Saturday, September 30, 2006

Don, We Hardly Knew Ya

Even I’m beginning to feel sorry for Don Rumsfeld. It appears that every Republican politician in the country has always known that Don was the guy who screwed up Iraq. Little did I know when I was asking for his head on a platter some months ago that the insiders of the Bush administration were way ahead of me in calling for his scalp.

Andy Card - everybody’s nicest guy in Washington candidate after Don? Say it ain’t so, Andy? Laura Bush – who’d o’ thunk it? Condy Rice, Colin Powell, and Joe Lieberman – oops he’s a Dem, er independent – all of ‘em knew all along that Don would screw up anything he touched. Wow!

The Republican strategy is becoming very clear. Don’s the incompetent moron who screwed up Iraq. It was the right thing to do but we turned it over to Don. How could we have known he’d goof it? He had a nice record under Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush 41, so you can’t blame the president for thinking he could do the job.

Mistakes were made – Don said the aluminum tubes were for centrifuges; al Qaeda and Saddam weren’t playing footsie – that was Don; the museum looting – Don; over de-Baathifying – again, Rummy; on and on Rumsfeld did it all. Now Bob Woodward says he’s really indecisive and makes sure that he leaves no finger prints on bad moves; the Republicans knew that all along. It’s even rumored that he ordered the firing on Fort Sumter.

But attacking Iraq was really the right thing to do if only Rumsfeld hadn’t been incompetent; just ask any Republican. It was the right policy but the wrong guy was in charge.

It looks like Don’s going to have to come up with health problems some time in mid-November. Sad, he still looks good for the old man who screwed up Iraq, Hewlett Packard, Sony batteries, the war on terror, and Hurricane Katrina.

So long, Don; even Wild Bill had no idea just how incompetent you were. And if Bill didn’t know, how can we hold George accountable? Impeach Wild Bill!

Blog on!

Wild Bill

Friday, September 29, 2006

Standing in History's Dock

The fat’s in the fire. Those of us opposed to the Iraq War, the newly passed bill on the treatment of enemy combatants or who took the side of Bill Clinton in his interview with FOX last week are naïve fools. Imagine if you will the horror that the party of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run.

While it is true that FDR and HST stayed their courses, might it be prudent to remember that the Empire of Japan attacked the United States and that Germany declared war on us before we fired a shot at them? Would it also help to recall that North Korea invaded the South?

Dare we mention that the party of George W. Bush was doing its damnedest to stop FDR from preparing to assist England as Hitler moved to overrun the continent? Would not history support the notion that the Republicans in Congress did their very best to undermine Harry as he tried to stop the communist onslaught in Korea? You’re damned right!

Now the president has bullied his party and a few sheepish Democrats into supporting legislation that protects American agents who treated detainees worse than permitted by the Geneva Convention, permits the holding of enemy combatants without charge indefinitely and which would allow detainees to be subject to treatment unprecedented in American history, what's left to say?

The president called for the legislation on enemy combatants to show that we’re all in this together. Well we’re not. The vast majority of Democrats and a few Republicans would not sign on. While I’m far from a liberal, my civil libertarian instincts demand that I cite Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch who was quoted in today’s Washington Post with saying of President Bush, “He’s been accused of authorizing criminal torture in a way that has hurt America and could come back to haunt our troops. One of his purposes is to have Congress stand with him in the dock.” That has to be the most damning statement ever made about an American leader and those in Congress who supported the measure.

Back to Japan and Germany for a moment, Mr. Bush’s tortured logic on Iraq v. the charges he makes against those of the party of FDR and HST implies that Iraq is the equivalent of W.W. II for staying the course. What? We stayed the course against enemies the forties because they started it. While the facts now show that Iraq clearly never posed a threat to us or our allies and certainly didn’t start anything more than a series of tauntings – which is a foul in the National Football League but not in international relations.

Perhaps if I put it this way, when attacked by Japan and with Germany having declared war on us, we should have minimally held them off and put the brunt of our forces into attacking Spain and Portugal that did nothing to us but did in fact share ideology with Germany and were governed by fascist dictators. After toppling Salazar and Franco, we might have turned our attention to those who really had it in for us.

As I said in a recent blog, nobody’s afraid of the big bad wolf. He’s huffed and puffed and blown no one’s house down. But he’s covering his butt and dragging others in to share the blame. Those in Congress who stand with him on Iraq and on the treatment of detainees will have the rest of their lives to consider these stands.

Meanwhile those of us who aspire to be small time Tom Paine’s will just have to buck up and face the music - that is getting louder but not better.

Blog on!

Wild Bill

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Don't Be Distracted

The main themes about Iraq are: the Democrats have no ideas and can only propose to cut and run; and the Republicans propose to stay the course, even if that means forever. Both parties flirt with some semblance of cut and run proposals after the Iraqi military and internal security forces are trained and ready to take over. And both are so desperate to get out of that terrible land that they’re ready to deem the Iraqis good to go in the very near future – like the day after the election.

The bottom line is that the parties are fully ready to cut and run with honor (whoa!) as quickly as possible. All they want in the interim is your vote to see who’s in charge.

Bush says we’re safer now than after 9/11. He’s right; we’ve got lots of new procedures, systems and people in place to watch over us. The Dems say we’re not as safe. They’re right; our misadventure in Iraq has spawned more terrorists than we’ve killed or captured and the Muslim world is filled with rage at our obvious efforts at hegemony.


For whom should we vote? The Democrats, of course. Either way after the election, the effort to extract our forces will look pretty much the same, but there has to be an accounting for the massive blunder that is Iraq.

Iraq is hamstringing our efforts against those who would destroy us. It is galvanizing our enemies. There was no good reason to attack Iraq. We have lost nearly 3,000 troops; we’re spending billions of dollars each week and will be obligated to pay about $2 trillion before we’re done with Baghdad. And more than 40,000 innocent Iraqis are dead.

I won’t bore you with domestic policies that are aimed against the vast majority of the people.

Those who made these horrible judgments and those in the Congress who voted to support them must be driven from office. Vote Democrat in ’06 and ’08.

Blog on!

Wild Bill

Friday, September 22, 2006

The Big Lie

It was close; but for the lack of a few pieces of military hardware we would be under the thumbs of a neoconservative controlled government fully vested with the power to carry out mad hegemonic schemes of world domination. The other day, I heard one of el Rushbo’s callers explain how the Saddam government, recognizing its imminent defeat, had quickly gathered up all of its weapons of mass destruction, placed them on trucks and trundled them off to Syria. Aside from the difficulty of the trick, the desire to protect the weapons rather than use them on the invaders strained my credulity. Hey, but I’m just one listener. Rush’s millions of ditto heads probably ate it up.

It is amazing that after all is said and done on WMD and the connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, about half the American people still believe that that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons at the ready and that one of his key aids was working hand in glove with one of the 9/11 plotters. Such is the power of lies.

While the president has been repeatedly forced to back down from claims of an Iraqi prewar arsenal of WMD and a conspiracy between agents of Saddam and Osama, none of this has stopped other members of the administration and, more importantly, its friends in the neocon community from continuing to pump that great lie.

The administration has been quick to complain when their actions have been equated with fascism, and I have more than once leaped to its defense in this regard. Yet they have recently taken to pointing out how those who find their actions to be in error are themselves quite like those who appeased the Nazis when they agreed to permit Germany to swallow its neighbors. Yet the opponents of Bush’s Iraq War are in no way looking to back away from confrontations with the terrorists from al Qaeda who attacked us and who are now in Iraq - because of us.

Bush and his supporters have also taken to likening the actions of the terrorists to those of fascists. While I have written that this comparison is not without merit, it should be noted that with certain major exceptions – such as Iran – these comments are directed at non-governmental entities such as al Qaeda. Clearly this charge is warranted but it as easily obtains to individuals and groups in many places, including the United States. The actions of home grown terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph and many of the militia groups that have waned in popularity since Oklahoma City and 9/11 could as correctly be charged with being fascists.

But one thing is abundantly clear about this administration, it has adopted one of the most important elements of Joseph Geobbels propaganda machine, that of the big lie. Tell the whopper over and over shamelessly. Even if the president can no longer tell it, the underlings – including the vice president - can continue to say that the last word is not in on WMD, and of course Saddam was trying to reconstitute his nuclear program, the proof being the aluminum tubes deemed by agencies of the United States government to be unsuitable for use as centrifuges to enrich weapons strength uranium. The administration knew that but it chose to push the whopper. It’s a lie; but it whispered daily as part of the big lie.

The lie even if suppressed at one point pops up elsewhere. Saddam was a menace and the only course to protect the American people was to attack Iraq and depose the government. Even if Saddam had no WMD, he was a menace to civilization. Just what the hell does that mean? Iraq had no WMD and unless name calling and idle threats were as powerful as nuclear weapons, he posed no threat beyond his borders. Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Saddam could do little but shout into the wind that he was going to kick Israel’s ass.

Yet, I believed my government and had little doubt that Iraq had at least some semblance of a WMD arsenal – but not nuclear. Our government pounded that line unendingly, and I doubted not for a minute that when the dust settled on Baghdad proof positive would be available for all to see. Yet I never thought that Saddam’s supposed arsenal would be a true threat against our troops. Chemical and biological weapons are extremely limited in usefulness (the Kaiser found that gas blows back on the shooter and others have seen that germs have a way of working against the using nation) against a real modern military force, and Saddam would soon be facing the world’s best.

My complaints were and remain twofold. While I had no doubt that our troops would easily destroy and overthrow the regime, the attack would be against a sovereign nation that despite having WMD really posed no threat to the U.S. or its allies and, second, the prospect of occupying a nation divided by tribalism, ethnicity, and religion as is Iraq would be far more daunting – it would be better described as almost impossible - to subdue despite assurance from Iraqi expatriates and Dick Cheney that our troops would be welcomed with open arms as liberators.

The war opened with `shock and awe’ and ended in just weeks when the president announced victory aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. The mission had been accomplished and the threat to America and its allies removed. The only thing remaining was to gather the WMD and put them on display for the world to see. A dozen canisters of gas and a couple of mobile labs for biological experiments would do even for me.

But something happened on the way toward pacification of the Iraqi nation. Nobody could find those canisters. Iraq wasn’t really a threat after all.

Not to worry; the big lie would cover their butts. Saddam was menace and even without WMD it was a good thing to remove him. Why? He had the capacity to talk big and scare George Bush. So each day the noses of the president, Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman, and the host of neocon policy makers and claquers grow longer. And still almost half of all Americans believe the whopper.

“For want of nail, the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for the want of a horse, the rider was lost.” Poor Richard’s Almanac

“A horse! A horse! my kingdom for a horse! Wm. Shakespeare

For want of a canister; the excuse was lost; for want of an excuse; the truth was lost; for want of the truth; the presidency was lost.

My presidency for a can of gas! Wild Bill


George Orwell and Joseph Geobbels would have little trouble understanding the techniques being used by this government.

Blog on!

Wild Bill

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Be Sure to Vote

It was my goal to work like a madman through the congressional elections in November to push the message that President Bush has made a strategic blunder of unprecedented proportions by attacking Iraq in the guise of furthering our struggle with terrorism. In my view, he and his administration have undermined much of what America stands for and they and those in Congress who support them must be rejected at the polls.

For more than two years, beginning as a member of a relatively small minority, I worked tirelessly to produce postings designed to divide the government; to me the single most important means of assuring our personal liberties and sane public policies. I made almost three hundred postings, most in this vein, and it was my goal to continue this work until the election when I was going to retire from the fight, exhausted.

Fortunately for me and my readers, I do not have to continue the mad pace of a blog posting almost every day. The mainstream media and tens of thousands of bloggers have picked up the gauntlet and the airwaves, blogosphere, and the print media are filled almost to overflowing with pieces that bear uncanny resemblance to what I’ve been publishing for these many months.

This administration, contrary to all its predecessors, has encouraged fear in the hearts of Americans. Instead of leading the nation and asking for sacrifice, the president has called for the people to delegate their rights to the central government and to leave the governing and protecting to George.

Now even many Republicans (of which I was one until the build up to attack Iraq) are picking up their cudgels and joining the millions in pounding on the administration for its excesses. So, unless I think of something that is fresh and creative to say about my world, I’m going to kick back and watch the electorate correct the course of the ship of state.

BE SURE TO VOTE!!! You can make a difference.

Blog on!

Wild Bill

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

There's Good News and Bad News

There’s bad news for the White House.

The administration and its right wing supporters had to go all out in supporting Lincoln Chaffee for U. S. Senate in the Rhode Island Republican primary. They won and they’re gagging.

They also have to support the Independent candidacy of Joe Lieberman for Senate in the general election. I don’t think he’ll win. They’ll be sick but relieved.

I heard el Rushbo describe both men as nowhere near to being moderates but rather dyed in the wool LIBERALS. The president’s right flank never eases up on him.

As soon as the president opens his mouth, the Democrats lambaste him. Nobody’s afraid of the big bad wolf any longer. Tying Iraq to the war on terror is now a non-starter among the two thirds of the population that sees through the baloney.

The troops and junior officers on the ground know that Iraq and Afghanistan are not going according to plan. They no longer believe their promotion seeking generals who see progress everywhere.

Two thirds of the electorate believes that the president was playing politics by mouthing his stay the course mantra on the fifth anniversary of the attacks of 9/11.

There’s good news for the White House.

One third of the voters still believe in George Bush, the Republican led Congress, the Tooth Fairy and in connecting Iraq to al Qaeda.

While the president cannot leave his bubble, he can work out and rest to his heart’s content. He’ll be in perfect physical condition to clear brush in Crawford come January 20, 2009.

Blog on!

Wild Bill

Monday, September 11, 2006

We are Safer than Prior to 9/11

Are we safer than we were after 9/11? Yes, much. The administration and the Congress have worked feverishly and spent huge amounts of money to make it so. The FBI and CIA coordinate far better than they did prior to the attacks, and the same obtains with all other intelligence and security agencies at all levels of government. The bureaucrats who work in these fields should be proud of their efforts. To reiterate, we are much safer from terrorist attack now than we were before 9/11.

The Bush administration has clearly taken national security very seriously and has done all that we could expect them to do. I won’t go into complaints about the administration carrying surveillance too far. The question is have they done all that could reasonably be expected and their intent is clearly our safety and security?

Are we safe? Hell no! We’ll never be completely safe from terror, foreign or domestic. There is always the possibility that another attack could succeed. My friend and golf partner, Dick O’Brien, nailed it with, “If we can’t stop all armed robbery and murder in Washington, how can we be expected to stop all terrorist activities.” It’s obvious that attacks such as that by Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City and the 9/11 attack are far less likely based on far better intelligence, police, and regulatory changes. But clever madmen and determined terrorists are out there constantly plotting, so we can only work hard and smart and apply all reasonable resources to the job.

Are Bush and the Republicans better than Democrats at making us secure? That friends is a loaded question and, in my opinion, the answer is, “Hell no!” The nation is fully awake to the danger from both foreign and domestic terrorism. While the Republicans are beating up on the Democrats for being weak, there is no truth in the assertion whatsoever. You think the Gore administration would be one degree different in its response to the attacks? Of course not.

One thing Gore wouldn’t have done, however, was to attack Iraq and divert resources away from chasing down Osama. The record is clear; Al Gore spoke forcefully against invading Iraq as the run up to war became obvious. I won’t grant the administration’s constant mantra that we are better off as a result of regime change in Iraq. I think we’ve radicalized far more Islamic terrorists than we’ve killed or captured.

Iraq has ruined the presidency of George Bush and it has made it essential that we punish the Republicans for this gross blunder. The mitigation created by their feverish efforts to increase national security not withstanding, they must be turned out in November. While the homeland is almost certainly more secure than it was five years ago, our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and our interests and those of our allies all over the world are in greater danger than they should be because of the blunder in Iraq.

Blog on!

Wild Bill

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Two plus two makes five

Everywhere the media, Democrats and even a significant number of Republicans are challenging the latest administration onslaught against opponents of the Iraq War. The president and his gang characterize those who disagree with them as weak, appeasers, unpatriotic, stupid and worse. Since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Democrats and media questioners of the war have been beaten into reluctant retreat and submission, but this time it’s not working. Why?

There are dozens of theories but I’ll share mine - which is not unique. Simply stated, the president’s arguments on Iraq simply don’t make sense and more and more voters can no longer be swayed by Bush’s demands that he be trusted with the nation’s future. Beyond no WMD, no al Qaeda/Saddam connection, we’ll be welcomed with open arms, democracy can be imposed by us, and all of the June is busting out all over rhetoric about how good things really are in Baghdad, I won’t bore you with all of the propaganda that has proven to be false or far less than accurate.

The limp strand of spaghetti the president is currently pushing up the long steep hill boils down to: Iraq is the central stage for the world’s war on terror and we must stay the course. The course to be stayed is that we will stand down in Iraq as soon as the security forces of the Iraqi government are ready to take over.

The president proclaims that Iraqis must take over their own national security before the U.S. and its coalition allies can draw down their forces. That sounds impressive until an examination of what that simple declaration means is undertaken. The undeniable logic of Mr. Bush’s policy is that Iraq is now (sure mistakes were made but regardless of how it came about) the center of the civilized world’s battle against Islamic Fascism. Further, as soon as the less than stalwart forces of the horribly divided society and government of Iraq has enough physical clout at its disposal to stop the sectarian violence and turn its attention to the al Qaeda terrorists operating in the country, we’ll stand down.

The stated policy position of the president is that when the wobbly government in Baghdad is ready to face down Sunni and Shiite insurgents, the U.S. will stand down in the central battle ground in the war against terror and delegate the outcome of the central battle to save the United States and all civilization to the rag tag security forces that the weak Iraqi government and we are cobbling together in Baghdad. As soon as the Mahdi Army is nationalized, the world will be safe from international terrorism.

This is the logic that no longer moves America. Where’s the beef?

Had enough? Vote Democrat!

Blog on!

Wild Bill