representatives. Obviously, things have to get worse before they get better – if they ever do – in Iraq.
Senator John McCain who has long been committed to the Iraq War and was one of Bush’s key supporters in the run up to the attack appears to recognize that what we’ve been doing in the country has failed but that we can’t allow anarchy to take over by withdrawing.
If they come to power in November and in ’08, the Democrats better be very careful. We’re stuck in Iraq until that country is relatively stable, be it one nation or three smaller ones. The pity is that the quagmire will be ongoing until this question is settled and a government or governments are in place and in control. With luck and diplomatic skill, pray that we can work with them. The Democrats would pull out troops in advance of equilibrium at America’s peril.
There can be no doubt that terrorists want to drive us out of Iraq and from all Muslim lands. They are doing their absolute best to acquire WMD to use on our interests in the region, on Israel and on us at home. The tragedy is that George Bush took us into Iraq based on a false premise and now he is stuck there without a plan to get us out, and we’re stuck with him. 40,000 extremely dangerous people are working overtime to kill our troops and Iraqis. While no operational connection was ever made between Saddam’s government and the terror networks clearly intent on hurting us badly, those networks are present in Iraq now and they want us gone so that they can take over the country and use its resources against us.
The Dems better understand that we’re firing Republicans for horrendous errors not to pack up and come home from the region. We should never have gone into Iraq. The administration should have kept up the pressure in Afghanistan but chased a red herring and the better targets of opportunity in Saddam’s realm. Because of the administration’s bungling and relative weakness, Hezbollah and Hamas came from behind and started a diversionary war with Israel to take pressure off of their patrons, Syria and Iran, even as Iran works like mad to acquire WMD.
The commitments in Iraq made by the Bush government simply cannot be abandoned; they must be managed. There can be no doubt that the intentions of the Bush administration were to keep America safe. They simply made terrible errors based on the prejudices of its officials and advisors. We want them out to punish them for incompetence, bad decisions and maladministration of the government. The Dems better not attempt to walk away from this war; they better damn well fight it more effectively.
While I’m voting for Senator Clinton or any other Democratic nominee, it’s a vote as much against the present crowd as for a change in direction that further endangers the country and its allies. A major problem is that Bush decided that we could solve the problem of international terrorism on the cheap by simply killing the terrorists and insurgents instead of investing in something akin to the Marshall Plan in postwar Europe. This has cost far more than what was perceived to be the more expensive approach that will ultimately have to be taken anyway.
Iran has outflanked the U.S. with the Arab world, and we have failed ourselves and Israel by our bungling in the Muslim world. These are scary times and the incumbents have endangered our interests and even our homeland. The die hard supporters of the president’s plan must be voted out, but moronic reactions on the part of the Democrats to simply hide from jihadists would be worse than what we’ve experienced under George W. Bush.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), as usual, was a star. His simple questions seeking the number and types of enemies of orderly government in Iraq drew equally straightforward answers from Rumsfeld’s top generals. Bottom line, the generals guessed that there were about 40,000 terrorists and insurgents of one kind or another. Graham then quickly extrapolated that 40,000 outlaws in a population of some 25 million (about one in 600) certainly could be quelled if the major populations (Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd) were intent on forming a viable government and nation. There was no ready answer from the DOD representatives. Obviously, things have to get worse before they get better – if they ever do – in Iraq.
Senator John McCain who has long been committed to the Iraq War and was one of Bush’s key supporters in the run up to the attack appears to recognize that what we’ve been doing in the country has failed but that we can’t allow anarchy to take over by withdrawing.
If they come to power in November and in ’08, the Democrats better be very careful. We’re stuck in Iraq until that country is relatively stable, be it one nation or three smaller ones. The pity is that the quagmire will be ongoing until this question is settled and a government or governments are in place and in control. With luck and diplomatic skill, pray that we can work with them. The Democrats would pull out troops in advance of equilibrium at America’s peril.
There can be no doubt that terrorists want to drive us out of Iraq and from all Muslim lands. They are doing their absolute best to acquire WMD to use on our interests in the region, on Israel and on us at home. The tragedy is that George Bush took us into Iraq based on a false premise and now he is stuck there without a plan to get us out, and we’re stuck with him. 40,000 extremely dangerous people are working overtime to kill our troops and Iraqis. While no operational connection was ever made between Saddam’s government and the terror networks clearly intent on hurting us badly, those networks are present in Iraq now and they want us gone so that they can take over the country and use its resources against us.
The Dems better understand that we’re firing Republicans for horrendous errors not to pack up and come home from the region. We should never have gone into Iraq. The administration should have kept up the pressure in Afghanistan but chased a red herring and the better targets of opportunity in Saddam’s realm. Because of the administration’s bungling and relative weakness, Hezbollah and Hamas came from behind and started a diversionary war with Israel to take pressure off of their patrons, Syria and Iran, even as Iran works like mad to acquire WMD.
The commitments in Iraq made by the Bush government simply cannot be abandoned; they must be managed. There can be no doubt that the intentions of the Bush administration were to keep America safe. They simply made terrible errors based on the prejudices of its officials and advisors. We want them out to punish them for incompetence, bad decisions and maladministration of the government. The Dems better not attempt to walk away from this war; they better damn well fight it more effectively.
While I’m voting for Senator Clinton or any other Democratic nominee, it’s a vote as much against the present crowd as for a change in direction that further endangers the country and its allies. A major problem is that Bush decided that we could solve the problem of international terrorism on the cheap by simply killing the terrorists and insurgents instead of investing in something akin to the Marshall Plan in postwar Europe. This has cost far more than what was perceived to be the more expensive approach that will ultimately have to be taken anyway.
Iran has outflanked the U.S. with the Arab world, and we have failed ourselves and Israel by our bungling in the Muslim world. These are scary times and the incumbents have endangered our interests and even our homeland. The die hard supporters of the president’s plan must be voted out, but moronic reactions on the part of the Democrats to simply hide from jihadists would be worse than what we’ve experienced under George W. Bush.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Thursday, August 03, 2006
The House that George Built
While our enemies, adversaries and competitors are smart, it’s doubtful that they could have conceived of how effectively they would be able to tie us up in difficult struggles across Islamic lands.
Osama bin Laden must have known that the U.S. would come after him and al Qaeda after 9/11 and must have anticipated going to ground much as he has. But I find it difficult to believe that he thought that we would attack Iraq as a result of his terrorist attack on America.
Now embroiled in Iraq for well over three years, the administration has no firm plan for disengagement. Our goal of establishing in Iraq a democratically elected government that promises to have staying power beyond our exit seems very shaky, and the cost in lives, bodies and treasure for Americans and Iraqis has been astronomical and is rising rapidly.
Iran appears to have far greater influence in Baghdad than we ever intended, and the Shiite Iraqi prime minister – apparently looking anxiously toward Tehran – condemns the Israeli incursion into Lebanon. It is likely that Iran at least gave a nod to Hezbollah’s initial attack on Israel. Whether they anticipated Israel’s overwhelming response is beyond my knowledge, but it has certainly embroiled Israel and the U.S. in another very difficult situation that makes aggressive moves toward Syria and Iran less likely.
By its perceived role in backing Hezbollah, Iran, a traditional enemy of Arabs, especially Sunnis, and most especially of Iraq, has put itself in a stronger position with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other moderate Arab states. Its soft alliance with Syria against Israel has also strengthened its situation with the Arab world. With the U.S. bogged down in Iraq and Israel involved much more heavily than anticipated in Lebanon, attacks against Syria and Iran look much further down the road. And, of course, in the meantime the Iranians are working feverishly to create the ultimate deterrent against attack, nuclear weapons.
Anticipating a far quicker and more decisive result against Hezbollah, our approach to the U.N. of stalling as Israel degraded its enemy is now working against us and our prime ally in the region. It is likely now that both sides will claim victory, but outside the U.S. and Israel, the result of the propaganda war will not likely to be favorable to us.
All in all, the house that George and his neocon friends built appears ill suited to stand against the blowing of the big bad wolf.
The Congress must have more oversight. We’ve got to elect Democrats in November. It’s time for a change.
Had enough? Vote Democrat!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Osama bin Laden must have known that the U.S. would come after him and al Qaeda after 9/11 and must have anticipated going to ground much as he has. But I find it difficult to believe that he thought that we would attack Iraq as a result of his terrorist attack on America.
Now embroiled in Iraq for well over three years, the administration has no firm plan for disengagement. Our goal of establishing in Iraq a democratically elected government that promises to have staying power beyond our exit seems very shaky, and the cost in lives, bodies and treasure for Americans and Iraqis has been astronomical and is rising rapidly.
Iran appears to have far greater influence in Baghdad than we ever intended, and the Shiite Iraqi prime minister – apparently looking anxiously toward Tehran – condemns the Israeli incursion into Lebanon. It is likely that Iran at least gave a nod to Hezbollah’s initial attack on Israel. Whether they anticipated Israel’s overwhelming response is beyond my knowledge, but it has certainly embroiled Israel and the U.S. in another very difficult situation that makes aggressive moves toward Syria and Iran less likely.
By its perceived role in backing Hezbollah, Iran, a traditional enemy of Arabs, especially Sunnis, and most especially of Iraq, has put itself in a stronger position with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other moderate Arab states. Its soft alliance with Syria against Israel has also strengthened its situation with the Arab world. With the U.S. bogged down in Iraq and Israel involved much more heavily than anticipated in Lebanon, attacks against Syria and Iran look much further down the road. And, of course, in the meantime the Iranians are working feverishly to create the ultimate deterrent against attack, nuclear weapons.
Anticipating a far quicker and more decisive result against Hezbollah, our approach to the U.N. of stalling as Israel degraded its enemy is now working against us and our prime ally in the region. It is likely now that both sides will claim victory, but outside the U.S. and Israel, the result of the propaganda war will not likely to be favorable to us.
All in all, the house that George and his neocon friends built appears ill suited to stand against the blowing of the big bad wolf.
The Congress must have more oversight. We’ve got to elect Democrats in November. It’s time for a change.
Had enough? Vote Democrat!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Unconventional Warfare
I came upon an interesting article, The Futility of Force, posted on the website of The Guardian, one of the U.K.’s moderate to conservative newspapers. The author, Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian’s Security Editor, states that military leaders in the United Kingdom, the United States and other powers are rethinking their situations based on experience in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and other hot spots around the globe.
Norton-Taylor lists a hierarchy of force that has become clear over recent decades but which I had never attempted to categorize. He begins with the premise that U.K. defense officials see little or no real threat from traditional conventional enemies over the next generation. Strong nations are unlikely to be confronted directly by their peers or near peers. Lesser powers have learned that funding and backing terrorist groups is a far safer means of dealing with their military betters while nations weaker still that are under occupation proceed to next level of force available to them, insurgencies from within.
The article has piqued my interest greatly and I’m going to look at events through that prism to see if I continue to agree with the premise. At this point I thought that you might like to read it and see if any of this resonates with any of you.
Your reactions would be welcome and read with interest either on the blog site or at my regular email address brennan01@cox.net.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1834630,00.html
Blog On!
Wild Bill
Norton-Taylor lists a hierarchy of force that has become clear over recent decades but which I had never attempted to categorize. He begins with the premise that U.K. defense officials see little or no real threat from traditional conventional enemies over the next generation. Strong nations are unlikely to be confronted directly by their peers or near peers. Lesser powers have learned that funding and backing terrorist groups is a far safer means of dealing with their military betters while nations weaker still that are under occupation proceed to next level of force available to them, insurgencies from within.
The article has piqued my interest greatly and I’m going to look at events through that prism to see if I continue to agree with the premise. At this point I thought that you might like to read it and see if any of this resonates with any of you.
Your reactions would be welcome and read with interest either on the blog site or at my regular email address brennan01@cox.net.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1834630,00.html
Blog On!
Wild Bill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)