Some months back, the U.S. Senate was in grave danger of completely breaking down. The Republicans were threatening to use the `Nuclear Option’ to overcome the Democrats use of filibusters to prevent votes on President Bush’s judicial nominees. The Democrats, in turn, were threatening to shut down the federal government if the rule change on filibusters was imposed.
This increasingly dire situation festered for months and only diminished when `The Gang of Fourteen’ stepped in and boxed ears on both sides of the aisle. Seven Republicans and seven Democrats – just fourteen percent of the body - stepped forward and made it clear that despite the clamoring of crazy conservatives on one side and loopy liberals on the other they would propose centrist ground rules that would determine how the Senate would deal with judicial nominees. At least for the time being, the senators on the fringes and the leaders had no choice but to abide by the will of `The Gang.’
Rarely has the country been so polarized. Corruption of the redistricting process has led to a situation in which the vast majority of seats in the House of Representatives are no longer competitive. Sophisticated analytic tools have made `safe’ redistricting of the Congressional districts and has led to great polarization within the legislative body. Instead of having to answer to relatively balanced groupings of citizens, most members of congress are forced to move hard right or left to satisfy the narrowed political spectrum that they now represent.
The legislative changes have driven most moderates out of the Congress and sent the level of discourse in Washington to new lows. This process has tended to highlight the relatively recent phenomenon of Red and Blue states. With the level of comity working its way toward little or none, what are moderates to do?
`The Gang of Fourteen’ has shown us the way. Those of us committed to the center must assert ourselves and become `The Gang of Fourteen Million.’ Surely, those of us not frothing at the mouth at the diatribes of el Rushbo, Sean, and Bill O’Reilly or Michael Moore and Al Franken must realize that to continue to entrust our government to representatives of either group without checks on their behavior from outside the loony bin is a recipe for certain disaster.
The excesses of the liberals during the run up to the darkest days of Vietnam is a perfect example of the left gone wild, and the culmination of the conservative era that we live in today has led to the disastrous situation in Iraq and to the inept response to Katrina that stares us in the face today.
The hubris of Lyndon Johnson whose guns and butter madness led to a massive failure in the welfare state, the horror that was Vietnam, and to the long term run of inflation that wiped out the savings of millions of Americans.
Now, the `starve the beast’ mentality of the right together with an overarching hubris among our leaders has led us into the trap of Iraq and to our inability to respond effectively to disasters such as Hurricane Katrina.
When I was young, I supported the policies and people that brought us the Johnson failures. I switched to the ideas being espoused by Ronald Reagan and actually voted for George W. Bush in his race against Al Gore. I was wrong. And despite admitting to errors that could disqualify me from pontificating – you know that’ll never happen - I’m convinced there is an answer.
`The Gang of Fourteen Million’ must be formed, and it begins with each of us. The policies of the hard right and extreme left are not the answers. That the left arose to save America during The Great Depression and it was answered by the messianic Reagan era means only one thing to me. While the rise of extreme politics, government, and economic policies may be needed in time of crisis, during normal, relatively prosperous times, only moderate leaders should have their hands on the levers of power.
As we consigned the wild eyed liberals to a life of wandering in the desert, we should now be purchasing one way tickets to the Sahara for those pushing us toward the brink of extreme right wing radicalism.
It is time for divided government. I will be supporting Democrats in 2006 not because I love them or believe in them but to punish the incumbents for their massive failures. If neither or either but not both Houses of Congress fall to the Democrats, I’ll support the Democratic nominee for president in’08, again as punishment for the failure of this administration. But I will vote for the Republican if both houses are controlled by the Democrats. I will never again give my votes to a single party in control of the two active branches of government, except in times of crisis such as The Great Depression.
Surely, out of 300 hundred million Americans there are fourteen million of us with a commitment to moderate government, and we must work to find one another and to proselytize from among thinking people who are disturbed by the situation in which we find ourselves. It’s not as if you or I must be the single founder; there are already fourteen of our kind in the Senate and literally millions who voted for them, most consciously. All we have to do during conversations – or rather shouting matches - in which our left and right wing brethren are foaming as others simply listen is to speak up and indicate that we don’t agree with extreme solutions or candidates and indicate how we intend to vote.
In many states, the shift of just a few percentage points would be enough to determine the winner of the presidency. Even in many `safe’ districts, just a few thousand votes could determine control of the House of representatives.
We can do it, and we better!
Whew! After this screed you must be tired. I am. I’m going on vacation for a week or so, and the blog and you will be the better for it.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Monday, September 12, 2005
Heck
Heck, Ah don’t get it. Bubba gets away with anything with the lingo. Heck, he’s got a lot redder neck’n mine. Ah mean heck, Ah went to Yale – and Harvard too - and so’d ma Daddy and lots o’ other kin. Now Ah axe ya straight out, what the heck’s meanin’ o’ heck?
Ah mean Bubba says it depends on the meaning of `is.’ But me, no, the media just assumes that `heck’ means `heck’. Pardner, in freshman English at Yale, Ah learned all about irony and sarcasm and lots o’ other big words, but let me say `heck’ and they stick me with `heck’.
If you cain’t see that the mainstream media’s pickin’ on us good ol’ country folk and funnin’ us cause we’re bumpkins, you cain’t see nothin’.
Heck, Ah say somethin’ bout raisin’ a iddy biddy bit o’ `heck’ in Nahlins a long time ago, and the New York Times and the Washington Post are all over me as not bein’ sensitive. Heck, Bubba’s never stopped raisin’ heck and all they can say is, “Looky how smart that good ol’ boy is.”
A’right, let’s git raht to it. When Ah said “Brownie, you’re doin’ a heck of a job,” why’d the Times just jump at thinkin’ I meant`heck?’ Ah’ll tell ya why, cause they’re backin’ Hilary and give her all the breaks when it comes to the lingo. If she said `heck’, heck they’d be sayin’, how bout that red state sensitivity?
Why couldn’ Ah a' meant ya ain’t cuttin’ the mustard, Brownie? They don’ know fer sure. But no, how’d they know that wasn’t irony or sarcasm or some such b.s. meanin’? Ah’ll tell you why; they just got it in fer folks 'at say `heck’ an’ you know who you are.
You know’d Ah meant heck. Don’ you lissen to them pin heads from New York City an’ Washington. D’ya evr hear how funny they say nuculeer? Who you gonna believe us’n or them’n?
U Betcha!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Ah mean Bubba says it depends on the meaning of `is.’ But me, no, the media just assumes that `heck’ means `heck’. Pardner, in freshman English at Yale, Ah learned all about irony and sarcasm and lots o’ other big words, but let me say `heck’ and they stick me with `heck’.
If you cain’t see that the mainstream media’s pickin’ on us good ol’ country folk and funnin’ us cause we’re bumpkins, you cain’t see nothin’.
Heck, Ah say somethin’ bout raisin’ a iddy biddy bit o’ `heck’ in Nahlins a long time ago, and the New York Times and the Washington Post are all over me as not bein’ sensitive. Heck, Bubba’s never stopped raisin’ heck and all they can say is, “Looky how smart that good ol’ boy is.”
A’right, let’s git raht to it. When Ah said “Brownie, you’re doin’ a heck of a job,” why’d the Times just jump at thinkin’ I meant`heck?’ Ah’ll tell ya why, cause they’re backin’ Hilary and give her all the breaks when it comes to the lingo. If she said `heck’, heck they’d be sayin’, how bout that red state sensitivity?
Why couldn’ Ah a' meant ya ain’t cuttin’ the mustard, Brownie? They don’ know fer sure. But no, how’d they know that wasn’t irony or sarcasm or some such b.s. meanin’? Ah’ll tell you why; they just got it in fer folks 'at say `heck’ an’ you know who you are.
You know’d Ah meant heck. Don’ you lissen to them pin heads from New York City an’ Washington. D’ya evr hear how funny they say nuculeer? Who you gonna believe us’n or them’n?
U Betcha!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Denial is Dereliction
While Mark Twain’s warning that the women and children should be locked up and guarded when the legislature is in session is humorous and not without some merit, democracies need their legislatures.
Last week, even while the parties were fighting and feuding, it was a matter of life and death that the Congress perform effectively and it did. It passed two emergency appropriations that will permit the emergency response and rebuilding of New Orleans to proceed. The Congressional role was simple. The members saw it. The Congress succeeded.
While the role of the various levels of government in catastrophes is less clear today than in the happy summer days prior to Katrina, there was virtual unanimity on the view that the federal government had to open its wallet and cover the cost of cleanup and reconstruction. The President asked for the money and the Congress appropriated it. Without that approval, the calamity that faces the nation on the Gulf Coast could have unraveled our entire society.
Does anyone out there disagree to this point? Excellent, I’ll proceed.
Al Qaeda tried to behead the government of the United States. The mad scheme of Osama bin Laden to destroy major symbols of America – The World Trade Center, The Pentagon, and either the White House or the Capitol – failed at a certain level as the president and the Congress survived, and the government was able to respond to the attack.
In retrospect, however, part of that failure by al Qaeda was based on the heroic response of only a few individuals on the plane that went down in Pennsylvania, the great good fortune that Mr. Bush was not in The White House, and the Congress was not gathered in one place at the moment of proposed impact.
When New Orleans was drowned, the Congress had to perform. What if a quorum of one or both Houses, due to terrorist or enemy nation attack, was not available to legislate? Fortunately, that was not the case with Katrina and those of us not working on the rescue and cleanup can continue to enjoy ourselves as the government lives.
But there are people, very bad people, dedicated to undermining the ability of the United States government to perform its duties, and September 11 should have been the ultimate wake up call, but it wasn’t.
In the four years since the attacks by al Qaeda, the federal government has made great strides in physical security of the Capital. Four years of construction assures that those attempting to destroy the Capitol, The White House, the Pentagon, and most other strategic and symbolic points in the Washington area will have a much more difficult time with their diabolical plans. Presidential succession is clear, and it appears that the Executive Branch takes its responsibilities seriously in this vital area.
The Congress, however, has not kept pace. While the buildings and grounds of the Legislative Branch have been hardened and a successful beheading of the government is far less likely, certainty can never be assured. The levees protecting New Orleans would stand up against a Category 3 storm, but there was no guarantee beyond that level and Katrina proved it to be the case. When the disaster occurred, the Congress was called upon to act, and it did.
But again in the case of one or both Houses not being able to legislate, what would happen if Washington or another city was laid as low as New Orleans and there was no way to constitute a working Congress? We just don’t know. And Congress has been derelict in not facing this question that was raised many times in the aftermath of 9/11.
So we had two disasters – 9/11 and Katrina – four years apart and an intact responsive government was required after both, and, by the grace of God, we had it.
Could there not be a category 5 attack on the government and the country? Of course, and we’ve been under warning for four years. But the Congress has diddled and failed to protect us. Denial of the possibility amounts to dereliction of duty. SHAME!
Congress must act to redress this failure!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Last week, even while the parties were fighting and feuding, it was a matter of life and death that the Congress perform effectively and it did. It passed two emergency appropriations that will permit the emergency response and rebuilding of New Orleans to proceed. The Congressional role was simple. The members saw it. The Congress succeeded.
While the role of the various levels of government in catastrophes is less clear today than in the happy summer days prior to Katrina, there was virtual unanimity on the view that the federal government had to open its wallet and cover the cost of cleanup and reconstruction. The President asked for the money and the Congress appropriated it. Without that approval, the calamity that faces the nation on the Gulf Coast could have unraveled our entire society.
Does anyone out there disagree to this point? Excellent, I’ll proceed.
Al Qaeda tried to behead the government of the United States. The mad scheme of Osama bin Laden to destroy major symbols of America – The World Trade Center, The Pentagon, and either the White House or the Capitol – failed at a certain level as the president and the Congress survived, and the government was able to respond to the attack.
In retrospect, however, part of that failure by al Qaeda was based on the heroic response of only a few individuals on the plane that went down in Pennsylvania, the great good fortune that Mr. Bush was not in The White House, and the Congress was not gathered in one place at the moment of proposed impact.
When New Orleans was drowned, the Congress had to perform. What if a quorum of one or both Houses, due to terrorist or enemy nation attack, was not available to legislate? Fortunately, that was not the case with Katrina and those of us not working on the rescue and cleanup can continue to enjoy ourselves as the government lives.
But there are people, very bad people, dedicated to undermining the ability of the United States government to perform its duties, and September 11 should have been the ultimate wake up call, but it wasn’t.
In the four years since the attacks by al Qaeda, the federal government has made great strides in physical security of the Capital. Four years of construction assures that those attempting to destroy the Capitol, The White House, the Pentagon, and most other strategic and symbolic points in the Washington area will have a much more difficult time with their diabolical plans. Presidential succession is clear, and it appears that the Executive Branch takes its responsibilities seriously in this vital area.
The Congress, however, has not kept pace. While the buildings and grounds of the Legislative Branch have been hardened and a successful beheading of the government is far less likely, certainty can never be assured. The levees protecting New Orleans would stand up against a Category 3 storm, but there was no guarantee beyond that level and Katrina proved it to be the case. When the disaster occurred, the Congress was called upon to act, and it did.
But again in the case of one or both Houses not being able to legislate, what would happen if Washington or another city was laid as low as New Orleans and there was no way to constitute a working Congress? We just don’t know. And Congress has been derelict in not facing this question that was raised many times in the aftermath of 9/11.
So we had two disasters – 9/11 and Katrina – four years apart and an intact responsive government was required after both, and, by the grace of God, we had it.
Could there not be a category 5 attack on the government and the country? Of course, and we’ve been under warning for four years. But the Congress has diddled and failed to protect us. Denial of the possibility amounts to dereliction of duty. SHAME!
Congress must act to redress this failure!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Friday, September 09, 2005
Losers!
Americans hate losing and love winning! I’ve had experience with both. In 1980, I lost a round robbin ping pong match with my sons – as I recall I wasn’t wearing proper foot wear, and, recently, I was nosed out in a golf match with my buddy, Lewis, in which I was suffering greatly from an injury that I didn’t claim because of my strength of character.
I ran for public office three times in the town to which I retired and won each time. I won’t say I was scared even a little in those races, but I have stopped shaking now that decade has passed since that first race.
This morning, I read with interest Richard Holbrooke’s expansive op-ed piece in the Washington Post. Mr. Holbrooke tears apart – effectively, in my judgment – the failure of the Bush Administration in the War on Terror. (I’ve linked the article so you can decide.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090801857.html
But Mr. Holbrooke is a fortunate man this morning. He is not – as Wolf Blitzer of CNN would echo, “NOT” – the United States Secretary of State. Had John F. Kerry won the White House, Mr. Holbrooke would have been the leading candidate to occupy the biggest office in Foggy Bottom.
So, regardless of how effectively President Kerry and Secretary Holbrooke were managing the debacle in Iraq and the War on Terror in their still new administration, the Secretary would not be penning long thoughtful articles on how to deal with Osama bin Laden; he’d been back filling on the government response to Katrina much as the real incumbent in State is doing.
Messrs. K & H can take some solace in having been found wanting at the polls. They’re not in charge of anything this morning.
My shoes really were the problem and I was a sport not to talk about my injury. But losing isn’t all bad; just ask John and Richard this morning. Whew!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
I ran for public office three times in the town to which I retired and won each time. I won’t say I was scared even a little in those races, but I have stopped shaking now that decade has passed since that first race.
This morning, I read with interest Richard Holbrooke’s expansive op-ed piece in the Washington Post. Mr. Holbrooke tears apart – effectively, in my judgment – the failure of the Bush Administration in the War on Terror. (I’ve linked the article so you can decide.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090801857.html
But Mr. Holbrooke is a fortunate man this morning. He is not – as Wolf Blitzer of CNN would echo, “NOT” – the United States Secretary of State. Had John F. Kerry won the White House, Mr. Holbrooke would have been the leading candidate to occupy the biggest office in Foggy Bottom.
So, regardless of how effectively President Kerry and Secretary Holbrooke were managing the debacle in Iraq and the War on Terror in their still new administration, the Secretary would not be penning long thoughtful articles on how to deal with Osama bin Laden; he’d been back filling on the government response to Katrina much as the real incumbent in State is doing.
Messrs. K & H can take some solace in having been found wanting at the polls. They’re not in charge of anything this morning.
My shoes really were the problem and I was a sport not to talk about my injury. But losing isn’t all bad; just ask John and Richard this morning. Whew!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Steady! Clear Eyes!
Bill’s crew is now being buffeted by spin machines bearing category 5 winds. From the left, we learn that a heartless president and his market based buddies simply don’t care about the poor, especially poor Blacks, and that they dithered as New Orleans went down for the third time.
From the right, we learn – I heard it myself on Rush Limbaugh and read several incoming screeds from right wing acquaintances – that it (I guess the whole disaster) is the fault of the liberals and the dependency they created on the welfare state. One Evangelical preacher claimed the whole thing was God’s retribution on New Orleans for being a place of sin and evil. The inference I drew was that the good folks who spent their money on the sin got away.
Whew! With spin gusts of this magnitude it is difficult to sort out what those of us rational liberals (as my buddy Frank Lewis labels us) ought to be seeing as the debris flies past.
For openers, no matter how much fog is pumped in from the right, the federal response was a day late and a dollar short. While George was cutting brush and ducking Cindy Sheehan and while Dick was fishing or ranching, their underlings in charge of emergency response were trying to figure out what to do when a storm that every man woman and child with cable TV knew was going to be a monster. Message to Dubya: you were in charge; your boys goofed; it was your watch; you better chop off some heads and pray that that will stanch your bleeding.
To the left: taking advantage of this will get you elected, but if you simply revert to form and don’t spend money on infrastructure – mega-billions - you’ll wind up where you’ve been for that last generation – in the electoral wilderness; another killer storm will come on your watch, guaranteed.
The human tragedy being played out before us is wrenching. But if we elect people to deal with that alone, we will repeat this scene again and again. Our heartland supplies the world through the Mississippi and in turn is resupplied from sources around the world via that great way.
We must spend the money to correct the bad policies of two generations to make the river viable and the ports along it, especially the facilities around New Orleans, must be part of this process.
We cannot ignore our national infrastructure. Our ports, bridges, and airports must be updated constantly.
Our emergency preparedness organizations cannot be used as places to dump political hacks.
We must do these things with a minimum of recrimination. For openers, let’s name the reconstructed levees in New Orleans for Ronald Reagan. This will serve two purposes: returning irony to government and establishing the end of such foolishness.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
.
From the right, we learn – I heard it myself on Rush Limbaugh and read several incoming screeds from right wing acquaintances – that it (I guess the whole disaster) is the fault of the liberals and the dependency they created on the welfare state. One Evangelical preacher claimed the whole thing was God’s retribution on New Orleans for being a place of sin and evil. The inference I drew was that the good folks who spent their money on the sin got away.
Whew! With spin gusts of this magnitude it is difficult to sort out what those of us rational liberals (as my buddy Frank Lewis labels us) ought to be seeing as the debris flies past.
For openers, no matter how much fog is pumped in from the right, the federal response was a day late and a dollar short. While George was cutting brush and ducking Cindy Sheehan and while Dick was fishing or ranching, their underlings in charge of emergency response were trying to figure out what to do when a storm that every man woman and child with cable TV knew was going to be a monster. Message to Dubya: you were in charge; your boys goofed; it was your watch; you better chop off some heads and pray that that will stanch your bleeding.
To the left: taking advantage of this will get you elected, but if you simply revert to form and don’t spend money on infrastructure – mega-billions - you’ll wind up where you’ve been for that last generation – in the electoral wilderness; another killer storm will come on your watch, guaranteed.
The human tragedy being played out before us is wrenching. But if we elect people to deal with that alone, we will repeat this scene again and again. Our heartland supplies the world through the Mississippi and in turn is resupplied from sources around the world via that great way.
We must spend the money to correct the bad policies of two generations to make the river viable and the ports along it, especially the facilities around New Orleans, must be part of this process.
We cannot ignore our national infrastructure. Our ports, bridges, and airports must be updated constantly.
Our emergency preparedness organizations cannot be used as places to dump political hacks.
We must do these things with a minimum of recrimination. For openers, let’s name the reconstructed levees in New Orleans for Ronald Reagan. This will serve two purposes: returning irony to government and establishing the end of such foolishness.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Starve the Beast - Continued
I have been blaming the conservative movement for starving the beast, for robbing Peter to pay Paul – but not really paying Paul at all, and I believe that I’m right in that assessment. But the major complaint must be reserved for those pandering – that’s the politicians who took the campaign contributions. By starving the beast, Wild Bill and all the rest of us had more money to spend, or to paraphrase our great leader, `Who knows how to better spend your money, you or bunch of bureaucrats in Washington?”
The conservatives have sung this siren song of cutting our taxes and getting the `deadbeats' back to work for so long that it is second nature for many to believe it. I’m not going to argue for carrying deadbeats – if I could really identify them other than by resorting to stereotypes – and that’s where they get us. Cutting taxes and spending in almost all areas are the culprits, and the vast majority of us are culpable with the panderers.
Your government – and mine, our presidents and congress have known that New Orleans faced the fate that befell it last week for well over a generation and they chose to put off the need to fundamentally address the issue, praying that the calamity would not occur on their watch. For once, I won’t lay even the lion’s share of the blame on George W. Bush. For a century, federal action, inaction, and policy initiatives in the Mississippi Valley, including the Missouri and Ohio extensions, have been directed in ways that made Katrina’s wrath inevitable.
But it is far more than that. It is in underfunding meat inspection, and border security, and national parks, and veterans care, and a thousand and one other programs not even associated with those `deadbeats’ that we postpone crises in many areas to a day of reckoning – none nearly so dramatic as Katrina, however.
The conservative mantra is that if you cut taxes and spending, the economy will grow and make us rich. Until Katrina made it obvious that that is not necessarily true, it was difficult to point to a real example that even Wild Bill could understand as a counter. But by not investing a reasonable amount in correcting what man has done to the Mississippi all that our so called leaders could do was pray that the inevitable would be postponed until they qualified for their pensions and Medals of Freedom. For more than a generation, the problems in the Mississippi had become obvious to more and more observers, and yet the conservative movement demanded cuts in taxes and spending. The economy will grow us out of our problems.
A reasonable investment in river management made under Saint Ronald Reagan and carried through under Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 might well have mitigated the disaster that we face, but now we must invest an unknown multiplier of those sums to correct a generation of neglect. Thousands of lives and untold billions of dollars in lost gross national product and federal tax receipts will result from Katrina.
But it was up to a single storm to make obvious that we were living on the cheap, and there are more shocks to come. Gasoline prices spiked. The produce of the heartland from Montana to Pennsylvania must be transported but there is no easy method besides the river. The products destined for up river from New Orleans lays stalled out to sea. Will the loss in federal revenue from all these transactions ever be made up?
`Pay me now or pay me later.’ We have starved the beast, and now we must pay. I plead guilty for my share in the debacle.
Hold your president, your senators and you representative in Congress accountable!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
The conservatives have sung this siren song of cutting our taxes and getting the `deadbeats' back to work for so long that it is second nature for many to believe it. I’m not going to argue for carrying deadbeats – if I could really identify them other than by resorting to stereotypes – and that’s where they get us. Cutting taxes and spending in almost all areas are the culprits, and the vast majority of us are culpable with the panderers.
Your government – and mine, our presidents and congress have known that New Orleans faced the fate that befell it last week for well over a generation and they chose to put off the need to fundamentally address the issue, praying that the calamity would not occur on their watch. For once, I won’t lay even the lion’s share of the blame on George W. Bush. For a century, federal action, inaction, and policy initiatives in the Mississippi Valley, including the Missouri and Ohio extensions, have been directed in ways that made Katrina’s wrath inevitable.
But it is far more than that. It is in underfunding meat inspection, and border security, and national parks, and veterans care, and a thousand and one other programs not even associated with those `deadbeats’ that we postpone crises in many areas to a day of reckoning – none nearly so dramatic as Katrina, however.
The conservative mantra is that if you cut taxes and spending, the economy will grow and make us rich. Until Katrina made it obvious that that is not necessarily true, it was difficult to point to a real example that even Wild Bill could understand as a counter. But by not investing a reasonable amount in correcting what man has done to the Mississippi all that our so called leaders could do was pray that the inevitable would be postponed until they qualified for their pensions and Medals of Freedom. For more than a generation, the problems in the Mississippi had become obvious to more and more observers, and yet the conservative movement demanded cuts in taxes and spending. The economy will grow us out of our problems.
A reasonable investment in river management made under Saint Ronald Reagan and carried through under Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43 might well have mitigated the disaster that we face, but now we must invest an unknown multiplier of those sums to correct a generation of neglect. Thousands of lives and untold billions of dollars in lost gross national product and federal tax receipts will result from Katrina.
But it was up to a single storm to make obvious that we were living on the cheap, and there are more shocks to come. Gasoline prices spiked. The produce of the heartland from Montana to Pennsylvania must be transported but there is no easy method besides the river. The products destined for up river from New Orleans lays stalled out to sea. Will the loss in federal revenue from all these transactions ever be made up?
`Pay me now or pay me later.’ We have starved the beast, and now we must pay. I plead guilty for my share in the debacle.
Hold your president, your senators and you representative in Congress accountable!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Monday, September 05, 2005
Buck? What Buck?
Two generations ago, one man was forced to make vital decisions greater than any person in his position had ever faced. He decided that the atomic bomb would be dropped on Japan, and he decided that the U.S. would lead a coalition of armed forces to defend South Korea against an attack from its neighbor. He decided the latter as part of a drive to assert the power of The United Nations.
Harry Truman made those decisions and stood by them. Every day, those two decisions are dissected in a hundred coffee shops, a thousand college classrooms and in numberless bars. Boldly, on President Truman’s desk, a small plaque proclaimed, “The Buck Stops Here.” Every day he is damned to Hell and praised to high Heaven for those choices.
Today, newspapers all over the world are reporting on the great lengths that the White House of George W. Bush is going to churn out disinformation describing how the failure of government to respond to the calamity that faces us in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama is the primary responsibility of the three states and the many local governments most impacted by Hurricane Katrina and not that of the federal government. How low can we go? Pretty damned far down I’d say. “Can you hear me down there?”
Why do we have a federal emergency management function? To me it’s simple; in the first instance to bolster the state and local response to crises that are too large for them to effectively manage without additional resources from outside and in the second to stand in when a calamity completely overwhelms the states and local entities.
Katrina was known to be a dangerous storm many days before it struck the Gulf Coast; it killed eleven people in Florida. It was known to be developing into a killer storm several days before it struck. That it would strike the Gulf Coast at about its point of attack was clear. The states and local governments warned their citizens to evacuate. (We know now that evacuation of New Orleans was a physical impossibility.)
The states (Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama) and the localities most impacted mobilized and threw all of their resources into the breach – minus those National Guard troops and equipment in Iraq. The federal government was monitoring and preparing during this phase of the situation.
The storm struck. The rest is history. The states and locals were overwhelmed. The federal response was late and insufficient.
The states and locals are saying they were completely overwhelmed by the magnitude of the storm. It is self evident that they are correct in this assessment.
The White House is moving Heaven and Earth to shift blame from George W. Bush to the States and locals.
Buck? What Buck?
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Harry Truman made those decisions and stood by them. Every day, those two decisions are dissected in a hundred coffee shops, a thousand college classrooms and in numberless bars. Boldly, on President Truman’s desk, a small plaque proclaimed, “The Buck Stops Here.” Every day he is damned to Hell and praised to high Heaven for those choices.
Today, newspapers all over the world are reporting on the great lengths that the White House of George W. Bush is going to churn out disinformation describing how the failure of government to respond to the calamity that faces us in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama is the primary responsibility of the three states and the many local governments most impacted by Hurricane Katrina and not that of the federal government. How low can we go? Pretty damned far down I’d say. “Can you hear me down there?”
Why do we have a federal emergency management function? To me it’s simple; in the first instance to bolster the state and local response to crises that are too large for them to effectively manage without additional resources from outside and in the second to stand in when a calamity completely overwhelms the states and local entities.
Katrina was known to be a dangerous storm many days before it struck the Gulf Coast; it killed eleven people in Florida. It was known to be developing into a killer storm several days before it struck. That it would strike the Gulf Coast at about its point of attack was clear. The states and local governments warned their citizens to evacuate. (We know now that evacuation of New Orleans was a physical impossibility.)
The states (Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama) and the localities most impacted mobilized and threw all of their resources into the breach – minus those National Guard troops and equipment in Iraq. The federal government was monitoring and preparing during this phase of the situation.
The storm struck. The rest is history. The states and locals were overwhelmed. The federal response was late and insufficient.
The states and locals are saying they were completely overwhelmed by the magnitude of the storm. It is self evident that they are correct in this assessment.
The White House is moving Heaven and Earth to shift blame from George W. Bush to the States and locals.
Buck? What Buck?
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Starve the Beast
For several decades, it has been the conservative mantra to “starve the beast.” Cutting taxes and entitlement programs are, according to the believers, the basis for America’s prosperity and power.
But for old feds who dealt with disasters of the past, it’s sad to see the sorry state of governmental response to Katrina. I will not slam the leaders of Homeland Security or FEMA; their day on the griddle will come soon enough.
My complaint today is with the conservative movement that consciously moved to “starve the beast.” It is very difficult to say this is how we used to do it when we never faced a calamity of anywhere near the magnitude of Katrina. But I’ll try.
The conservatives want to remove the feed bag from the old ox and let private charity deal with as much of the problem facing us as possible. I don’t find that an unworthy goal, but let’s look at recent situations. Based on a visit to the website of the Red Cross, it appears that about $558 million was donated to that institution for the Tsunami last year - a lot of money. The Salvation Army’s site indicates that Americans have already donated more than $32 million to aid the victims of Katrina as of this morning (Sunday, September 4, 2005.) This too is a great outpouring.
Let’s just assume that private donations from around the world to all of the charities committed to helping the victims of Katrina quadruple those for the tsunami and that Salvation Army collections for Katrina increase tenfold from those now in the coffers. With all wild speculation, we might assume that $5 billion in private charity will be collected and expended on this disaster. That would be an amazing outpouring of money and empathy.
But let’s step back and note that insurance losses are expected to exceed $25 billion, and that the total losses are likely to exceed $100 billion. The catastrophe makes all these payments pale in comparison with the need. The federal government passed an emergency appropriation of $10.5 billion yesterday. Based on my reading of some of the provisions, it will be some time before much of that aid buys food and blankets for individuals.
When FEMA was set up in the 1970s, it was able to tap the entitlement monies of the grant making federal agencies to deal with the disaster facing the nation. Thus, HUD, HHS (then HEW), Labor, and the rest were dunned and expected to come up with money – right now - from their unexpended and uncommitted grant program monies.
Today, the emaciated beast has almost no money in any of these pockets and FEMA and Homeland Security look like a bunch of incompetent braying jackasses.
Thank goodness, the emergency appropriation is but a down payment on the great loss. Unfortunately, the money must still trickle down to state and local governments and ultimately to individual victims through the elaborate grant making process. This will be short circuited to the greatest extent possible, but relief and recovery will take time – much time.
My points are that intentionally “starving the beast” has made response far slower than it would have been and, far more important, that private donations, however great, can never displace government as the principal mitigator of true calamities.
The starved beast of government is shown for all its shortcomings as it responds to Katrina. Citizens who see a role for government in the life of the nation must demand that irresponsible tax cuts CEASE! Government by pork – as in the recent highway bill – may get men and women reelected to Congress but ultimately undermines the government’s ability to perform in emergency situations.
The people must demand more of their government than tax cuts for the rich and no joint sacrifice in the face of war and disaster. Your president, your two senators, and your representative are dancing. Will you demand that they stand and deliver?
Blog on!
Wild Bill
But for old feds who dealt with disasters of the past, it’s sad to see the sorry state of governmental response to Katrina. I will not slam the leaders of Homeland Security or FEMA; their day on the griddle will come soon enough.
My complaint today is with the conservative movement that consciously moved to “starve the beast.” It is very difficult to say this is how we used to do it when we never faced a calamity of anywhere near the magnitude of Katrina. But I’ll try.
The conservatives want to remove the feed bag from the old ox and let private charity deal with as much of the problem facing us as possible. I don’t find that an unworthy goal, but let’s look at recent situations. Based on a visit to the website of the Red Cross, it appears that about $558 million was donated to that institution for the Tsunami last year - a lot of money. The Salvation Army’s site indicates that Americans have already donated more than $32 million to aid the victims of Katrina as of this morning (Sunday, September 4, 2005.) This too is a great outpouring.
Let’s just assume that private donations from around the world to all of the charities committed to helping the victims of Katrina quadruple those for the tsunami and that Salvation Army collections for Katrina increase tenfold from those now in the coffers. With all wild speculation, we might assume that $5 billion in private charity will be collected and expended on this disaster. That would be an amazing outpouring of money and empathy.
But let’s step back and note that insurance losses are expected to exceed $25 billion, and that the total losses are likely to exceed $100 billion. The catastrophe makes all these payments pale in comparison with the need. The federal government passed an emergency appropriation of $10.5 billion yesterday. Based on my reading of some of the provisions, it will be some time before much of that aid buys food and blankets for individuals.
When FEMA was set up in the 1970s, it was able to tap the entitlement monies of the grant making federal agencies to deal with the disaster facing the nation. Thus, HUD, HHS (then HEW), Labor, and the rest were dunned and expected to come up with money – right now - from their unexpended and uncommitted grant program monies.
Today, the emaciated beast has almost no money in any of these pockets and FEMA and Homeland Security look like a bunch of incompetent braying jackasses.
Thank goodness, the emergency appropriation is but a down payment on the great loss. Unfortunately, the money must still trickle down to state and local governments and ultimately to individual victims through the elaborate grant making process. This will be short circuited to the greatest extent possible, but relief and recovery will take time – much time.
My points are that intentionally “starving the beast” has made response far slower than it would have been and, far more important, that private donations, however great, can never displace government as the principal mitigator of true calamities.
The starved beast of government is shown for all its shortcomings as it responds to Katrina. Citizens who see a role for government in the life of the nation must demand that irresponsible tax cuts CEASE! Government by pork – as in the recent highway bill – may get men and women reelected to Congress but ultimately undermines the government’s ability to perform in emergency situations.
The people must demand more of their government than tax cuts for the rich and no joint sacrifice in the face of war and disaster. Your president, your two senators, and your representative are dancing. Will you demand that they stand and deliver?
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Saturday, September 03, 2005
The Party's Over
Today's blog posting is the most important of Wild Bill's career. It is not written by him but by the editors of the New York Times. As my pal El Rushbo proclaims daily, the Republicans are the party of ideas and the Democrats are bankrupt. Sadly for Rush, the bubble burst when the levees failed. Attached is today's lead editorial in The Times. It states the case perfectly. The excesses of the party of ideas are exposed nakedly before us. "Starve the beast" will no longer do. When you undermine government's ability to respond, you undermine the security of the nation.
I quoted a Republican yesterday: "Government's the enemy until you need a friend." Our emaciated friend wasn't up to the task and the society is suffering.
Government's ability to protect us must be restored. Be gone George! Crawl back into your hole Rush!
Here it is in a nutshell: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/03/opinion/03sat1.html
Blog on!
Wild Bill
I quoted a Republican yesterday: "Government's the enemy until you need a friend." Our emaciated friend wasn't up to the task and the society is suffering.
Government's ability to protect us must be restored. Be gone George! Crawl back into your hole Rush!
Here it is in a nutshell: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/03/opinion/03sat1.html
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Friday, September 02, 2005
Give Him an Extra Buck
In an early scene in Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein, the brilliant doctor demonstrates for adoring medical students his wizardry in pain suppression by describing his sure fire methods and then kicking his subject in the testicles. As they cart the writhing old man off on a gurney, Frankenstein, in a muttered aside, orders, “Give him and extra buck.”
America has not suffered pain for a long time. The Great Depression is but the subject of anecdotes of semi-senile seniors like Wild Bill. World War II has been made glamorous by those glorifying the `Greatest Generation’ and who have transformed the pain and fear of the times into glory. Vietnam is invoked but never analyzed.
But America is in pain today, and it is a phenomenon that we are ill equipped to face. Far away, our sons and daughters are facing deadly danger from an almost invisible enemy. Here at home, Louisiana and Mississippi are confronting a natural disaster greater than any in living memory, probably greater than any in our history as a nation.
It is our great misfortune that these two events are more than a little related. Thousands of members of the National Guard from the states most impacted by Hurricane Katrina who would ordinarily be part of the cleanup and solution are, instead, victims of the natural disaster. Not only are they unable to lend their muscle and expertise to mitigating the problems, their families are less able to cope the situation with their loved ones being in harms way on the other side of the globe.
The human catastrophe on the American Gulf Coast is of epic proportions with hundreds if not thousands dead and hundreds of thousands displaced. The closing of the Port of Southern Louisiana, the largest port in the U.S. and the fifth largest in the world was quickly felt around the country when gasoline prices jumped off the charts. All of these possibilities have been studied for years. THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A SURPISE TO THE ADMINISTRATION!
It appears that the oil producing facilities and port infrastructure in the Gulf region are not beyond repair and that the port will be ale to be saved and put back in operation – after heroic effort and the passage of much time. Sadly, the process will be slowed by the absence of those who make the system work and who find themselves disbursed to the four winds by the flooding and destruction.
America’s great heartland production is stuck waiting for the port to reopen, and the supplies necessary to run the states above the Delta sit offshore.
Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush presided over a government and country that has worked overtime to undue the structures put in place by administrations from the early nineteen thirties until the late seventies that gave government a great role in solving the calamities that had marred these earlier periods.
The politics of `me’ based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand where everyman is an island has come to reign. Government is just a boatload of bureaucrats looking to pick the pockets of honest folks and to bask in luxury while the genius of the market languishes.
In today’s Washington Post there were two columns that inspired this posting. E.J. Dionne, Jr. quotes former Maine Senator and Defense Secretary William Cohen who pithily put his finger on the problem. “Government is the enemy until you need a friend.” David Ignatius invokes the late Eric Sevareid view that civilization is only about seven meals away from anarchy. (Dionne’s column is linked at the end of this posting. I couldn’t attach Ignatius’s column but recommend that you read it on line. It is entitled: Time to Mend the Safety Net.)
For a generation, America has drifted away from Europe in its ideas of what a government should be doing. Our leaders have smiled knowingly that our course toward the selfishness of bigger houses and more wasteful engines was far superior to the cozy dwellings and motor bikes of “Old Europe.” We know that materialism is better than the semi-socialist schemes of Denmark and Holland.
But now we are facing joint calamities made worse by starving government budgets. Ignatius points out that it is not the `thousand points of light’ of Bush 41 that the man standing on the roof of the house surrounded by flood water is looking for to save him. It is the Coast Guard, the police, or the National Guard soldier at the helm of a rescue boat that he is seeking.
It is government – federal, state and local – that must put the Mississippi River and the lives of our dispirited citizens back together. The Red Cross and the Salvation Army can provide hot meals and shelter in the short term. But it is government – fueled by us all – that must restore lives and guide the restoration of the heartland. These governments have been emasculated and laughed at by a generation of me firsters, and it is not nearly well enough equipped to do the job as it should be.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/01/AR2005090102032.html
Blog on!
Wild Bill
America has not suffered pain for a long time. The Great Depression is but the subject of anecdotes of semi-senile seniors like Wild Bill. World War II has been made glamorous by those glorifying the `Greatest Generation’ and who have transformed the pain and fear of the times into glory. Vietnam is invoked but never analyzed.
But America is in pain today, and it is a phenomenon that we are ill equipped to face. Far away, our sons and daughters are facing deadly danger from an almost invisible enemy. Here at home, Louisiana and Mississippi are confronting a natural disaster greater than any in living memory, probably greater than any in our history as a nation.
It is our great misfortune that these two events are more than a little related. Thousands of members of the National Guard from the states most impacted by Hurricane Katrina who would ordinarily be part of the cleanup and solution are, instead, victims of the natural disaster. Not only are they unable to lend their muscle and expertise to mitigating the problems, their families are less able to cope the situation with their loved ones being in harms way on the other side of the globe.
The human catastrophe on the American Gulf Coast is of epic proportions with hundreds if not thousands dead and hundreds of thousands displaced. The closing of the Port of Southern Louisiana, the largest port in the U.S. and the fifth largest in the world was quickly felt around the country when gasoline prices jumped off the charts. All of these possibilities have been studied for years. THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A SURPISE TO THE ADMINISTRATION!
It appears that the oil producing facilities and port infrastructure in the Gulf region are not beyond repair and that the port will be ale to be saved and put back in operation – after heroic effort and the passage of much time. Sadly, the process will be slowed by the absence of those who make the system work and who find themselves disbursed to the four winds by the flooding and destruction.
America’s great heartland production is stuck waiting for the port to reopen, and the supplies necessary to run the states above the Delta sit offshore.
Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush presided over a government and country that has worked overtime to undue the structures put in place by administrations from the early nineteen thirties until the late seventies that gave government a great role in solving the calamities that had marred these earlier periods.
The politics of `me’ based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand where everyman is an island has come to reign. Government is just a boatload of bureaucrats looking to pick the pockets of honest folks and to bask in luxury while the genius of the market languishes.
In today’s Washington Post there were two columns that inspired this posting. E.J. Dionne, Jr. quotes former Maine Senator and Defense Secretary William Cohen who pithily put his finger on the problem. “Government is the enemy until you need a friend.” David Ignatius invokes the late Eric Sevareid view that civilization is only about seven meals away from anarchy. (Dionne’s column is linked at the end of this posting. I couldn’t attach Ignatius’s column but recommend that you read it on line. It is entitled: Time to Mend the Safety Net.)
For a generation, America has drifted away from Europe in its ideas of what a government should be doing. Our leaders have smiled knowingly that our course toward the selfishness of bigger houses and more wasteful engines was far superior to the cozy dwellings and motor bikes of “Old Europe.” We know that materialism is better than the semi-socialist schemes of Denmark and Holland.
But now we are facing joint calamities made worse by starving government budgets. Ignatius points out that it is not the `thousand points of light’ of Bush 41 that the man standing on the roof of the house surrounded by flood water is looking for to save him. It is the Coast Guard, the police, or the National Guard soldier at the helm of a rescue boat that he is seeking.
It is government – federal, state and local – that must put the Mississippi River and the lives of our dispirited citizens back together. The Red Cross and the Salvation Army can provide hot meals and shelter in the short term. But it is government – fueled by us all – that must restore lives and guide the restoration of the heartland. These governments have been emasculated and laughed at by a generation of me firsters, and it is not nearly well enough equipped to do the job as it should be.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/01/AR2005090102032.html
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Look for the Silver Lining
Tis an ill wind that blows no good and at least one person on the planet has found the gentle breezes of Katrina irresistible. President Bush is cutting short his vacation in Crawford to return to Washington so that he can direct the federal response to the hurricane’s damage.
The fact that the press will have to pull up stakes and leave Cindy Sheehan and her companions behind in the hot Texas sun had nothing to do with the presidential decision to vamoose.
While Cindy can pack up and track her elusive quarry to the nation’s capital, there her simple story will have to compete with many others for the attention of the media. The isolation of Crawford was perfect for Cindy and her anti-Iraq War friends.
The president, who undoubtedly feels the pain of his constituents along the Gulf Coast, almost surely issued a huge, “Whew!” when the opportunity arose to return to the White House. His performance this summer and in the coming months gives new meaning to the term `Washington Insider.’
Blog on!
Wild Bill
The fact that the press will have to pull up stakes and leave Cindy Sheehan and her companions behind in the hot Texas sun had nothing to do with the presidential decision to vamoose.
While Cindy can pack up and track her elusive quarry to the nation’s capital, there her simple story will have to compete with many others for the attention of the media. The isolation of Crawford was perfect for Cindy and her anti-Iraq War friends.
The president, who undoubtedly feels the pain of his constituents along the Gulf Coast, almost surely issued a huge, “Whew!” when the opportunity arose to return to the White House. His performance this summer and in the coming months gives new meaning to the term `Washington Insider.’
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Monday, August 29, 2005
C'est La Vie
I’m done! I finished writing my novel about the internment of the ethnic Japanese during World War II. When I typed the last sentence I was overjoyed, because for more than two years several hours of almost every day was spent working on the beast.
My first novel, A Tattered Coat Upon A Stick, was a joy to compose as I was proving to myself that I could do it, that I was, at least in some sense, a novelist. I looked forward to creating another story to demonstrate that I wasn’t a one trick pony and, of course, to make tons of money and reap the glory that goes with being a successful novelist.
It quickly became obvious that agents and publishers are not quite as interested in superannuated novelists as they are first timers straight from campuses. Not one person in the industry would read even a single chapter, not a page, not a paragraph, not a line, a sentence, even a word. How could they not even consider one of the great books of the new century? Easy!
Undeterred - there is some question about the sanity of the author here – I began another story. This time too, the words flowed and the novel took shape. Au Revoir, L’Acadie emerged after more than two years of hard work, and I was satisfied.
In the meantime, new technology came along, and I self published the first novel. I was greatly heartened when it sold almost a thousand copies and I made a profit sufficient to throw a pizza party for my grandchildren.
Heartened by my great financial success, I prepared to forgive the literary agents and publishers and magnanimously offered them a second chance to discover the next Ernest Hemingway. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water…
Quite by chance, I learned of Publish America, a company that actually produces books by people like Wild Bill, not mid-listers but rather off the bottom of the chart performers. They accepted the document and the rest is history – not important history but a record of someone having faith in my work. This book sells at about the same pace as the first, so another pizza party was in order and was enjoyed by all.
Truly, I was on a roll. Royalties are pouring in and it appears that Pizza Hut will be hosting an annual event for the kiddies. I am a professional novelist. While my hourly rate of return is a little below the U.S. minimum wage - by a factor of at least twenty, still I’m paid. Is it possible that I could sue somebody for back wages? In thinking about it, the target would be me, so litigiousness should probably be stifled.
After these successes, I still felt that the literary establishment did not appreciate what was there right before their eyes and decided to write still another spellbinder. By this time, I had an M.O. I had my story – its’ about the internment of the Japanese
The book chronicles the war time experience of an army lawyer who is caught up in the internment. Most of the stories about this dark event have been told from the perspective of the victims. Their sad tales have inspired many books and will motivate writers far into the future, but I thought that someone should describe what happened to those charged with implementing Executive Order 9066 that they believed was immoral and illegal.
Things are looking up, the first agent contacted agreed to consider it - CONSIDER. While it may get little more attention than its predecessors, it has done better than them already.
The purpose of this posting is twofold. I can’t tell you how exhausting writing this third novel was. The relief felt when the last draft was finished was almost beyond description – a ridiculous admission from a professional writer. I never wanted to see the document again. While I knew that was silly, that’s how I felt. I never wanted to face another word processor.
I played a round of golf the following morning, never feeling freer of guilt for not having plugged away at the novel. The relief was amazing.
The second day without obligation, I hung around the house. The editor kept looking at me in a strange manner. "What are you doing in the kitchen? Get down in your hole where you belong!"
After a week something big dawned on me, I was bored and had nothing to do. What to do? A writer writes, so I descended into the pit and confronted the key board. The Blog! That’s it, the Blog. Instead of once a week as I’d been Doing as the book took shape, the Blog became a several times per week event again.
But it wasn’t enough. An old man has to putter; some of them garden. That was my favorite pastime for years, but now my little patch is but twenty by twenty, half of that a brick patio. I’m not handy; my lack of talent with tools is the stuff of family legends. I play golf once a week and have no desire to pick up the pace.
What to do? What could Wild Bill do to keep the synapses firing? Why, write a novel! Good God, no, not another three year commitment! But it’s all I know – all I can do. After ten Blog postings slamming George Bush, I tired of picking on him – at least on a daily basis. Besides, there is a great need to be met. If those pizza parties are to be the success I dream there must be an infusion of royalties. You can’t expect grandchildren to praise dear old dead Grampa if they can’t have coke with their slices, and they are getting restless having to order only plain cheese toppings.
So for the sake of the kiddies, I must get down to work. For the last couple of days, I’ve been tossing around some ideas. I’m dreaming again; maybe there could be ice cream after the pizza and coke.
More important, the editor wants me out of the kitchen.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
My first novel, A Tattered Coat Upon A Stick, was a joy to compose as I was proving to myself that I could do it, that I was, at least in some sense, a novelist. I looked forward to creating another story to demonstrate that I wasn’t a one trick pony and, of course, to make tons of money and reap the glory that goes with being a successful novelist.
It quickly became obvious that agents and publishers are not quite as interested in superannuated novelists as they are first timers straight from campuses. Not one person in the industry would read even a single chapter, not a page, not a paragraph, not a line, a sentence, even a word. How could they not even consider one of the great books of the new century? Easy!
Undeterred - there is some question about the sanity of the author here – I began another story. This time too, the words flowed and the novel took shape. Au Revoir, L’Acadie emerged after more than two years of hard work, and I was satisfied.
In the meantime, new technology came along, and I self published the first novel. I was greatly heartened when it sold almost a thousand copies and I made a profit sufficient to throw a pizza party for my grandchildren.
Heartened by my great financial success, I prepared to forgive the literary agents and publishers and magnanimously offered them a second chance to discover the next Ernest Hemingway. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water…
Quite by chance, I learned of Publish America, a company that actually produces books by people like Wild Bill, not mid-listers but rather off the bottom of the chart performers. They accepted the document and the rest is history – not important history but a record of someone having faith in my work. This book sells at about the same pace as the first, so another pizza party was in order and was enjoyed by all.
Truly, I was on a roll. Royalties are pouring in and it appears that Pizza Hut will be hosting an annual event for the kiddies. I am a professional novelist. While my hourly rate of return is a little below the U.S. minimum wage - by a factor of at least twenty, still I’m paid. Is it possible that I could sue somebody for back wages? In thinking about it, the target would be me, so litigiousness should probably be stifled.
After these successes, I still felt that the literary establishment did not appreciate what was there right before their eyes and decided to write still another spellbinder. By this time, I had an M.O. I had my story – its’ about the internment of the Japanese
The book chronicles the war time experience of an army lawyer who is caught up in the internment. Most of the stories about this dark event have been told from the perspective of the victims. Their sad tales have inspired many books and will motivate writers far into the future, but I thought that someone should describe what happened to those charged with implementing Executive Order 9066 that they believed was immoral and illegal.
Things are looking up, the first agent contacted agreed to consider it - CONSIDER. While it may get little more attention than its predecessors, it has done better than them already.
The purpose of this posting is twofold. I can’t tell you how exhausting writing this third novel was. The relief felt when the last draft was finished was almost beyond description – a ridiculous admission from a professional writer. I never wanted to see the document again. While I knew that was silly, that’s how I felt. I never wanted to face another word processor.
I played a round of golf the following morning, never feeling freer of guilt for not having plugged away at the novel. The relief was amazing.
The second day without obligation, I hung around the house. The editor kept looking at me in a strange manner. "What are you doing in the kitchen? Get down in your hole where you belong!"
After a week something big dawned on me, I was bored and had nothing to do. What to do? A writer writes, so I descended into the pit and confronted the key board. The Blog! That’s it, the Blog. Instead of once a week as I’d been Doing as the book took shape, the Blog became a several times per week event again.
But it wasn’t enough. An old man has to putter; some of them garden. That was my favorite pastime for years, but now my little patch is but twenty by twenty, half of that a brick patio. I’m not handy; my lack of talent with tools is the stuff of family legends. I play golf once a week and have no desire to pick up the pace.
What to do? What could Wild Bill do to keep the synapses firing? Why, write a novel! Good God, no, not another three year commitment! But it’s all I know – all I can do. After ten Blog postings slamming George Bush, I tired of picking on him – at least on a daily basis. Besides, there is a great need to be met. If those pizza parties are to be the success I dream there must be an infusion of royalties. You can’t expect grandchildren to praise dear old dead Grampa if they can’t have coke with their slices, and they are getting restless having to order only plain cheese toppings.
So for the sake of the kiddies, I must get down to work. For the last couple of days, I’ve been tossing around some ideas. I’m dreaming again; maybe there could be ice cream after the pizza and coke.
More important, the editor wants me out of the kitchen.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Light or Darkness
For a generation, American society has been under pressure from the right. Frankly, there was good reason for the movement toward values and conservatism, but it has gone too far and progressives and moderates must push back.
At least since the 1920s, America has been the symbol for modernity in the world. Rights for women, minorities, and children have been revolutionized, and we are a beacon through the world for moving toward humaneness and fairness. Our environmental movement throughout the period was among the most intelligent and forward looking in the world.
The wars of the twentieth century brought great change, much of it enlightened but, sadly, much of value was lost. Clearly needed changes in the rights of women naturally led to unintended results, and in the latter decades of the last century undesirable phenomena such as single motherhood arose.
The long clash between capitalism and communism that ended with the demise of the Soviet Union had within it the seeds of problems for America and its allies. In retrospect, Vietnam which our government – over five presidencies – believed to be an integral battle in the Cold War proved to be an unimportant way station in that conflict but one which created many of our present problems. While America did not prevail in Vietnam, in no way did that slow our victory in the greater clash.
From World War I until the turning point in public opinion against the conflict in Vietnam, the Democratic Party was the source of support for an aggressive and forward looking foreign policy. The Republicans beginning with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge’s pressure on President Wilson in the years following the Great War, through Martin, Barton and Fish leading up to World War II, and on into the early years of the Cold War was the party of isolation.
But, (as has been described by many writers and thinkers – and most especially for me by Andrew Bacevich’s The New American Militarism) political and social forces that had not been clearly recognized before Vietnam began to be asserted. The left wing of the Democratic Party no longer held and, in fact, revolted against the war and led the peace movement in the country. Excesses, proudly proclaimed by one side and exploited and highlighted by those reacting against them led to a major resurge of the conservatives and the values oriented segments in American society.
The vast majority of people in the middle of the political spectrum gradually shifted from progressive supporters of policies long espoused by Democrats to the policies and values of Republicans. Most observers point to Ronald Reagan as the principal beacon in this movement, but I think signs of it were clear in the election of Richard Nixon in 1968.
With this great reaction against Vietnam, powerful forces in the most conservative wing of the Republican Party led the way in this values oriented society. Most prominent in domestic politics were the Evangelical Christians. In looking outward, the Neoconservatives, over time, came to assert themselves most effectively.
The success of these elements in American society today is obvious and overwhelming. They have cleansed American government of liberalism and stand today in charge of both the Executive and Legislative Branches. While loath to admit it, they also control the Supreme Court and most other federal courts.
They are in a position to direct the federal government’s role in foreign and domestic spheres, and indeed are now fighting for power they never dreamed possible when the movement took shape just one generation ago. They have reduced taxes and changed the ratio of redistribution of wealth in the country from rich to poor to the opposite. They are fighting to insert religion into science. They are revolutionizing public education by calling for the teaching nonscientific beliefs in science curricula. They are undermining American leadership in the natural sciences and in medical science and treatment.
They are leading American foreign policy in the bellicose assertion of power across the globe and have led us into the War in Iraq in which all of the premises for the conflict were later found to be false. In the face of obvious error, they have redefined that war as one of values rather than immediate defense of the country and its allies. Now almost two thousand American deaths, tens of thousand wounded and injured, and almost three hundred billion dollars in treasure later, they say we must fight on despite having no better goals than the day we invaded.
It is time for the middle to shift to the Democrats. Libertarians and enlightened business leaders have to recognize that Evangelical policies are worse for their values than those of the left. Moderates must see that continuing down the trail of ignorance in science and technology will cause us to fall behind our competitors.
While the Neocons have disappeared into the woodwork as the debacle in Iraq becomes obvious to the American Public, every day we see further emboldenment of the leaders of the hard right in domestic affairs. Only wild and crazy statements by the most radical, such as calling for foreign assassinations are criticized – and then not by the President.
So it is up to the middle to tilt leftward, despite knowing that this too will ultimately lead to a shift too far. We must take the country back now!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
At least since the 1920s, America has been the symbol for modernity in the world. Rights for women, minorities, and children have been revolutionized, and we are a beacon through the world for moving toward humaneness and fairness. Our environmental movement throughout the period was among the most intelligent and forward looking in the world.
The wars of the twentieth century brought great change, much of it enlightened but, sadly, much of value was lost. Clearly needed changes in the rights of women naturally led to unintended results, and in the latter decades of the last century undesirable phenomena such as single motherhood arose.
The long clash between capitalism and communism that ended with the demise of the Soviet Union had within it the seeds of problems for America and its allies. In retrospect, Vietnam which our government – over five presidencies – believed to be an integral battle in the Cold War proved to be an unimportant way station in that conflict but one which created many of our present problems. While America did not prevail in Vietnam, in no way did that slow our victory in the greater clash.
From World War I until the turning point in public opinion against the conflict in Vietnam, the Democratic Party was the source of support for an aggressive and forward looking foreign policy. The Republicans beginning with Senator Henry Cabot Lodge’s pressure on President Wilson in the years following the Great War, through Martin, Barton and Fish leading up to World War II, and on into the early years of the Cold War was the party of isolation.
But, (as has been described by many writers and thinkers – and most especially for me by Andrew Bacevich’s The New American Militarism) political and social forces that had not been clearly recognized before Vietnam began to be asserted. The left wing of the Democratic Party no longer held and, in fact, revolted against the war and led the peace movement in the country. Excesses, proudly proclaimed by one side and exploited and highlighted by those reacting against them led to a major resurge of the conservatives and the values oriented segments in American society.
The vast majority of people in the middle of the political spectrum gradually shifted from progressive supporters of policies long espoused by Democrats to the policies and values of Republicans. Most observers point to Ronald Reagan as the principal beacon in this movement, but I think signs of it were clear in the election of Richard Nixon in 1968.
With this great reaction against Vietnam, powerful forces in the most conservative wing of the Republican Party led the way in this values oriented society. Most prominent in domestic politics were the Evangelical Christians. In looking outward, the Neoconservatives, over time, came to assert themselves most effectively.
The success of these elements in American society today is obvious and overwhelming. They have cleansed American government of liberalism and stand today in charge of both the Executive and Legislative Branches. While loath to admit it, they also control the Supreme Court and most other federal courts.
They are in a position to direct the federal government’s role in foreign and domestic spheres, and indeed are now fighting for power they never dreamed possible when the movement took shape just one generation ago. They have reduced taxes and changed the ratio of redistribution of wealth in the country from rich to poor to the opposite. They are fighting to insert religion into science. They are revolutionizing public education by calling for the teaching nonscientific beliefs in science curricula. They are undermining American leadership in the natural sciences and in medical science and treatment.
They are leading American foreign policy in the bellicose assertion of power across the globe and have led us into the War in Iraq in which all of the premises for the conflict were later found to be false. In the face of obvious error, they have redefined that war as one of values rather than immediate defense of the country and its allies. Now almost two thousand American deaths, tens of thousand wounded and injured, and almost three hundred billion dollars in treasure later, they say we must fight on despite having no better goals than the day we invaded.
It is time for the middle to shift to the Democrats. Libertarians and enlightened business leaders have to recognize that Evangelical policies are worse for their values than those of the left. Moderates must see that continuing down the trail of ignorance in science and technology will cause us to fall behind our competitors.
While the Neocons have disappeared into the woodwork as the debacle in Iraq becomes obvious to the American Public, every day we see further emboldenment of the leaders of the hard right in domestic affairs. Only wild and crazy statements by the most radical, such as calling for foreign assassinations are criticized – and then not by the President.
So it is up to the middle to tilt leftward, despite knowing that this too will ultimately lead to a shift too far. We must take the country back now!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
You Don't Speak For Me, Cindy Sheehan
Cindy Sheehan doesn’t speak for me! That’s the sum and substance of the far right’s diatribe against Ms. Sheehan. They want to go on with the charade in Iraq while the real war on terror languishes.
I completely agree with the far right in this case. Ms. Sheehan does not speak for them. She speaks for the millions of Americans fed up with all the lies, the punting, all the dodging, and all of the lives and treasure pored down the rat hole of Iraq, for what reason? That’s what Ms. Sheehan wants to know – from the president.
The more the Administration howls about the error of Cindy’s ways, the sharper her basic question about why her son died comes into focus. Just why did Casey Sheehan and the almost two thousand dead fight and die? Was it for the weapons of mass destruction that were never found? Was it for the threats posed by the alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda has never been established? Was it to bring democracy to the Iraqis now at the negotiating table trying desperately to sort out who gets what territory and what share of the oil revenue?
All Cindy wants is for the Bubble Boy to explain why he sent Casey to his death in Iraq. She’s not questioning why we’re in Afghanistan. She isn’t asking why we haven’t pursued the al Qaeda and the Taliban with enough resources that others have said have been diverted to Iraq.
Cindy Sheehan simply wants to know why we sent her boy to die in Iraq.
Sadly she has brought in some extraneous matter. She wants us out of Iraq now, and she wants to impeach the president. She’s just a wounded and despairing Mom, and she’s wrong to mix apples and oranges. And the president has seized upon her mistakes, red herrings, to distract his base to hound her unmercifully.
Let’s just forget what Cindy has said about things she’s no more qualified than the rest of us to comment upon. Let’s just answer her basic question. What high and mighty principles were we invoking when we sent Casey Sheehan to his death?
Bubble Boy goes down all of those false trails and holes. He doesn’t agree with Casey Sheehan’s Mom. He says that Iraq is part of the war against terror. I completely agree with him. By toppling a regime and destroying the infrastructure of a country that had no WMDs and no alliance with al Qaeda, the U.S. certainly has made Iraq the central battlefield against terror. And we're not making a whole hell of a lot of progress on that field.
We’re now getting close to losing as many lives in Iraq as were lost on 9/11. We’ve lost almost as many lives in a battle field that once had no relation to the horror visited upon us by al Qaeda.
Cindy doesn’t speak for the far right. BUT SHE SPEAKS FOR WILD BILL AND A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER FOLKS IN THIS COUNTRY. WHY WAS CASEY SHEEHAN SENT TO FIGHT AND DIE IN IRAQ?
BACK TO YOU, BUBBLE BOY!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
I completely agree with the far right in this case. Ms. Sheehan does not speak for them. She speaks for the millions of Americans fed up with all the lies, the punting, all the dodging, and all of the lives and treasure pored down the rat hole of Iraq, for what reason? That’s what Ms. Sheehan wants to know – from the president.
The more the Administration howls about the error of Cindy’s ways, the sharper her basic question about why her son died comes into focus. Just why did Casey Sheehan and the almost two thousand dead fight and die? Was it for the weapons of mass destruction that were never found? Was it for the threats posed by the alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda has never been established? Was it to bring democracy to the Iraqis now at the negotiating table trying desperately to sort out who gets what territory and what share of the oil revenue?
All Cindy wants is for the Bubble Boy to explain why he sent Casey to his death in Iraq. She’s not questioning why we’re in Afghanistan. She isn’t asking why we haven’t pursued the al Qaeda and the Taliban with enough resources that others have said have been diverted to Iraq.
Cindy Sheehan simply wants to know why we sent her boy to die in Iraq.
Sadly she has brought in some extraneous matter. She wants us out of Iraq now, and she wants to impeach the president. She’s just a wounded and despairing Mom, and she’s wrong to mix apples and oranges. And the president has seized upon her mistakes, red herrings, to distract his base to hound her unmercifully.
Let’s just forget what Cindy has said about things she’s no more qualified than the rest of us to comment upon. Let’s just answer her basic question. What high and mighty principles were we invoking when we sent Casey Sheehan to his death?
Bubble Boy goes down all of those false trails and holes. He doesn’t agree with Casey Sheehan’s Mom. He says that Iraq is part of the war against terror. I completely agree with him. By toppling a regime and destroying the infrastructure of a country that had no WMDs and no alliance with al Qaeda, the U.S. certainly has made Iraq the central battlefield against terror. And we're not making a whole hell of a lot of progress on that field.
We’re now getting close to losing as many lives in Iraq as were lost on 9/11. We’ve lost almost as many lives in a battle field that once had no relation to the horror visited upon us by al Qaeda.
Cindy doesn’t speak for the far right. BUT SHE SPEAKS FOR WILD BILL AND A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER FOLKS IN THIS COUNTRY. WHY WAS CASEY SHEEHAN SENT TO FIGHT AND DIE IN IRAQ?
BACK TO YOU, BUBBLE BOY!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Bubble Boy
It is a given that the president of the United States requires physical and psychological protection. It is a job that entails great personal danger from enemies of the United States and from the mentally deranged within. Sadly, that need for protection can often translate into something that hurts as much as it protects the incumbent.
Franklin Roosevelt recognized this deficiency in the office and sent personal emissaries to determine what was really going on the country and the world. Eleanor was impelled by her own impulses to see the country and to feel the pulse of the unfortunate. She dug deeply and brought back to her husband as close to the truth as could be uncovered. And she made sure that he understood it.
Harry Hopkins, the most clear thinking loyalist in FDR’s inner circle, was dispatched to London, Moscow and wherever else trouble was brewing to bring back an independent analysis, however uncomfortable, on the condition of the United States in the larger world to Roosevelt.
Gerry Ford, that accidental resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, would not be dissuaded by courtiers and party loyalists from pardoning his predecessor. Any chance he had of winning the presidency by election was lost by that act. Yet a generation later, most would agree that his brave prescient act was the beginning of the healing process demanded by the excesses of Watergate.
The elder Bush, a decent man, stumbled badly when he was shocked by the technological advance of a simple barcode reader in a supermarket that all of the rest of his countrymen knew to be both ubiquitous and prosaic. This tiny faux pas demonstrated to the common man that the president was out of touch with their lives. A president more in touch with the voters was installed in the Executive Mansion.
Today on TV, I learned that Lance Armstrong, the great bicycle racing champion, would be visiting with Bush the younger at his ranch in Crawford, Texas and would go bike riding with him. The show’s anchor, half in jest, wondered aloud if Armstrong knew the protocol of the presidency and that he would be expected to stay a decent interval behind Mr. Bush. This is a president aware of his perquisites but not of how they are viewed by the people.
So it is that the president refused to meet with Cindy Sheehan. He said that it was his responsibility to maintain his lifestyle of normalcy in the Western White House. His inability to rise to the occasion of a visit with a grieving mother has caused him grievous damage. This man who does not like bad news indeed who seeks to have it screened from him is completely out of touch with the people and the nation.
This man says that we must stay the course in Iraq because failure to do so would break faith with those who have died. Break what faith? Those who perished were sent to that God forsaken land to overthrow a government that had weapons of mass destruction and that was consorting with al Qaeda, the sworn enemy of the United States. Those who died were sent on a mission that in retrospect makes no sense. Both reasons were in error – at best. Now our government has redefined the mission as one to bring democracy to the Iraqi people, a people who it is alleged would welcome our troops as liberators.
Democracy is the farthest thing from the minds of those negotiating a constitution in Iraq. It is power, territory and oil revenue that keeps them at the table.
Our troops are not defending the memory of those who died. They are in harms way to avoid bringing the truth to a man who does not want to see it. If we must stay, it is for naked reasons of defending our interests in Iraq - assuring that the oil continues to flow. The madness of the neocons in furthering an imperial dream that gets dimmer by the moment means that future casualties will happen to maintain a strategic presence in a country and region that abhors our presence.
This is George Bush’s war. He sent the troops into battle for reasons that do not hold up in the rear view mirror. We must get out. Sadly, we just can’t do it immediately. All of the deaths past and future began with a false premise. “Freedom” – baloney! We’re stuck and it’s this administration’s fault.
The boy in the bubble can’t even see what he has wrought.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Franklin Roosevelt recognized this deficiency in the office and sent personal emissaries to determine what was really going on the country and the world. Eleanor was impelled by her own impulses to see the country and to feel the pulse of the unfortunate. She dug deeply and brought back to her husband as close to the truth as could be uncovered. And she made sure that he understood it.
Harry Hopkins, the most clear thinking loyalist in FDR’s inner circle, was dispatched to London, Moscow and wherever else trouble was brewing to bring back an independent analysis, however uncomfortable, on the condition of the United States in the larger world to Roosevelt.
Gerry Ford, that accidental resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, would not be dissuaded by courtiers and party loyalists from pardoning his predecessor. Any chance he had of winning the presidency by election was lost by that act. Yet a generation later, most would agree that his brave prescient act was the beginning of the healing process demanded by the excesses of Watergate.
The elder Bush, a decent man, stumbled badly when he was shocked by the technological advance of a simple barcode reader in a supermarket that all of the rest of his countrymen knew to be both ubiquitous and prosaic. This tiny faux pas demonstrated to the common man that the president was out of touch with their lives. A president more in touch with the voters was installed in the Executive Mansion.
Today on TV, I learned that Lance Armstrong, the great bicycle racing champion, would be visiting with Bush the younger at his ranch in Crawford, Texas and would go bike riding with him. The show’s anchor, half in jest, wondered aloud if Armstrong knew the protocol of the presidency and that he would be expected to stay a decent interval behind Mr. Bush. This is a president aware of his perquisites but not of how they are viewed by the people.
So it is that the president refused to meet with Cindy Sheehan. He said that it was his responsibility to maintain his lifestyle of normalcy in the Western White House. His inability to rise to the occasion of a visit with a grieving mother has caused him grievous damage. This man who does not like bad news indeed who seeks to have it screened from him is completely out of touch with the people and the nation.
This man says that we must stay the course in Iraq because failure to do so would break faith with those who have died. Break what faith? Those who perished were sent to that God forsaken land to overthrow a government that had weapons of mass destruction and that was consorting with al Qaeda, the sworn enemy of the United States. Those who died were sent on a mission that in retrospect makes no sense. Both reasons were in error – at best. Now our government has redefined the mission as one to bring democracy to the Iraqi people, a people who it is alleged would welcome our troops as liberators.
Democracy is the farthest thing from the minds of those negotiating a constitution in Iraq. It is power, territory and oil revenue that keeps them at the table.
Our troops are not defending the memory of those who died. They are in harms way to avoid bringing the truth to a man who does not want to see it. If we must stay, it is for naked reasons of defending our interests in Iraq - assuring that the oil continues to flow. The madness of the neocons in furthering an imperial dream that gets dimmer by the moment means that future casualties will happen to maintain a strategic presence in a country and region that abhors our presence.
This is George Bush’s war. He sent the troops into battle for reasons that do not hold up in the rear view mirror. We must get out. Sadly, we just can’t do it immediately. All of the deaths past and future began with a false premise. “Freedom” – baloney! We’re stuck and it’s this administration’s fault.
The boy in the bubble can’t even see what he has wrought.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Friday, August 19, 2005
Term Limits
As anyone who has ever even casually eyeballed this blog knows well, I’m not a fan of George W. Bush or most members of his administration. Be that as it may, I think we ought to seriously consider repealing Amendment XXII to the Constitution that, at least in some measure, weakens his ability to perform his duties effectively.
For the very short moment in which California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s star burned brightly there was talk of amending the Constitution to permit a person born outside the United States to become president. My feelings about Ahhnold are immaterial, but I think that in a land of 250 million native born Americans there is little need for this change.
With regard to sitting presidents, however, I think the twenty-second amendment has caused significant damage to the presidency itself and that we should revisit the issue. Hoary details on the two term limit are unnecessary. Washington set the precedent and all of his successors until Franklin Roosevelt abided by it. Or did they? Actually, they did not, and the threat of a run for a third term by an incumbent or former chief executive was a useful tool in balancing the power between the Executive and Legislative Branches.
The threat of a run was always on the table, and Teddy Roosevelt made a run for his old job in 1912 thus assuring transfer of power from the Republicans to the Democrats. Thus, even in failing to win the job he wielded a big stick. The threat of a run for another term has not been available to any president since Harry Truman left office. While I’ve been a regular critic of the presidency for its constant grasping for more power, second terms since that of Truman have almost always been unhappy for most of the occupants of the Oval Office.
While Eisenhower and Reagan were foreclosed from additional terms, they were quite popular when leaving office and had health permitted and there was some fire left in them they might well have been candidates for retaining the job. In each of these presidencies, the second term was not as successful as the first fours years. Their rivals and even power points within their own parties did not fear the power of lame duck presidents and both parties challenged them without anywhere near the fear of the retaliation available to an incumbent second term president prior to the amendment’s adoption. Thus, with the twenty-second amendment the long second term status of lame duck came into being prior to Inauguration Day instead of when the potential candidate announced that he would not run again.
Thus while Bush twists in the breeze from his failures in Iraq, with Social Security, and for failing in his management of the budget and the economy, he is further weakened by his inability to threaten friend and foe (including other countries) with the possibility that he might run and win another term and thus still wield the clout of the greatest power center in the world.
Lamenting the usual executive power grab of first (and third and fourth) terms and deploring the weakness of presidents under the present two term limitation, should we not at least consider the change? Franklin Roosevelt is beyond another run, so the Republicans need not fear him any more than the Democrats have to worry about the Gipper returning to take a another curtain call. Looking over the rest of the field, it’s likely that Ike would have passed on a run and that Clinton had pretty much worn out his welcome with enough voters that he would have stepped aside. Assuming that Bush 43 will have had his butt kicked enough times between now and election day 2008, he looks like a candidate for the job of permanent brush clearer in Crawford, TX.
Since we now have more than half a century of experience in evaluating the Amendment XXII, would it not be prudent to evaluate whether the country would be better off with or without an amendment adopted in the haste caused by the passing of a political giant, FDR.
I say let’s give repeal a hearing. Don’t worry, Bush can’t get elected dog catcher in Crawford, so think about whether it would be good for the country without worrying about him.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
For the very short moment in which California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s star burned brightly there was talk of amending the Constitution to permit a person born outside the United States to become president. My feelings about Ahhnold are immaterial, but I think that in a land of 250 million native born Americans there is little need for this change.
With regard to sitting presidents, however, I think the twenty-second amendment has caused significant damage to the presidency itself and that we should revisit the issue. Hoary details on the two term limit are unnecessary. Washington set the precedent and all of his successors until Franklin Roosevelt abided by it. Or did they? Actually, they did not, and the threat of a run for a third term by an incumbent or former chief executive was a useful tool in balancing the power between the Executive and Legislative Branches.
The threat of a run was always on the table, and Teddy Roosevelt made a run for his old job in 1912 thus assuring transfer of power from the Republicans to the Democrats. Thus, even in failing to win the job he wielded a big stick. The threat of a run for another term has not been available to any president since Harry Truman left office. While I’ve been a regular critic of the presidency for its constant grasping for more power, second terms since that of Truman have almost always been unhappy for most of the occupants of the Oval Office.
While Eisenhower and Reagan were foreclosed from additional terms, they were quite popular when leaving office and had health permitted and there was some fire left in them they might well have been candidates for retaining the job. In each of these presidencies, the second term was not as successful as the first fours years. Their rivals and even power points within their own parties did not fear the power of lame duck presidents and both parties challenged them without anywhere near the fear of the retaliation available to an incumbent second term president prior to the amendment’s adoption. Thus, with the twenty-second amendment the long second term status of lame duck came into being prior to Inauguration Day instead of when the potential candidate announced that he would not run again.
Thus while Bush twists in the breeze from his failures in Iraq, with Social Security, and for failing in his management of the budget and the economy, he is further weakened by his inability to threaten friend and foe (including other countries) with the possibility that he might run and win another term and thus still wield the clout of the greatest power center in the world.
Lamenting the usual executive power grab of first (and third and fourth) terms and deploring the weakness of presidents under the present two term limitation, should we not at least consider the change? Franklin Roosevelt is beyond another run, so the Republicans need not fear him any more than the Democrats have to worry about the Gipper returning to take a another curtain call. Looking over the rest of the field, it’s likely that Ike would have passed on a run and that Clinton had pretty much worn out his welcome with enough voters that he would have stepped aside. Assuming that Bush 43 will have had his butt kicked enough times between now and election day 2008, he looks like a candidate for the job of permanent brush clearer in Crawford, TX.
Since we now have more than half a century of experience in evaluating the Amendment XXII, would it not be prudent to evaluate whether the country would be better off with or without an amendment adopted in the haste caused by the passing of a political giant, FDR.
I say let’s give repeal a hearing. Don’t worry, Bush can’t get elected dog catcher in Crawford, so think about whether it would be good for the country without worrying about him.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Freedom from Fear
I admit it; I’m a news junky. Actually, I’m an editorial, op-ed, and letters to the editor addict. Each morning, I spend an hour or more on the opinions of pundits and ordinary people far and wide. While there are many columnists that I admire, my favorite part of the day is to read what moves the readers of America’s papers to send their views to the local rag.
While I usually agree with writers like Paul Krugman of the New York Times and Richard Cohen of the Washington Post and rail at Robert Novak, I understand that they and their fellow pundits are generally well informed and honest purveyors of whatever line of thought they happen to have seized on for the day. Naturally, there are as many strikeouts as home runs. Meeting a deadline two or three times a week over a forty year career means an occasional error.
Some days back, I jumped down Anne Applebaum’s throat for her comparisons of al Qaeda and the Irish Republican Army in a Washington Post opinion. I was right, of course, but one of my best friends – wrongly – thought my Celtic heritage got in the way of sound reasoning. In case she’s reading, my challenge to her is withdrawn.
Now I’m upset with a column in the Boston Globe. I check the opinions in that paper daily as I’m a native of its circulation area and spent nine years as a subscriber before moving back to Virginia three years ago.
As you all know, Boston is the Hub of the Universe and is home to some of the most brilliant Homo sapiens on the planet. It also swarms with historically literate people, and, while I’m a moderate, many of these historians – amateur and professional – are of the liberal persuasion. So, when I saw an op-ed piece in the Globe that not only had its facts wrong but that gave an erroneous slap at Franklin Roosevelt, I thought the good folks of Boston would inundate the Globe with thousands of letters brimming with righteous indignation. Never happened!
Peter S. Canellos, the Globe’s Washington Bureau Chief, in an otherwise inoffensive article, ends his column with an apples and oranges analysis of the words of FDR. He argues that the president’s pre-war promise of `Freedom from Fear’ was permanently undermined by the nuclear weapons that his own decisions brought into existence. There are two statements on the subject of fear made by Roosevelt that may be in Canellos’s mind, and neither of them works in this case. The first was his famous first inaugural statement that “All we have to fear is fear itself…” Those words referred directly to the economic woes of the nation and the insecurity infecting the people.
The second FDR reference that Mr. Canellos may have in mind is that of the famous Four Freedoms of why we were fighting the war. Freedom from Fear was indeed one of those freedoms. That one too had nothing to do with the atomic age that we were frantically trying to enter. Roosevelt never heard of an atomic bomb when he uttered the first words, and there was a strong possibility that an atomic bomb would not be practical when the Four Freedoms were expounded.
You may recall that Roosevelt sent us down the path to nuclear weapons at the suggestion of a group of scientists, headlined by Albert Einstein, who suspected that Nazi Germany was already making efforts to develop such a weapon. It was. Thus, with a stroke of the pen, the Manhattan Project came into being. Naturally, had the fears of those scientists become a reality and Germany or Japan (which had a rudimentary atomic program) developed the bomb before us and before the end of the war, our world would be considerably different than the one we live in.
It has been argued and I agree with the notion that nuclear weapons on both sides of the Cold War actually kept us at peace during that frigid period. But Canellos is correct; all of us now live in fear of nuclear weapons and there is no `Freedom from Fear.’ But the even greater truth is that nuclear weapons were an inevitable product of the science and technology extant at the middle of the twentieth century. There can be no doubt that there would be nations with the bomb today regardless of whether the United States President, Franklin Roosevelt, had acted irresponsibly in the face of the warning by fearful scientists and had not sought the weapon.
Mr. Canellos’s article falls apart on his final points, and he laments an innocence that could never have continued.
My real surprise and disappointment was that neither his editors nor the readers I cited in the opening so much as yawned in the face of the ridiculous notion that somehow FDR somehow goofed by establishing the Manhattan Project.
Attached is a link to the article so you can judge for yourselves.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2005/08/09/60_years_after_hiroshima_america_still_lives_in_fear/
Don’t believe all that you read in the newspaper!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
While I usually agree with writers like Paul Krugman of the New York Times and Richard Cohen of the Washington Post and rail at Robert Novak, I understand that they and their fellow pundits are generally well informed and honest purveyors of whatever line of thought they happen to have seized on for the day. Naturally, there are as many strikeouts as home runs. Meeting a deadline two or three times a week over a forty year career means an occasional error.
Some days back, I jumped down Anne Applebaum’s throat for her comparisons of al Qaeda and the Irish Republican Army in a Washington Post opinion. I was right, of course, but one of my best friends – wrongly – thought my Celtic heritage got in the way of sound reasoning. In case she’s reading, my challenge to her is withdrawn.
Now I’m upset with a column in the Boston Globe. I check the opinions in that paper daily as I’m a native of its circulation area and spent nine years as a subscriber before moving back to Virginia three years ago.
As you all know, Boston is the Hub of the Universe and is home to some of the most brilliant Homo sapiens on the planet. It also swarms with historically literate people, and, while I’m a moderate, many of these historians – amateur and professional – are of the liberal persuasion. So, when I saw an op-ed piece in the Globe that not only had its facts wrong but that gave an erroneous slap at Franklin Roosevelt, I thought the good folks of Boston would inundate the Globe with thousands of letters brimming with righteous indignation. Never happened!
Peter S. Canellos, the Globe’s Washington Bureau Chief, in an otherwise inoffensive article, ends his column with an apples and oranges analysis of the words of FDR. He argues that the president’s pre-war promise of `Freedom from Fear’ was permanently undermined by the nuclear weapons that his own decisions brought into existence. There are two statements on the subject of fear made by Roosevelt that may be in Canellos’s mind, and neither of them works in this case. The first was his famous first inaugural statement that “All we have to fear is fear itself…” Those words referred directly to the economic woes of the nation and the insecurity infecting the people.
The second FDR reference that Mr. Canellos may have in mind is that of the famous Four Freedoms of why we were fighting the war. Freedom from Fear was indeed one of those freedoms. That one too had nothing to do with the atomic age that we were frantically trying to enter. Roosevelt never heard of an atomic bomb when he uttered the first words, and there was a strong possibility that an atomic bomb would not be practical when the Four Freedoms were expounded.
You may recall that Roosevelt sent us down the path to nuclear weapons at the suggestion of a group of scientists, headlined by Albert Einstein, who suspected that Nazi Germany was already making efforts to develop such a weapon. It was. Thus, with a stroke of the pen, the Manhattan Project came into being. Naturally, had the fears of those scientists become a reality and Germany or Japan (which had a rudimentary atomic program) developed the bomb before us and before the end of the war, our world would be considerably different than the one we live in.
It has been argued and I agree with the notion that nuclear weapons on both sides of the Cold War actually kept us at peace during that frigid period. But Canellos is correct; all of us now live in fear of nuclear weapons and there is no `Freedom from Fear.’ But the even greater truth is that nuclear weapons were an inevitable product of the science and technology extant at the middle of the twentieth century. There can be no doubt that there would be nations with the bomb today regardless of whether the United States President, Franklin Roosevelt, had acted irresponsibly in the face of the warning by fearful scientists and had not sought the weapon.
Mr. Canellos’s article falls apart on his final points, and he laments an innocence that could never have continued.
My real surprise and disappointment was that neither his editors nor the readers I cited in the opening so much as yawned in the face of the ridiculous notion that somehow FDR somehow goofed by establishing the Manhattan Project.
Attached is a link to the article so you can judge for yourselves.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2005/08/09/60_years_after_hiroshima_america_still_lives_in_fear/
Don’t believe all that you read in the newspaper!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Sunday, August 07, 2005
The Valley of Death
Yesterday was the sixtieth anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Whether that horror was necessary will be debated till the end of time. It matters not that the bomb killed 70,000 instantly and like number over the years since or that their destruction may have saved hundreds of thousands of Americans and Japanese from death. It opened an era that will never end, one in which death hangs over us all.
Stories on both sides of the issue bombard us, but the one that most disturbed me was the old saw from surviving crew members of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the weapon, that their action was essential to the ending of the war. It is appropriate for these men to have such an opinion and for the media to transmit it. What always gets warped in the telling is that these men have no better vantage than the rest of us for their opinion. That they dropped the bomb does give them insight into the terror of the weapon, but they cannot know better than a person born twenty years later that the good of the event outweighed the evil.
Only a very limited number of people in 1945 were privy to the situation and intelligence on which the action was based. President Truman and his closest military and civilian advisors made the decision, and they must bear the eternal historical heat. What the crew of the Enola Gay came to believe is relevant to them as human beings but says nothing about their ability to judge the decision.
As a veteran of the Korean War, (very much a non-combatant one) I happen to believe that President Truman made the right decision in pushing the U.N. to defend South Korea from invasion from the North. But my views are personal and made with only an amateur’s understanding of the history and world situation. Again, only Truman and his closest advisors’ views are those that count, and they will be judged by history – and by people like you and me.
So it is with most major decisions of life and death situations. Vietnam’s kaleidoscope of decisions must be born by Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford. Johnson made the most important decisions and he suffers for them in history – at least so far. What those who fought there think runs the gamut, and their opinions are personally vital but strategically and politically of little value.
Now the country is embroiled in another controversial war. The number of decision makers among whom we can apportion credit and blame is among the smallest of any conflict in our history. And they have taken to hiding behind the troops who are fighting, bleeding and dieing as justification for their decisions. Every day the media calls our attention to the opinions of individual soldiers or families of those who died in Iraq. Often they proclaim that we cannot do an about face in Iraq as it would mean that their dead comrades or the fallen loved ones will have died in vain.
What the media fails to point out is that these people are being used for the basest of reasons. Instead of standing up and saying it is their sworn duty to have made the decision to make war in Iraq based on the constitutional mandate to defend the nation from weapons of mass destruction and from an evil leader who was plotting our destruction, the president and his closest advisors hide behind those doing the heaving lifting and proclaim that the almost 2,000 lives and tens of thousands of wounded and broken are there to spread democracy to a nation that posed no threat to us in any real sense of that word.
Now we are told that if we do not stay the course, we will betray the dead soldiers. That’s just not true. Those sent to Iraq died for reasons that never panned out and it is likely that those who sent them knew that to be the case before they landed.
That poor disheartened soldiers believe (or believed) in their mission in Iraq is as irrelevant as the views of the crew of the Enola Gay with regard to dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
If we give weight to the false view that only those who fight can judge, we the people are condemning additional Americans and Iraqis to death. We should not be hiding behind those who have fought and died; we should be examining the facts and circumstances as best we can and holding our elected leaders responsible for their actions. It is President Bush who made the decision. It is the Congress that endorsed it.
What those poor men and women on the ground think is immaterial.
Some one had blunder’d.
Their’s not to make reply,
Their’s not to reason why,
Their’s but to do or die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Stories on both sides of the issue bombard us, but the one that most disturbed me was the old saw from surviving crew members of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the weapon, that their action was essential to the ending of the war. It is appropriate for these men to have such an opinion and for the media to transmit it. What always gets warped in the telling is that these men have no better vantage than the rest of us for their opinion. That they dropped the bomb does give them insight into the terror of the weapon, but they cannot know better than a person born twenty years later that the good of the event outweighed the evil.
Only a very limited number of people in 1945 were privy to the situation and intelligence on which the action was based. President Truman and his closest military and civilian advisors made the decision, and they must bear the eternal historical heat. What the crew of the Enola Gay came to believe is relevant to them as human beings but says nothing about their ability to judge the decision.
As a veteran of the Korean War, (very much a non-combatant one) I happen to believe that President Truman made the right decision in pushing the U.N. to defend South Korea from invasion from the North. But my views are personal and made with only an amateur’s understanding of the history and world situation. Again, only Truman and his closest advisors’ views are those that count, and they will be judged by history – and by people like you and me.
So it is with most major decisions of life and death situations. Vietnam’s kaleidoscope of decisions must be born by Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford. Johnson made the most important decisions and he suffers for them in history – at least so far. What those who fought there think runs the gamut, and their opinions are personally vital but strategically and politically of little value.
Now the country is embroiled in another controversial war. The number of decision makers among whom we can apportion credit and blame is among the smallest of any conflict in our history. And they have taken to hiding behind the troops who are fighting, bleeding and dieing as justification for their decisions. Every day the media calls our attention to the opinions of individual soldiers or families of those who died in Iraq. Often they proclaim that we cannot do an about face in Iraq as it would mean that their dead comrades or the fallen loved ones will have died in vain.
What the media fails to point out is that these people are being used for the basest of reasons. Instead of standing up and saying it is their sworn duty to have made the decision to make war in Iraq based on the constitutional mandate to defend the nation from weapons of mass destruction and from an evil leader who was plotting our destruction, the president and his closest advisors hide behind those doing the heaving lifting and proclaim that the almost 2,000 lives and tens of thousands of wounded and broken are there to spread democracy to a nation that posed no threat to us in any real sense of that word.
Now we are told that if we do not stay the course, we will betray the dead soldiers. That’s just not true. Those sent to Iraq died for reasons that never panned out and it is likely that those who sent them knew that to be the case before they landed.
That poor disheartened soldiers believe (or believed) in their mission in Iraq is as irrelevant as the views of the crew of the Enola Gay with regard to dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
If we give weight to the false view that only those who fight can judge, we the people are condemning additional Americans and Iraqis to death. We should not be hiding behind those who have fought and died; we should be examining the facts and circumstances as best we can and holding our elected leaders responsible for their actions. It is President Bush who made the decision. It is the Congress that endorsed it.
What those poor men and women on the ground think is immaterial.
Some one had blunder’d.
Their’s not to make reply,
Their’s not to reason why,
Their’s but to do or die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred
Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Friday, July 22, 2005
Cut the Baloney
They have us, you know - President Bush and Prime Ministers Blair and Howard. We’re running around saying that London and Madrid are paying the price for the preventive war in Iraq, but they’re replying, quite correctly, that the terrorist attacks on the West began long before our shock and awe treatment of Baghdad.
We say – know - that we’re right, but they simply trump us with the facts – the true facts. Or do they? In actuality, they’re simply sophists arguing irrelevant points. Our enemy is al Qaeda – and all of the splinter groups that are operating in its name. Our argument should never have been framed by stating that the jihadists are blowing up innocent Spaniards and Brits because we attacked Saddam.
Rather, our major thrust should be that we are encouraging the proliferation of terrorist ideology and the recruitment of Islamists intent on destroying us by having created a breeding ground of disaffected bombers based on a set of circumstances that have proved to be incorrect and that seem close to unraveling toward the absolutely false.
The Iraq War was undertaken because Saddam’s military had weapons of mass destruction and was in the process of developing even more deadly systems. Further, Saddam’s regime was acting in concert with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda against the West. After all the inspections and commissions, we know now that these reasons were wrong. Moreover, it looks as though the reasons were not only false but they may well turn out to be known to have been false before Coalition forces set foot on Iraqi soil.
Clearly Afghanistan was a different story. The Taliban was overtly harboring al Qaeda leaders and was protecting hundreds of terrorists and their training facilities. After 9/11, we demanded that Afghanistan give up the criminals who openly proclaimed responsibility for the attacks in the United States and for many others against our interests abroad.
We moved into Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban and routed al Qaeda. But, instead of finishing that task, we moved to topple the Baathist regime in Iraq. In the process, we lost our focus on the hunt for Osama bin Laden. While we put them on the run, we did not finish the job. Resources that could have been used in a fight that the American people overwhelmingly supported and in which virtually all civilized nations agreed were instead diverted away from Afghanistan and committed to the War in Iraq that nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the West.
Now we have two open sores, and our military is bogged down in pacifying two nations. Our leaders have committed us to a war that is killing hundreds and wounding thousands of our troops, a war that his killed tens of thousands of people we claim to be befriending, a war that is costing billions of dollars, a war that was unnecessary, a war that slows our fight against our enemies.
Stop saying the War in Iraq caused the attacks in Spain and Great Britain. It didn’t and it’s giving the perpetrators of this illegal preventive war ammunition to tweak your noses. Let’s get our stories and our facts straight.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
We say – know - that we’re right, but they simply trump us with the facts – the true facts. Or do they? In actuality, they’re simply sophists arguing irrelevant points. Our enemy is al Qaeda – and all of the splinter groups that are operating in its name. Our argument should never have been framed by stating that the jihadists are blowing up innocent Spaniards and Brits because we attacked Saddam.
Rather, our major thrust should be that we are encouraging the proliferation of terrorist ideology and the recruitment of Islamists intent on destroying us by having created a breeding ground of disaffected bombers based on a set of circumstances that have proved to be incorrect and that seem close to unraveling toward the absolutely false.
The Iraq War was undertaken because Saddam’s military had weapons of mass destruction and was in the process of developing even more deadly systems. Further, Saddam’s regime was acting in concert with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda against the West. After all the inspections and commissions, we know now that these reasons were wrong. Moreover, it looks as though the reasons were not only false but they may well turn out to be known to have been false before Coalition forces set foot on Iraqi soil.
Clearly Afghanistan was a different story. The Taliban was overtly harboring al Qaeda leaders and was protecting hundreds of terrorists and their training facilities. After 9/11, we demanded that Afghanistan give up the criminals who openly proclaimed responsibility for the attacks in the United States and for many others against our interests abroad.
We moved into Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban and routed al Qaeda. But, instead of finishing that task, we moved to topple the Baathist regime in Iraq. In the process, we lost our focus on the hunt for Osama bin Laden. While we put them on the run, we did not finish the job. Resources that could have been used in a fight that the American people overwhelmingly supported and in which virtually all civilized nations agreed were instead diverted away from Afghanistan and committed to the War in Iraq that nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the West.
Now we have two open sores, and our military is bogged down in pacifying two nations. Our leaders have committed us to a war that is killing hundreds and wounding thousands of our troops, a war that his killed tens of thousands of people we claim to be befriending, a war that is costing billions of dollars, a war that was unnecessary, a war that slows our fight against our enemies.
Stop saying the War in Iraq caused the attacks in Spain and Great Britain. It didn’t and it’s giving the perpetrators of this illegal preventive war ammunition to tweak your noses. Let’s get our stories and our facts straight.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Monday, July 18, 2005
Put the Blame on Plame
Much has been made about the Valerie Plame case, but one point that I’m sure is high one the list of CIA undercover operatives that I haven’t seen made in the media is the impact of her outing on national security. I’ve seen it said that Plame’s life is in danger, but I think that’s hyperbole.
What bothers me is – if indeed the lady was an undercover agent charged with turning foreign nationals to our side – that all of the foreign nationals she recruited are in mortal danger, along with folks she didn’t recruit but with whom she might have become friendly with during her tours in other countries.
Clearly, those who dropped the dime on Plame, whether or not they broke the law have damaged the ability of our agents now operating in other lands to recruit people to our side.
It’s an old story. Someone identifies those who’ve been won over and they pay with their lives, and it endangers the lives of current CIA agents in the field doing recruiting. My guess is that this side of the story is being ignored by the administration as it serves its short term goals. Sadly, it also hurts the long term interests of the nation.
The right wing is jumping up and down in defense of those identified as the sources of leaks while ignoring the real damage to the nation. Shame on them!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
What bothers me is – if indeed the lady was an undercover agent charged with turning foreign nationals to our side – that all of the foreign nationals she recruited are in mortal danger, along with folks she didn’t recruit but with whom she might have become friendly with during her tours in other countries.
Clearly, those who dropped the dime on Plame, whether or not they broke the law have damaged the ability of our agents now operating in other lands to recruit people to our side.
It’s an old story. Someone identifies those who’ve been won over and they pay with their lives, and it endangers the lives of current CIA agents in the field doing recruiting. My guess is that this side of the story is being ignored by the administration as it serves its short term goals. Sadly, it also hurts the long term interests of the nation.
The right wing is jumping up and down in defense of those identified as the sources of leaks while ignoring the real damage to the nation. Shame on them!
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Stab in the Back
In 1918, German military leaders recognized that continued fighting could lead to the collapse of their forces with extraordinary negative results on the nation. The determination to sue for peace was made and an Armistice ending the fighting in The Great War was signed with the allies.
This turn of events was a shock to the German people who had been supportive of the war and, seeing their army still occupying significant territory of enemy nations, were led to believe that high level treachery was responsible for the humiliating end to hostilities. Thus was born the `Stab-in-the-Back’ theory whereby their valiant soldiers, after glory in the East, were sold out when victory in the West was still possible.
Our commander in Europe, General John Pershing, was prescient in seeing the Armistice as a likely failure without a clear demonstration to the German people that their military had been defeated in the field of battle. He was overruled in his recommendation that the fighting continue.
Attempts at democratic government in Germany after World War I failed due to the horrible peace treaty ending the war and the terrible economic depression that was felt across the globe. Adolph Hitler cleverly exploited the armistice, the Treaty of Versailles, the bad times, and – as much as the other reasons – the `Stab-in-the-Back’ to achieve political power and begin his quest to control Europe.
Since World War II, the U.S. has fought many wars in which the goals were less than the complete conquest of those fighting on the other side. Many Americans who had come to understand the nature of the power the nation had developed and acquired as a result of our involvement on the war and our growing economic might were appalled by the limited goals set out by our leaders in the new age.
The Korean War led to one of the great internal conflicts and tests of our Constitutional institutions. General Douglas MacArthur, representing a very popular strain in the body politic, went public with a demand for far more than just a stalemate on the peninsula. The conflict boiled over when President Truman relieved the general of command. The brouhaha that followed included a strain of the earlier `Stab-in-the-Back’ argument raised in Germany. President Truman became for a time one of our most despised presidents and chose not to run for reelection based on the likelihood that he would lose.
The `Stab-in-the-Back’ argument did not fit the situation in Vietnam nearly so well. Despite sending significant forces to the war, stalemate was never achieved, and it was likely that far greater force would have to be applied if a real victory or even the appearance of one were to be achieved. By the time the conflict reached its final stages, there was a growing consensus in the population that the war could not be won within the limits of sacrifice the nation was willing to undergo. Besides, after long fighting, many of the original supporters of the war had become its opponents.
But, as pointed out most clearly by Andrew Bacevich in his recent book, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, the neoconservatives, the Christian Evangelical right, and a body of military intellectuals seized upon the low point of Vietnam to make an argument that can easily be construed to have more than a passing resemblance to the `Stab-in-the-Back’ of old, and the resurrection of military power was a clear result of their push.
Over the next generation the coalition on the right capitalized on such arguments to advance itself politically to achieve substantial control over the federal government. By the time of our attack on Iraq, It captured both Houses of Congress and the presidency.
I’ll skip the arguments of whether we should have attacked Iraq. My position that the war represented a preventive rather than preemptive attack and should never have taken place is known to my readers.
We are in Iraq with all of its broken crockery. We’re backing a process that may lead to a national government that will be accepted by the various ethnic and religious elements to the point that it may hold together. The President as Commander-in-Chief has stated that we will stay until he is certain that the government of Iraq reaches that point. Such an outcome over the next four years would be the best possible result.
Sadly, the seed has been planted that if the U.S. is not willing to stay the present course in Iraq we will betray our troops and their sacrifices. This, of course, sets up a national referendum for the 2008 election cycle in which the voters will have to choose between prematurely bringing home the troops or by continuing the adventure into the indefinite future. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said that defeating the insurgency could take up to twelve years.
At this point, the far left, the Democratic Party, and most independents see such an election contest as a positive thing. They see a change in the party controlling the White House and the probable capture of one House of Congress between now and then as great outcomes. Absent startling change in the situation, unless I die or am incapacitated, I will be voting for this outcome. (Please no laughing if I don’t make it.)
But this will not be the end. Nothing ever ends in politics and the seeds of disaffection have already been sown. Failure to stay the course is tantamount to a `Stab-in-the-Back’ for the troops who have sacrificed so much for us. The pendulum that is clearly swinging in the direction of those with a realistic outlook of foreign policy could move back the other way in the blink of an eye.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
This turn of events was a shock to the German people who had been supportive of the war and, seeing their army still occupying significant territory of enemy nations, were led to believe that high level treachery was responsible for the humiliating end to hostilities. Thus was born the `Stab-in-the-Back’ theory whereby their valiant soldiers, after glory in the East, were sold out when victory in the West was still possible.
Our commander in Europe, General John Pershing, was prescient in seeing the Armistice as a likely failure without a clear demonstration to the German people that their military had been defeated in the field of battle. He was overruled in his recommendation that the fighting continue.
Attempts at democratic government in Germany after World War I failed due to the horrible peace treaty ending the war and the terrible economic depression that was felt across the globe. Adolph Hitler cleverly exploited the armistice, the Treaty of Versailles, the bad times, and – as much as the other reasons – the `Stab-in-the-Back’ to achieve political power and begin his quest to control Europe.
Since World War II, the U.S. has fought many wars in which the goals were less than the complete conquest of those fighting on the other side. Many Americans who had come to understand the nature of the power the nation had developed and acquired as a result of our involvement on the war and our growing economic might were appalled by the limited goals set out by our leaders in the new age.
The Korean War led to one of the great internal conflicts and tests of our Constitutional institutions. General Douglas MacArthur, representing a very popular strain in the body politic, went public with a demand for far more than just a stalemate on the peninsula. The conflict boiled over when President Truman relieved the general of command. The brouhaha that followed included a strain of the earlier `Stab-in-the-Back’ argument raised in Germany. President Truman became for a time one of our most despised presidents and chose not to run for reelection based on the likelihood that he would lose.
The `Stab-in-the-Back’ argument did not fit the situation in Vietnam nearly so well. Despite sending significant forces to the war, stalemate was never achieved, and it was likely that far greater force would have to be applied if a real victory or even the appearance of one were to be achieved. By the time the conflict reached its final stages, there was a growing consensus in the population that the war could not be won within the limits of sacrifice the nation was willing to undergo. Besides, after long fighting, many of the original supporters of the war had become its opponents.
But, as pointed out most clearly by Andrew Bacevich in his recent book, The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War, the neoconservatives, the Christian Evangelical right, and a body of military intellectuals seized upon the low point of Vietnam to make an argument that can easily be construed to have more than a passing resemblance to the `Stab-in-the-Back’ of old, and the resurrection of military power was a clear result of their push.
Over the next generation the coalition on the right capitalized on such arguments to advance itself politically to achieve substantial control over the federal government. By the time of our attack on Iraq, It captured both Houses of Congress and the presidency.
I’ll skip the arguments of whether we should have attacked Iraq. My position that the war represented a preventive rather than preemptive attack and should never have taken place is known to my readers.
We are in Iraq with all of its broken crockery. We’re backing a process that may lead to a national government that will be accepted by the various ethnic and religious elements to the point that it may hold together. The President as Commander-in-Chief has stated that we will stay until he is certain that the government of Iraq reaches that point. Such an outcome over the next four years would be the best possible result.
Sadly, the seed has been planted that if the U.S. is not willing to stay the present course in Iraq we will betray our troops and their sacrifices. This, of course, sets up a national referendum for the 2008 election cycle in which the voters will have to choose between prematurely bringing home the troops or by continuing the adventure into the indefinite future. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said that defeating the insurgency could take up to twelve years.
At this point, the far left, the Democratic Party, and most independents see such an election contest as a positive thing. They see a change in the party controlling the White House and the probable capture of one House of Congress between now and then as great outcomes. Absent startling change in the situation, unless I die or am incapacitated, I will be voting for this outcome. (Please no laughing if I don’t make it.)
But this will not be the end. Nothing ever ends in politics and the seeds of disaffection have already been sown. Failure to stay the course is tantamount to a `Stab-in-the-Back’ for the troops who have sacrificed so much for us. The pendulum that is clearly swinging in the direction of those with a realistic outlook of foreign policy could move back the other way in the blink of an eye.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Thursday, July 14, 2005
TRUST BILL - REALLY!
Why should you read my novels – or anyone else’s? Frankly, there’s no reason to unless I – and they - prove worthy of your trust. Why should you read my blog? Again none, except for two tiny benefits compared with the books; they’re free and they’re short – bargains in cash and time. My words are no more valuable than anyone else’s - unless you have developed a certain minimum level of confidence in my thoughts or comfort in my way of expressing them, yet I regularly ask for your precious time. That’s ridiculous!
Your time is the most valuable thing you have to offer any commentator, so you should rightly reject demands by those asking you to consider their points of view. Still, without outside opinion your life would much emptier. You have to trust somebody. Some would more readily buy into many of the positions of the New York Times; others would be more comfortable with The Wall Street Journal. I could go on with this comparison indefinitely and, for example, juxtapose Rush Limbaugh and Jane Fonda, but you get the point; there are an indefinite number of points of view all seeking your time.
Al Bundy of Married…With Children was way ahead of Wild Bill. Many of the Bundys of the world whose lives were changed by playing high school ball decide that their best shot at the brass ring would be to open sporting goods stores. Likewise many among us who like to eat or, especially, cook, decide they could easily and profitably run restaurants. Sadly, most of such dream roads lead, like Al’s, not to the Biblical Hell but to selling women’s shoes, to bagging groceries or, worse, to writing government memos.
But those with strong opinions never learn. We‘re just not as smart as Al Bundy; we won’t simply fail, drop it, and smell the socks. We’re know it alls who understand terrorism, the War in Iraq, or whatever and can’t stop telling you that George has it all wrong. Is Rush Limbaugh that much smarter than everyone else? When listening to him – which I do far more often than my liberal friends would like to hear – I often find him funny but almost never compelling. But old Rush has tens of millions of listeners, so who’s Wild Bill to say the man is a charlatan milking the red state rubes and their disaffected blue state blowhards?
When Wild Bill makes a statement, many get angry. “I’ve known that jackass for fifty years, and he hasn’t made any sense yet. Who does he think he is, Rush Limbaugh?” The better question might be, who does Rush think he is? Rush Limbaugh?
All of us seeking your time, if not your money, hold ourselves out to be not only communicators but great pontificators. But who says that Richard Cohen, Rush, E. J. Dionne, Jr, Robert Novak or Wild Bill is worth a fig or a minute? Well we can start with publishers and station owners; they bet their money on these guys – okay, and Maureen Dowd and Ellen Goodman, et al – and gals. Still the blogosphere is now loaded with tens of thousands of madmen and madwomen screaming to be heard.
What’s a reader to do? Trust Bill! Not really, but as you sample you’ve got to take some chances. Some of the bloggers are nuts; others are so clearly partisan is to be unworthy of your attention and, of course, that most precious of all things, your time.
All I can do is promise to be as thoughtful and reasonable as I can be, and I’ll even try to be clear and down to earth in my presentations. I won’t KNOWINGLY steal from anyone else’s material. And I’ll try to entertain while presenting my point of view.
I’m quite flattered that despite having gone on semi-sabbatical many of my regulars and an occasional newcomer will check in to see if I’ve posted anything new. While this used to be a daily electronic rag it has become a semi-monthly, at least until the next election cycle rolls around but it’s heartening to know that people are at least glancing at the site.
So even if you’ve read one of my novels, if I’ve amused you even slightly, get out there and tell somebody else to spring for one.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Your time is the most valuable thing you have to offer any commentator, so you should rightly reject demands by those asking you to consider their points of view. Still, without outside opinion your life would much emptier. You have to trust somebody. Some would more readily buy into many of the positions of the New York Times; others would be more comfortable with The Wall Street Journal. I could go on with this comparison indefinitely and, for example, juxtapose Rush Limbaugh and Jane Fonda, but you get the point; there are an indefinite number of points of view all seeking your time.
Al Bundy of Married…With Children was way ahead of Wild Bill. Many of the Bundys of the world whose lives were changed by playing high school ball decide that their best shot at the brass ring would be to open sporting goods stores. Likewise many among us who like to eat or, especially, cook, decide they could easily and profitably run restaurants. Sadly, most of such dream roads lead, like Al’s, not to the Biblical Hell but to selling women’s shoes, to bagging groceries or, worse, to writing government memos.
But those with strong opinions never learn. We‘re just not as smart as Al Bundy; we won’t simply fail, drop it, and smell the socks. We’re know it alls who understand terrorism, the War in Iraq, or whatever and can’t stop telling you that George has it all wrong. Is Rush Limbaugh that much smarter than everyone else? When listening to him – which I do far more often than my liberal friends would like to hear – I often find him funny but almost never compelling. But old Rush has tens of millions of listeners, so who’s Wild Bill to say the man is a charlatan milking the red state rubes and their disaffected blue state blowhards?
When Wild Bill makes a statement, many get angry. “I’ve known that jackass for fifty years, and he hasn’t made any sense yet. Who does he think he is, Rush Limbaugh?” The better question might be, who does Rush think he is? Rush Limbaugh?
All of us seeking your time, if not your money, hold ourselves out to be not only communicators but great pontificators. But who says that Richard Cohen, Rush, E. J. Dionne, Jr, Robert Novak or Wild Bill is worth a fig or a minute? Well we can start with publishers and station owners; they bet their money on these guys – okay, and Maureen Dowd and Ellen Goodman, et al – and gals. Still the blogosphere is now loaded with tens of thousands of madmen and madwomen screaming to be heard.
What’s a reader to do? Trust Bill! Not really, but as you sample you’ve got to take some chances. Some of the bloggers are nuts; others are so clearly partisan is to be unworthy of your attention and, of course, that most precious of all things, your time.
All I can do is promise to be as thoughtful and reasonable as I can be, and I’ll even try to be clear and down to earth in my presentations. I won’t KNOWINGLY steal from anyone else’s material. And I’ll try to entertain while presenting my point of view.
I’m quite flattered that despite having gone on semi-sabbatical many of my regulars and an occasional newcomer will check in to see if I’ve posted anything new. While this used to be a daily electronic rag it has become a semi-monthly, at least until the next election cycle rolls around but it’s heartening to know that people are at least glancing at the site.
So even if you’ve read one of my novels, if I’ve amused you even slightly, get out there and tell somebody else to spring for one.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Thursday, July 07, 2005
This is London!
In this dangerous new world and deadly new war we’re in, people have a great interest in America’s reaction to previous crises, especially as it relates to those in our midst suspected of treacherous behavior.
Quite by chance, I’ve been studying such matters for many years. I must make the disclaimer that I am not a true scholar of such events and movements but rather an avid amateur reader. Long before 9/11, I was taken by the Sacco and Vanzetti case and wrote a novel about it. There can be no doubt that during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that a significant number of immigrants and citizens were smitten by the philosophy of anarchy. Most people take anarchy to be the absence of government and a chaotic state in society. But in its long life in America and Europe, anarchy was and is a well thought out – if silly – philosophy. In it man was an innocent and good creature until the forces of materialism corrupted men who used the levers of power to enslave the masses to the forces of materialism.
My bottom line with regard to Sacco and Vanzetti was that they were clearly committed anarchists. Whether they were guilty of the two murders for which they were executed has kept far more experienced scholars than Wild Bill in fodder for going on a century. When I began my review of the case, I thought that they were innocent. After much reading I tend to think the Morelli gang of Providence did the bank job for which their lives were taken by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1927. But Sacco and Vanzetti may indeed have done it. My true complaints about the case were about the way they were abused by the legal system. In this, I have not changed my mind even a slight bit.
After America’s experience with anarchy from the mid nineteenth century until the end of the Soviet experiment just over a decade ago, you might think that socialism, anarchism, communism and related approaches to governance and economic organization would have taken a long holiday, but it is clear from the reaction of at least a sub set of the protesters against globalism that anarchy is alive and kicking as are many other philosophies of redistribution of wealth.
The anarchists in America were indeed violent. There were many incidents of terror attributed to them, and I suppose that a good number of them were actually committed by these people. In the aftermath of World War I, President Wilson’s government worked hard to eradicate these cells of law breakers – to the point that the civil liberties of all were threatened. Many people attribute the Sacco and Vanzetti case to this overreaction. At least as it goes to their treatment under the law, I agree.
Since it is known by many that I’ve been working on a novel about the Japanese Internment during World War II, people, especially those who pride themselves on open mindedness concerning the aftermath of 9/11, continually assert that we must not allow what happened to America’s Japanese immigrants and American citizens of Japanese descent in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor to be visited upon America’s resident Muslims. I completely agree.
But there are significant differences between what happened in the days leading up to and following Pearl Harbor and those surrounding 9/11. The attack on Pearl Harbor was perpetrated by the Japanese government and military. So far as I have been able to determine, not a single resident alien or citizen of Japanese ethnic stock was ever arrested or convicted for an act of supplying strategic information to the Japanese government or for an act of sabotage against this country. Yet some 110,000 ethnic Japanese were removed from the Western parts of the country and deprived of their freedom – some for more than four years, simply because of their race and ethnicity.
The situation today is far different. The nation and its leaders, including President Bush have gone out of their way to differentiate between Muslims of many ethnic groupings and the terrorists who carried out the attacks of 9/11. But the great differences in the events of 1941 and 2001 is that the former were carried out by a nation state with no proven assistance from within the nation while the latter was conducted by agents of al Qaeda operating within our midst.
It appears to me that our government, an imperfect institution of laws and men, did not respond as well as it might have in either instance. In World War II under circumstances described by many historians and novelists, we gathered the Japanese together and exiled them internally until the threat receded. In the aftermath of 9/11, the government lashed out in a preventive war against Iraq. The reasons given for the war have proven to be incorrect, but we are caught up in that war and in the larger war against those who attacked us in September 2001. Iraq is now clearly part of that war and we must muddle through it as best we can in the fight against terror.
But what are we to make of the potential terrorists in our midst. Wild Bill an absolute opponent of the War in Iraq does not dispute that there are jihadists among us who would kill and maim our citizens as they killed and wounded innocents in Madrid last year and as they did today in London. How should we react? Certainly not by rounding up our Muslim friends and neighbors and putting them in concentration camps.
But we are demanding that our government protect us from these evil people. What should the government do? For starters they better examine our position in Iraq to see how we can get off this tiger’s back. When we turned on Saddam, we committed resources that might well have been better used in Afghanistan, a nation whose government was harboring our adversaries and which thus became our enemy. The Taliban remains elusive and has not been eradicated and remains capable of attacking our small force in the country. Al Qaeda, clearly wounded and on the run, still commands the allegiance of cells of terrorists around the world who would destroy us. But our forces are tied up in Iraq where al Qaeda operatives have made common cause with domestic insurgents with different goals – even probably toward the United States and its allies.
Is our country truly at war? The president says we are, but those of us who lived through World War II find day to day life significantly different in these two wars, as we might expect. But the one great resource that focuses our attention on the states of the Middle East, oil, is of greater concern nearly three years into the conflict than at the beginning. The latest version of a national energy policy does almost nothing to reduce our dependency on this commodity for many years to come. It would be one thing if our citizens were consuming this resource in spite of the policies of our government, but that just isn’t the case. Our national policy encourages us to travel, drive, and enjoy our gas guzzling cars. There is no hint of sacrifice. The policy is that technology will ultimately save us from the rapacious nations now tormenting us with their oil policy.
Well Wild Bill has digressed from the subject of terrorists in our midst to national energy policy, a common error among the outraged. The true bottom line is that if we’re at war let’s put the nation on a war footing. First, let’s get the troops needed to support the new Iraqi government over there and let’s get them the arms and armaments needed to do the job. Let’s then be truly committed to get out of Iraq and to get the requisite resources to Afghanistan where they’re needed. Clearly that situation is becoming a problem again.
Let’s spend the money necessary to defend us against internal terror. We are not committed to doing the job. For example, the budget authority is for 10,000 new border patrol agents, yet the president has asked for only two percent of that figure.
The hollow talk that we’re fighting in Iraq to engage the terrorists there before they can come here must cease. With the carnage that occurred in London today the war is here as far as I’m concerned. Let’s get statements of support from all of the major Islamic institutions that they do not support the terrorists and let’s square away the problems identified in the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, pronto. Four years after we’re attacked is too long. The president is passing out Medals of Freedom to any number of people who did not do what was required of officials in their positions. Working hard 24/7 is not enough.
This is a bad day. What happened in London should be common cause for all Americans. Let’s start sacrificing. Let’s cut the B.S. and start doing the right thing.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Quite by chance, I’ve been studying such matters for many years. I must make the disclaimer that I am not a true scholar of such events and movements but rather an avid amateur reader. Long before 9/11, I was taken by the Sacco and Vanzetti case and wrote a novel about it. There can be no doubt that during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that a significant number of immigrants and citizens were smitten by the philosophy of anarchy. Most people take anarchy to be the absence of government and a chaotic state in society. But in its long life in America and Europe, anarchy was and is a well thought out – if silly – philosophy. In it man was an innocent and good creature until the forces of materialism corrupted men who used the levers of power to enslave the masses to the forces of materialism.
My bottom line with regard to Sacco and Vanzetti was that they were clearly committed anarchists. Whether they were guilty of the two murders for which they were executed has kept far more experienced scholars than Wild Bill in fodder for going on a century. When I began my review of the case, I thought that they were innocent. After much reading I tend to think the Morelli gang of Providence did the bank job for which their lives were taken by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1927. But Sacco and Vanzetti may indeed have done it. My true complaints about the case were about the way they were abused by the legal system. In this, I have not changed my mind even a slight bit.
After America’s experience with anarchy from the mid nineteenth century until the end of the Soviet experiment just over a decade ago, you might think that socialism, anarchism, communism and related approaches to governance and economic organization would have taken a long holiday, but it is clear from the reaction of at least a sub set of the protesters against globalism that anarchy is alive and kicking as are many other philosophies of redistribution of wealth.
The anarchists in America were indeed violent. There were many incidents of terror attributed to them, and I suppose that a good number of them were actually committed by these people. In the aftermath of World War I, President Wilson’s government worked hard to eradicate these cells of law breakers – to the point that the civil liberties of all were threatened. Many people attribute the Sacco and Vanzetti case to this overreaction. At least as it goes to their treatment under the law, I agree.
Since it is known by many that I’ve been working on a novel about the Japanese Internment during World War II, people, especially those who pride themselves on open mindedness concerning the aftermath of 9/11, continually assert that we must not allow what happened to America’s Japanese immigrants and American citizens of Japanese descent in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor to be visited upon America’s resident Muslims. I completely agree.
But there are significant differences between what happened in the days leading up to and following Pearl Harbor and those surrounding 9/11. The attack on Pearl Harbor was perpetrated by the Japanese government and military. So far as I have been able to determine, not a single resident alien or citizen of Japanese ethnic stock was ever arrested or convicted for an act of supplying strategic information to the Japanese government or for an act of sabotage against this country. Yet some 110,000 ethnic Japanese were removed from the Western parts of the country and deprived of their freedom – some for more than four years, simply because of their race and ethnicity.
The situation today is far different. The nation and its leaders, including President Bush have gone out of their way to differentiate between Muslims of many ethnic groupings and the terrorists who carried out the attacks of 9/11. But the great differences in the events of 1941 and 2001 is that the former were carried out by a nation state with no proven assistance from within the nation while the latter was conducted by agents of al Qaeda operating within our midst.
It appears to me that our government, an imperfect institution of laws and men, did not respond as well as it might have in either instance. In World War II under circumstances described by many historians and novelists, we gathered the Japanese together and exiled them internally until the threat receded. In the aftermath of 9/11, the government lashed out in a preventive war against Iraq. The reasons given for the war have proven to be incorrect, but we are caught up in that war and in the larger war against those who attacked us in September 2001. Iraq is now clearly part of that war and we must muddle through it as best we can in the fight against terror.
But what are we to make of the potential terrorists in our midst. Wild Bill an absolute opponent of the War in Iraq does not dispute that there are jihadists among us who would kill and maim our citizens as they killed and wounded innocents in Madrid last year and as they did today in London. How should we react? Certainly not by rounding up our Muslim friends and neighbors and putting them in concentration camps.
But we are demanding that our government protect us from these evil people. What should the government do? For starters they better examine our position in Iraq to see how we can get off this tiger’s back. When we turned on Saddam, we committed resources that might well have been better used in Afghanistan, a nation whose government was harboring our adversaries and which thus became our enemy. The Taliban remains elusive and has not been eradicated and remains capable of attacking our small force in the country. Al Qaeda, clearly wounded and on the run, still commands the allegiance of cells of terrorists around the world who would destroy us. But our forces are tied up in Iraq where al Qaeda operatives have made common cause with domestic insurgents with different goals – even probably toward the United States and its allies.
Is our country truly at war? The president says we are, but those of us who lived through World War II find day to day life significantly different in these two wars, as we might expect. But the one great resource that focuses our attention on the states of the Middle East, oil, is of greater concern nearly three years into the conflict than at the beginning. The latest version of a national energy policy does almost nothing to reduce our dependency on this commodity for many years to come. It would be one thing if our citizens were consuming this resource in spite of the policies of our government, but that just isn’t the case. Our national policy encourages us to travel, drive, and enjoy our gas guzzling cars. There is no hint of sacrifice. The policy is that technology will ultimately save us from the rapacious nations now tormenting us with their oil policy.
Well Wild Bill has digressed from the subject of terrorists in our midst to national energy policy, a common error among the outraged. The true bottom line is that if we’re at war let’s put the nation on a war footing. First, let’s get the troops needed to support the new Iraqi government over there and let’s get them the arms and armaments needed to do the job. Let’s then be truly committed to get out of Iraq and to get the requisite resources to Afghanistan where they’re needed. Clearly that situation is becoming a problem again.
Let’s spend the money necessary to defend us against internal terror. We are not committed to doing the job. For example, the budget authority is for 10,000 new border patrol agents, yet the president has asked for only two percent of that figure.
The hollow talk that we’re fighting in Iraq to engage the terrorists there before they can come here must cease. With the carnage that occurred in London today the war is here as far as I’m concerned. Let’s get statements of support from all of the major Islamic institutions that they do not support the terrorists and let’s square away the problems identified in the intelligence and law enforcement agencies, pronto. Four years after we’re attacked is too long. The president is passing out Medals of Freedom to any number of people who did not do what was required of officials in their positions. Working hard 24/7 is not enough.
This is a bad day. What happened in London should be common cause for all Americans. Let’s start sacrificing. Let’s cut the B.S. and start doing the right thing.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Thursday, June 30, 2005
NO TIMETABLE, REALLY!
In his speech to the nation the other night, President Bush said that if we stay the course in Iraq we can win. Is that true? It all depends on how you define victory. If that triumph equates to the victory that Senator George Aiken of Vermont supported for Vietnam: a declaration of victory and a quick trip home for our troops, it shouldn’t be much of a problem. If on the other hand, we mean something akin to the defeat inflicted upon Japanese nation and the remake of the government of that country accomplished after World War II, I’m not nearly so sure.
Let’s be frank, we’re viewed as infidels by true believers in the Islamic world, and they are more than a little uncomfortable with us occupying a country central to that civilization. Wouldn’t Westerners be slightly out of whack if France had the huge oil reserves of Iraq and was being occupied by the Egyptian army; especially, if the occupiers had toppled even our favorite Frenchman in the process, dear old Jacques Chirac. Despite France being a secular corner of Christianity and quite unloved by Americans at this time, many Western Christians – even a few from the U.S. - would be entering the country from across the borders with Spain and the Low Countries trying to undermine the occupiers and punish the French security forces collaborating with the infidel occupiers.
What have we wrought in Iraq? At best, we’ve toppled a corrupt and aggressive regime and replaced it with a puppet government that we are propping up until some sort of legitimate power can come along, hopefully one that can defend itself and will remain relatively dependent on us for its continued well being. Read that as meaning it will continue to pump oil to the markets of the world with some degree of security from insurgents or terrorists, however those labels are defined. It’s likely that most of the Arab countries and those other powers geographically nearby would not be too offended by this outcome, providing the U.S. were clearly not creating a puppet that required our indefinite physical presence over many decades.
Almost all supporters of the president and the preventive war undertaken in Iraq and a majority of those of us who thought the attack was illegal, immoral, and stupid now see this as the best possible outcome – one worth further sacrifice. That said, we’ve got to get going. No more lies from the administration, no more Pollyanna B.S. from Dick Cheney about how wonderfully well things are going in Iraq and how the insurgency is in its last throes.
The President and Secretary Rumsfeld are going to have to stop treating the nation's citizens like a bunch retarded jackasses. And let's just drop the usual pap that if the commanders in Iraq want more troops, all they have to do is ask. Those military bureaucrats know that asking is not how they’re going to win promotions and Medals of Freedom. The President has to cave on this point. He’s got to offer more troops, arms and armaments and make it clear that those who take the offer aren’t going to be sent to Iraq if they do. Oops, I forgot; they’re already in that armpit.
No one has publicly acknowledged the dream of strategic bases in Iraq to defend against incursion from the Iran and other countries to the west. Most of us believe that was part of the reason for the war, but the President has got to say it isn’t in our plans. We’re not going to set up permanently in the Iraqi desert. One more dream probably harbored by the neocons just has to be skewered for the benefit of those Westerners opposed to the war and for Muslims everywhere.
The President refuses to set a timetable for withdrawing our troops. He says that if we did that the terrorists would just wait for that date and have at us as we left. That’s partially true – the part about them throwing rocks at the ships carrying our troops away. The terrorists already know we can’t stand the heat and that we’re as good as gone, but if it makes the people who made this war happy, we’ll play along with their charade. We won’t set a timetable for withdrawal.
That said, the Iraqis in power and those who will come to power over the next few years have to know that we’re leaving – very soon but without a timetable, mind you. We’ll set them up with sufficient troops, police and equipment to defend themselves and their institutions, and then we’ll leave. They also have to know that we’re not coming back. We can’t. They have to sink or swim without our troops.
Those who would topple or take over the new government have to understand that our financial and security support would end as soon as they made a move on the government. We may not be able to come back and occupy Iraq, but we still have lot’s money, airplanes, and cruise missiles and it’s likely that we could re-topple them. We sure made life miserable for Saddam without attacking; too bad we changed our policy
The bottom line is that the administration and the neocons have created a catastrophe for America. Our allies knew it and tried to warn them; our competitors and enemies knew it and loved it; many Americans knew it and begged them not to; but they prevailed and here we are. We broke the pottery, and we’re sure as hell paying for it. We may own it, but we’re more than willing to give it back in whatever state of repair we manage and with lots more glue and money.
The terrorists know that that they’ve got us by our privates. That we can whip them in Iraq and it will be over is a joke. We may be able to drive them out of Iraq, but if we don’t leave, it will never end. The American people know that they’re being lied to. All we want is for Bush to get us out of this mess that he created. We all know that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam wasn’t playing footsy with Osama.
But the situation has changed since our fatal move. The jihadists are now really in Iraq, and we’ve got to establish a government that can handle them. The key ingredient in the new situation is that we must leave as quickly as possible and stop this mad talk of reforming another civilization. Democracy for the Iraqis, Saudis, Indonesians or any other country must come from within. All the ranting by Bush about reforming the world has got to stop
Train those Iraqis, send more troops. Stop the lying and start getting ready to vacate the premises.
It is said that Americans hate Congress but love their Congressman. If your Congressman is supporting this mad venture with any more than an eye to leave, vote him or her a great new retirement package and get them into a glamorous new career on K Street.
Regardless of how this comes out, support divided government. A government with one party controlling the White House and both Houses of Congress brought us this fiasco just as another one brought us Vietnam. Don’t perpetuate it. Think about it; your vote counts!
Blog On!
Wild Bill
Let’s be frank, we’re viewed as infidels by true believers in the Islamic world, and they are more than a little uncomfortable with us occupying a country central to that civilization. Wouldn’t Westerners be slightly out of whack if France had the huge oil reserves of Iraq and was being occupied by the Egyptian army; especially, if the occupiers had toppled even our favorite Frenchman in the process, dear old Jacques Chirac. Despite France being a secular corner of Christianity and quite unloved by Americans at this time, many Western Christians – even a few from the U.S. - would be entering the country from across the borders with Spain and the Low Countries trying to undermine the occupiers and punish the French security forces collaborating with the infidel occupiers.
What have we wrought in Iraq? At best, we’ve toppled a corrupt and aggressive regime and replaced it with a puppet government that we are propping up until some sort of legitimate power can come along, hopefully one that can defend itself and will remain relatively dependent on us for its continued well being. Read that as meaning it will continue to pump oil to the markets of the world with some degree of security from insurgents or terrorists, however those labels are defined. It’s likely that most of the Arab countries and those other powers geographically nearby would not be too offended by this outcome, providing the U.S. were clearly not creating a puppet that required our indefinite physical presence over many decades.
Almost all supporters of the president and the preventive war undertaken in Iraq and a majority of those of us who thought the attack was illegal, immoral, and stupid now see this as the best possible outcome – one worth further sacrifice. That said, we’ve got to get going. No more lies from the administration, no more Pollyanna B.S. from Dick Cheney about how wonderfully well things are going in Iraq and how the insurgency is in its last throes.
The President and Secretary Rumsfeld are going to have to stop treating the nation's citizens like a bunch retarded jackasses. And let's just drop the usual pap that if the commanders in Iraq want more troops, all they have to do is ask. Those military bureaucrats know that asking is not how they’re going to win promotions and Medals of Freedom. The President has to cave on this point. He’s got to offer more troops, arms and armaments and make it clear that those who take the offer aren’t going to be sent to Iraq if they do. Oops, I forgot; they’re already in that armpit.
No one has publicly acknowledged the dream of strategic bases in Iraq to defend against incursion from the Iran and other countries to the west. Most of us believe that was part of the reason for the war, but the President has got to say it isn’t in our plans. We’re not going to set up permanently in the Iraqi desert. One more dream probably harbored by the neocons just has to be skewered for the benefit of those Westerners opposed to the war and for Muslims everywhere.
The President refuses to set a timetable for withdrawing our troops. He says that if we did that the terrorists would just wait for that date and have at us as we left. That’s partially true – the part about them throwing rocks at the ships carrying our troops away. The terrorists already know we can’t stand the heat and that we’re as good as gone, but if it makes the people who made this war happy, we’ll play along with their charade. We won’t set a timetable for withdrawal.
That said, the Iraqis in power and those who will come to power over the next few years have to know that we’re leaving – very soon but without a timetable, mind you. We’ll set them up with sufficient troops, police and equipment to defend themselves and their institutions, and then we’ll leave. They also have to know that we’re not coming back. We can’t. They have to sink or swim without our troops.
Those who would topple or take over the new government have to understand that our financial and security support would end as soon as they made a move on the government. We may not be able to come back and occupy Iraq, but we still have lot’s money, airplanes, and cruise missiles and it’s likely that we could re-topple them. We sure made life miserable for Saddam without attacking; too bad we changed our policy
The bottom line is that the administration and the neocons have created a catastrophe for America. Our allies knew it and tried to warn them; our competitors and enemies knew it and loved it; many Americans knew it and begged them not to; but they prevailed and here we are. We broke the pottery, and we’re sure as hell paying for it. We may own it, but we’re more than willing to give it back in whatever state of repair we manage and with lots more glue and money.
The terrorists know that that they’ve got us by our privates. That we can whip them in Iraq and it will be over is a joke. We may be able to drive them out of Iraq, but if we don’t leave, it will never end. The American people know that they’re being lied to. All we want is for Bush to get us out of this mess that he created. We all know that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam wasn’t playing footsy with Osama.
But the situation has changed since our fatal move. The jihadists are now really in Iraq, and we’ve got to establish a government that can handle them. The key ingredient in the new situation is that we must leave as quickly as possible and stop this mad talk of reforming another civilization. Democracy for the Iraqis, Saudis, Indonesians or any other country must come from within. All the ranting by Bush about reforming the world has got to stop
Train those Iraqis, send more troops. Stop the lying and start getting ready to vacate the premises.
It is said that Americans hate Congress but love their Congressman. If your Congressman is supporting this mad venture with any more than an eye to leave, vote him or her a great new retirement package and get them into a glamorous new career on K Street.
Regardless of how this comes out, support divided government. A government with one party controlling the White House and both Houses of Congress brought us this fiasco just as another one brought us Vietnam. Don’t perpetuate it. Think about it; your vote counts!
Blog On!
Wild Bill
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Support Our Troops
Support Our Troops! Of course I do, but tell me what it means?
I have been an opponent of the Iraq War since the idea was first floated, yet I swear I'm a supporter of the troops, perhaps as great as those who cheered as the Used Car Salesman In Chief proclaimed an end to hostilities on the flight deck of the Abraham Lincoln so very long ago.
Just what does the cliche, Support Our Troops, mean? Does it mean that I want to stay in Iraq until the casualties rise to double those already incurred? Until we've broken the army and the bank? Hardly. Perhaps it means I support getting them the armored Humvies they should have had so long ago; you bet I do.
Does it mean mindless support of the policy to spread freedom to all nations? Not if it means I have to buy into the bunkum that replaces the slam dunk guarantee that we would find weapons of mass destruction as soon as Saddam was toppled. Surely you remember the performance by Secretary of State Colin Powell before the U.N. Security Council when he showed slides of weapons lurking under every rock in the desert sun? We're still looking - but it's a big country.
Of course you remember when Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki was derided - and retired - for saying it would take more than 200,000 American troops to pacify a conquered Iraq? Of course you do, but that's long gone as problem. The latest word from the UCSIC is that everything is going swimmingly in Iraq and that as soon as morons like Wild Bill - and you, dear reader - get with the program and support our troops, then those evil jihadists will see that resistance is futile and throw up their hands in surrender to freedom and the American way.
I bought one of those ribbons today, and I'll mount it on my car like everyone else as soon as someone explains rationally what the hell it means. I'm waiting.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
I have been an opponent of the Iraq War since the idea was first floated, yet I swear I'm a supporter of the troops, perhaps as great as those who cheered as the Used Car Salesman In Chief proclaimed an end to hostilities on the flight deck of the Abraham Lincoln so very long ago.
Just what does the cliche, Support Our Troops, mean? Does it mean that I want to stay in Iraq until the casualties rise to double those already incurred? Until we've broken the army and the bank? Hardly. Perhaps it means I support getting them the armored Humvies they should have had so long ago; you bet I do.
Does it mean mindless support of the policy to spread freedom to all nations? Not if it means I have to buy into the bunkum that replaces the slam dunk guarantee that we would find weapons of mass destruction as soon as Saddam was toppled. Surely you remember the performance by Secretary of State Colin Powell before the U.N. Security Council when he showed slides of weapons lurking under every rock in the desert sun? We're still looking - but it's a big country.
Of course you remember when Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki was derided - and retired - for saying it would take more than 200,000 American troops to pacify a conquered Iraq? Of course you do, but that's long gone as problem. The latest word from the UCSIC is that everything is going swimmingly in Iraq and that as soon as morons like Wild Bill - and you, dear reader - get with the program and support our troops, then those evil jihadists will see that resistance is futile and throw up their hands in surrender to freedom and the American way.
I bought one of those ribbons today, and I'll mount it on my car like everyone else as soon as someone explains rationally what the hell it means. I'm waiting.
Blog on!
Wild Bill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)