Secret campaign promises

One thing about George Bush — he’s keeping one of his campaign promises. True, it’s not one he actually campaigned on; it’s one that he probably would rather no one know about.

I refer to his promise to his pals in the oil industry, about getting prices up there so they’d reap obscene profits. He’s made every effort to make that happen, and even now, with a little over a year left in his reign, he’s maintaining.

From the outset it’s been Iraq, which served a two-fold purpose — one, to secure Iraq’s oil for US corporations (thus far not exactly successful) and two, to generate the kind of fear in oil futures’ markets that results in higher prices (thus far, quite successful).

In recent months it’s also been Iran — not an invasion, but the kind of sabre rattling that accomplishes two, above. And now, with the release of the National Intelligence Estimate that says Iran quit its nuclear weapons program in 2003, Bush gives his secret promise away: despite the fact that there is no real Irani nuclear threat, Bush insists there might be, which… perpetuates two.

I have no hard facts to prove a thing I’ve said in this post. However, we live in an era where facts seem to be irrelevant. Bush has created fake facts and ignored real ones. So what difference does it make if I go with my gut here.

Stupidity by association

I imagine there are a few relatively smart people around George Bush who out of loyalty stick by him even as their world crumbles around them. People like Condi Rice, for example, who while perhaps in over her head as Secretary of State is nevertheless not stupid. She of course sees the quagmire of Iraq, which she herself was instrumental in helping create. She sees the looming crisis with Iran, which we alienated long before her arrival on the scene but which she is hopelessly under-equipped to advise about. She sees the breakdown in democracy in Pakistan even as our dollars flow there. She sees the growing rift between the US and Russia, the tension with former friend Venezuela, the failure in Afghanistan, the overall loss of American credibility around the world. She sees everything going down the drain, and while she has a public face to maintain, I would not doubt that in her private thoughts she is thinking, “I’m part of an administration that sabotaged the United States.”

She is probably not alone in that lonely place the White House has almost certainly become these days, perhaps all but George Bush wondering how history will judge them. They are most likely praying for the arrival of inaguration day, 2009, when they can be done with it all. They may be pondering whether or not to carry their loyalty over into private life, considering the books they might write, wondering if they’d be labled betrayers if they told some revealing truths about their eight years with Bush.

It’s taken eight years for the Bush administration to turn a prosperous, proud, highly regarded nation into a shell of its former self. One wonders how it all can be restored, and if there’s anyone out there who could work that magic.

It’s Still the War, Stupid

Writing about the Iraq war is like scratching an annoying rash — it feels better for a minute, but it doesn’t make it quit itching. Nevertheless, it’s my periodic vent, so bear with me.

I suppose what most boggles my mind is that there are still many Republicans who continue to support the war and that it was a good idea from the beginning. It’s only fair, of course, to remind everyone that most Americans — and most in Congress, Democrat and Republican alike — were gung ho for the war at first. I wasn’t, and I wish I was on record. I was among the unpatriotic few who thought it was stupid, who believed Saddam Hussein, evil though he was, posed no threat to the US. I also thought that Saddam Hussein, evil though he was, provided some stability in an otherwise volatile region by being a foe of Iran. I thought that every argument for the war put forward by the administration was pure baloney.

I do not hold it against most Americans for getting caught up in the hysterical post-9/11 hue and cry for vengeance. Congress gets some blame for not asking harder questions, but I wouldn’t replace every Democrat who went along with it because too many of them are otherwise good Democrats who I prefer keep their seats. I do hope they learned their lesson, though.

The fact remains, though — it’s still Bush’s war. And if he thought it would be the cakewalk Dick Cheney described back then, it’s become something more diabolical now — a trap for Democrats. Which is why I continue to urge the Democratic candidates for president to unify their message where the war is concerned rather than attack one another. As many have acknowledged, their are only bad and worse answers to the problem. As the situation their continues to unfold, it makes little sense to present various plans of action for late January, 2009. By then, all of Iraq might be in flames, in all-out civil war. The best any candidate can do during the campaign is to promise to work with other nations to try to repair the damage caused by the Bush administration. It has to be that way because we won’t be able to do it alone — nor should we. We might be the leader of the free world, but we should not be the world’s policeman.

Iraq is now, of course, a quagmire, a recruiting poster for terrorists, a drain on precious resources of life, wealth, prestige and credibility. It has made the world a more dangerous place. We are in no way engaging terrorists there who might otherwise be attacking the US. Bush’s remark, “It’s better to fight them there than to fight them here ,” is laughable. It’s very unlikely that terrorists with an eye on US targets are messing around in Iraq — with a few exceptions the tactics there would not apply to attacks here.

Iraq can and should be the unifying message for all Democrats in the next election. Democrats need a strong majority in both houses of Congress, and a wise president to lead. And I continue to believe that the best Democratic candidate for president is still not in the race.

The Mess

There may be a better word to describe the Middle East these days, but “mess” will do for now. It is, and will always be, the legacy of one George W. Bush, who was not the people’s choice for President in 2000., but who became president anyway, and went on to prove that his résumé up till that moment was a forecast of things to come.

When describing the presidency of George W. Bush, it’s hard to know exactly where to begin looking when searching for that first failure that would set the tone for all the failures to come. For the moment, let’s focus on that one daily intelligence briefing of mid-August, 2001, when the president was vacationing in Texas — the one that warned of possible Al Qaeda plans to hijack airliners within the United States, the one that was apparently ignored. What followed was 9/11, and what followed that was the almost universal clamor within the US for revenge.

The invasion of Afghanistan was hard to argue against, since that was apparently where the brains behind 9/11 were holed up, with the support of the then-ruling Taliban. The invasion of Iraq in 2003, however, was a lot easier to argue against, considering there was no evidence that Iraq was involved in 9/11. The claim that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be false as well, was otherwise no justification for an invasion, since many countries already possess such weapons, and we’ve yet to invade a single one of them. But few vocalized opposition to that invasion because of the clamor — including a lot of members of the Senate, who are now struggling to defend their vote, or publicly disavowing those votes.

We always say we want our elected officials to listen to us, so in one way I suppose they can’t be blamed for giving the President what he wanted. Apparently most of the American people wanted it too, at the time. Those voicing opposition were tagged as unpatriotic by the administration, a charge that was picked up by the media and echoed by the public. Always with the next election on their minds, Senators voted with their fingers crossed.

Now of course they wish they hadn’t, but it’s too late. We have the mess — which is still, when you come right down to it, Bush’s mess, despite our complicity. And now we have a country divided on just how to clean up this mess — and Democratic candidates waging ugly primary campaigns against each other as a result.

Candidates, I’m here to tell you today that now is not the time to fight amongst yourselves. There is no easy solution to Bush’s mess. We can’t accurately predict the consequences of remaining in Iraq, nor can we accurately predict the consequences of withdrawing. Either choice could result in continued chaos… more mess. What’s important is to unite behind the theme that it IS Bush’s mess, that it doesn’t matter any more who was a sucker in 2003, and that at this point ANY Democrat would be better than ANY Republican, for a variety of solid reasons. Make your pitch, and let the primary voters decide. Just stand united. I’m already disgusted by the Bush-led Republicans… becoming disgusted by the Democrats will truly dishearten me.

In his book Bush on the Couch, Dr. Justin Frank did a thorough job of psychoanalyzing George W. Bush. His conclusion — that the man wasn’t fit to be president, that he needed counseling badly. However, one didn’t need a PhD to be able to come to that conclusion — and many of us did so, even before the 2000 election. We are now suffering the effects of this man’s damaged mind.

I usually have clear opinions about most issues. I can tell you how I think we should address climate change or the health-care crisis. I can tell you how I think we should fix education. But on Iraq, I’m at a loss — and I think most sound-thinking people are as well. The best solution is impossible — going back in time and undoing it.

Sometimes I think I would like to go to a place untouched by the news of today’s tragedies, but I’m afraid such places have no indoor plumbing and I’m too used to that.

What War?

They keep referring to this mess in Iraq as a “war” — and they know who they are. So I ask, “What war?”

Who are we fighting? The terrorists? I don’t think so. We’re really not fighting anyone. See, in a war there are usually two sides, one side against the other. Take WWII, for example. It was us (the Allies) against them (the Axis). In Iraq, there seem to be sides, but WE’RE not against either one of them. It’s as if the British had sent large amounts of troops over to the United States during our Civil War and milled about with guns a lot, not taking sides, but… what? Trying to force the North and the South to stop fighting? To stop killing one another?

Like we would have listened?

We had no business going to Iraq, and we have no business staying. Sure, it might get worse if we leave, but it might get worse if we stay. In fact, it probably will. If the aim of terrorists is to suck us deeper and deeper into this Civil War, they are succeeding if we even remain, let alone send more troops. If their aim is to weaken us, to deplete our military and human resources and treasury, they are succeeding.

And if they view George Bush as their most effective ally, they are correct.

The Decline of the United States

President Bush is worried about his legacy. Well, it’s very possible that he’ll be most remembered as the man who presided over the decline of the United States… or who precipitated the decline of the United States.

Thanks to his obsession with Iraq, he has taken our eye off China and the Far East. And thanks to his obsession with Iraq, he has weakened the American military and exposed its weaknesses. Thanks to his obsession with Iraq, he has squandered what was a tidy budget surplus and turned it into a massive deficit. Thanks to his obsession with Iraq, he has wasted thousands of American lives and many thousands of Iraqi civilian lives. Thanks to his obsession with Iraq, he has turned a relatively stable Middle East into a powderkeg. And thanks to his obsession with Iraq, he has ruined America’s credibility as the leader of the Free World.

It comes to light today that Defense Department intelligence was “twisted” to conform to the wishes of the White House as it attempted to justify the invasion of Iraq. But it’s been long known that the intelligence was either misinterpreted, flawed, or contrived.

In point of fact, there was never a good reason to invade Iraq, period. Saddam Hussein’s reputation as a cruel despot is no argument, because the world is filled with cruel despots. Despite the influence of Cheney and a handful of neo-cons, Bush took us down this road for reasons known only to him. Did he want to show the world that he was tougher than his father? Did he want a secure oil supply in a friendly American client state in the Middle East? Did he just want to prove that he was more than a college cheerleader? Who knows. We can speculate all we want, but in the end it doesn’t matter.

I wonder if Bush realizes just how badly he’s failed. I wonder if he realizes just how badly he’s damaged America’s strength and prestige. I wonder if he’s capable of introspection, of self-criticism. I sometimes wonder if he’s even sane.

The Constitution is No Joke, George

A Federal judge in Detroit has decided that the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program is unconstitutional (see story). What’s new.

But his hasn’t been the administration’s only egregious violation of the Constitution. To date, the president has issued more signing statements on passed legislation than all other presidents combined, a policy that clearly smacks of an imperial presidency. Most legal scholars find this, and the eavesdropping programs, unconstitutional.

Apparently the president doesn’t hire legal scholars though. Apparently he hires lawyers who share his agenda, who interpret the Constitution in the same bizarre way the president and his advisors do, legal ideologues who apparently believe the president is above the very Constitution he has sworn to defend and protect. The Constitution is pretty clear about the process of creating laws. Nowhere does it state that the president can ignore portions of a bill once it is signed into law. No competent attorney would advise the president to the contrary.
This falls under the heading of “high crimes,” which the Constitution speaks to quite clearly. It is an impeachable offense. But the president’s attorneys don’t need to advise the president that he is immune from impeachment, because they know Dick Cheney would be waiting in the wings, and that’s pretty good impeachment insurance.

Does the Plot Thicken?

Here’s an afterthought to my previous post. Since yesterday the news has been filled with stories about the foiled terrorist plot. From what I’ve been hearing, the plot was the real deal. There are 24 suspects in custody, and the names of 19 have been released. So yes, Virginia — there was a plot.

We have to remember, though, that the people who are telling us there was a plot are the very same people who told us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he had ties to Al Qaeda which implicated him in the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11. As we all know, those claims turned out to be bogus. Were they based on flawed intelligence, as we’ve been told? Was the intelligence skewed to fit the desires of the Bush administration? Or was it all a pack of deliberate lies?

There once was a time when if the government said something, I generally believed it. But that was long ago. Over the years I’ve become more and more skeptical — until now, when if the government says something, I tend to think the opposite is true. Personally, I think it’s damn sad.

Are The Terrorists Winning?

It’s only taken one day for the administration to start spinning the foiled terrorist plot into a campaign issue for the November elections, and the headline on a Yahoo! news article says it all: Bush seeks political gains from foiled plot. Why, if we didn’t know better, we’d be thinking that the terrorists were Republican campaign field workers.

What the administration wants to do, of course, is to reinforce the belief that its policies — and by extension, the policies of the Republican party — are keeping Americans safe, and that only by continuing to elect Republicans will we remain safe.

But in his remarks the president left himself an out. “It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America,” he said. “We’ve taken a lot of measures to protect the American people. But obviously we still aren’t completely safe.”

“We still aren’t completely safe.” Naturally he had to say this, because otherwise how would he explain a plot that actually succeeded?

Right now I’m left with the impression that the terrorists are the Republicans’ best friends. Otherwise, why would they have presented the GOP with what some might consider a winning campaign issue? So by extension, it follows that the terrorists would like nothing better than for the Republicans to remain in power.

Republicans have used this kind of strategy often in the past. They’ve painted Democrats as soft on communism, soft on crime. Now it’s soft on terrorism. The implication is that as long as Republicans remain in power, plots will be foiled. Vote Democrat, and plots will succeed.

But in its constant barrage of reminders about the horrors of 9/11, the administration alsinadvertentlyly reminds us that the worst terror plot to have ever succeeded occurred on the Republicans’ watch. And it’s left up to us to remember on our own that the administration may have had intelligence in hand that warned of the plot to destroy the Twin Towers.

On NPR’s All Things Considered last night, I listened to one analyst discuss how the terrorists were inclined to stick with a tactic they were familiar with — blowing up airplanes. Of course the thought of that is frightening. But imagine how terrifying it would be if they blew up something else. I can’t imagine they’re not thinking about it. The possibilities are almost endless.

We continue to fuel the terrorists’ hatred of us. With each passing day, we give them more reasons to attack us. There are more terrorists today than there were six years ago, and as long as we continue our present policies, their numbers will increase — and our civil liberties will be stripped away.

The terrorists’ goal is to instill terror. But it’s not just Al Qaeda that’s doing that. It’s the administration as well. If terrorists want to destroy American democracy, as the administration claims, they’re succeeding.

The Karma of War

In America’s past, young men never shied away from going to war when their country called on them. Yes, for many wars we had a draft in place, but with the exception of the occasional person with the means to get a deferment, most conscripts reported to duty. And patriotism brought out the volunteers.

That changed during the Vietnam War. Sure reported when called up, and sure there were the patriotic enlistees, but never before had so many protested against a war, and never before had so many fled the country rather than risk being drafted. Why? Because it was a war with bad karma — it was a stupid war.

This is the case today. The all-volunteer army is having trouble meeting its enlistment goals, and I have little doubt that should the draft be reinstated young men — and this time, young women, who will surely be eligible for the draft — will again leave the country in record numbers.

After Vietnam, we kinda hoped that the United States would never again engage in a military folly of such a scale. It was a lesson learned hard. What kept our military’s numbers up in the years since was the very fact that we were mostly at peace, and the military offered a fairly attractive career or training alternative to a lot of young people. Bush did these young men and women a great disservice by sending them into another war with bad karma.

It will take years to repair the damage that George Bush has caused to our military — and future troops will need more than public relations to be convinced that when they’re about to be sent into harm’s way it’ll be for a good reason. Today America’s young are more cynical than ever — and tomorrow’s troops might very well resist being sent to fight somewhere if they think the reasons are flawed. And we can add this to George Bush’s dismal legacy.