August Week 2, 2005

Home Up

Home Up August Week 2, 2005 August Week 3, 2005 August Week 4, 2005 August Week 5, 2005

Monday  August 8 , 2005

You either build up or you tear down. You either keep in the light where you can see, or you stand in the dark and fight everything that comes near you, because you can't see and you think it's an enemy.

Frances Hodgson Burnett, The Lost Prince

We took Monica in with all the symptoms of Appendicitis  but it appears that she is fine, she has a UTI... and she's twelve and a half, so Lord only knows what's going on inside that little body... girls is mysterious lil' beasties...

No buyers today, not even lookers.

Property exactly like ours (The house directly behind us, 3br, 2ba, double-wide, no garage or car port, 1/4 acre unusable) sold for $575k we priced ours at $420k The property that sold for $575k has a fence around it and the house was in very good shape, our house should go for about the same, if not a little more, if it was in the same shape... our house needs to have:

  1. the drywall finished $100 maybe $500 if someone is hired someone to do it

  2. molding <$1500 do it yourself, Includes the price of a miter saw

  3. roof should be replaced <$5000 hired

  4. plumbing should be redone <$3000 - $6000

  5. we wanted to stucco it <$4000 - $5000

  6. replace the windows with double paned  <$2500 (Do it yourself)

  7. the bathroom sinks need to be replaced <$1000 - 2000

  8. it should be fenced <$4000 - $5000

That's only a <$21,000 - 27,500 expense, so for a 27,500 outlay someone could make a $133,900 - 127.500 profit in about a month... I don't understand what is keeping people away...

A Garage would be nice for $15,000 even building a garage would still give them a profit of at least $119,000.00 probably a lot more because of the improvements.

 

horizontal rule

 I thought I had read most everything that Mark Twain had written but I missed this one, I wonder how many other things he wrote while he was under contract by Harpers Weekly that they chose not to publish.

The War Prayer

by Mark Twain

 

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and sputtering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spreads of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country and invoked the God of Battles, beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpouring of fervid eloquence which moved every listener.

It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came – next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their faces alight with material dreams – visions of a stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! – then home from the war, bronzed heros, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation – "God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest, Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!"

Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory.

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there, waiting.

With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal," Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside – which the startled minister did – and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said

"I come from the Throne – bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd and grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import – that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of – except he pause and think.

"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two – one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of His Who hearth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this – keep it in mind. If you beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

"You have heard your servant's prayer – the uttered part of it. I am commissioned by God to put into words the other part of it – that part which the pastor, and also you in your hearts, fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. The whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory – must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God the Father fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle – be Thou near them! With them, in spirit, we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it – for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(After a pause)

"Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits."

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

Note: Twain wrote The War Prayer during the Spanish-American War. It was submitted for publication, but on March 22, 1905, Harper's Bazaar rejected it as "not quite suited to a woman's magazine." Eight days later, Twain wrote to his friend Dan Beard, to whom he had read the story, "I don't think the prayer will be published in my time. None but the dead are permitted to tell the truth." Because he had an exclusive contract with Harper & Brothers, Mark Twain could not publish "The War Prayer" elsewhere and it remained unpublished until 1923.

 Tuesday  August 9 , 2005

"Selective ignorance, a cornerstone of child rearing. You don't put kids under surveillance: it might frighten you. Parents should sit tall in the saddle and look upon their troops with a noble and benevolent and extremely nearsighted gaze."

Garrison Keillor

I can't say I agree with Garrison 100% but I suspect he's probably right... ignorance may be the guideline but stupidity is a No No... We need to be at lest peripherally aware of what our kids are doing... being aware and deciding whether or not to do anything about it is something else again, it's a fine line. Kids are going to find a way to do what they want to do regardless of the safeguards you think you have set up. Best to let them think they have gotten away with some petty stuff than to tighten the reins and have them get better at deceiving you. I have had a lot of experience with strong-willed kids, Christy's boys were a handful, and we learned a lot trying to keep them under control, we failed miserably but they both turned out OK, one took a little longer than the other but they both seem to be doing well now...I guess what I am saying is that ultimately, it's up to the kids what they make of themselves, we can guide and set examples but if they want to make it they will, if they want to go off the deep end they will do that too...

Still no buyers... exasperating, I wish there was more that I could do besides hang drywall and replace doors... The more I do to this place the more money I want to ask for it... I looked at the roof and see that the last gentle zephyr whisked away a few insignificant shingles... damn it.

horizontal rule

This is from one of Eric Margolis's articles...

Writer’s Notebook

I mourn the loss of two fine men this week. First, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who died at 59 while hiking in the Scottish Highlands.

Cook was one of only two senior British officials who refused to go along with PM Tony Blair’s lies that led to the war against Iraq, preferring, instead, to resign and become a back-bench MP. Cook showed courage and integrity that has been unseen in the Bush Administration. I salute this gallant gentleman.

Also mourned, Peter Jennings. ....<PAD: my edit from http://www.bigeye.com/foreignc.htm >

Jennings had the guts to feature news stores that irritated a lot of viewers and strive to bring out some truth among all the lies fed to Americans about the Mideast. He stood out from today’s Soviet-style `journalists’ in America who parrot back government pr releases. Rest in peace, Peter.

 

Wednesday  August 10 , 2005

Most institutions demand unqualified faith; but the institution of science makes skepticism a virtue.

Robert King Merton, sociologist (1910-2003)

There were 2 people by today, both seemed interested and one is even going to make an offer... damn, maybe I will sleep tonight... We tore the bathroom apart today, figures... Christy bought a new sink and mirror, new tile for the floor... we pulled out the old cabinet and sink and cleaned up all the mouse residue. I filleted the heal of my hand on a nail... So now we have two bedrooms and a bathroom torn apart...

Lots of work to do and lots of packing to do... I haven't even touched the shed, I have a bunch of power tools and a Radial Arm Saw and a Table Saw... I will leave the work benches and the metal shelves... and tons of other crap... They can have it or I will dump it in the trash...

horizontal rule

I read Patrick Buchanan's article on allowing parents to decide rather to teach the "Ideology" of Darwinism, (and I quote) "or a year studying the Old and New Testaments as the greatest book of Western Civilization and literature, and the basis of morality and ethics. As they say, freedom of choice".

 A well written piece (He was a speech writer after all) with the only flaw being that he is apparently of the belief that Darwinism is a religion. Darwin was a scientist, his book presents science, science is not religion, as a matter of fact it is pretty close to the opposite of religion, Science is not anti-religion either, Science does not concern itself with faith, Science requires facts, lots of facts and the facts have to be proven over and over from all angles. Religion requires only that you have faith in whatever doctrine you chose as your religion. The way I see it, Faith and Religion are synonymous, as a matter of fact most people use the words interchangeably. 'Darwinism' appears to be a word created by proponents of Religion in order to put a name name on the concept that the Solar system evolved and our planet and all that exists here evolved along with it. They needed a name to label it in order to denounce it because it threatens their faith and beliefs in the literal translation of the Bible.

Mr. Buchanan's argument falls apart as soon as he calls Darwin's work an "Ideology", it's not. Science is not, if I understand the word at all, an Ideology. Science itself is an evolutionary process, once facts are proven they are integrated into the body of knowledge known generally as Science. Medicine is science, Medicine evolves daily just as Geology, Paleontology, Astronomy (Not Astrology) and all the other sciences evolve.

If you will accept it, Religion actually evolves too, though far more slowly. A fact must be demonstrated to be a fact to the point where it is generally excepted by everyone before religion changes. The world described in the original writings included in the Bible consisted primarily of the land surrounding the Mediterranean. The stories told in the Old Testament were stories handed down for a millennia that were used by the priests and other leaders of ancient civilizations to try to instruct and attempt to explain the world around them. As the knowledge of the world evolved the stories in the Bible evolved along with it. The sun does not revolve around the Earth, there are other planets in the solar system, our solar system is just a relatively insignificant speck in the Universe,. The Universe is expanding at a ferocious rate and so is our knowledge of it.

Religion is a basis for morality and ethics, the Bible is one of the texts that attempts to teach humanity how to get along with one another but far from the only one. Science can teach the same thing, everything in Nature exists because it has learned to adapt and get along or it has perished.

Do unto others as thee would have others do unto you

... if only we would do that one simple thing...

Life is like a big game of solitaire.
Until you get married.
Then it's like solitaire with a partner, that's telling you how to play.

Thursday  August 11 , 2005

As I grow to understand life less and less, I learn to live it more and more.

Jules Renard, writer (1864-1910)

Today we take B to Phoenix House... a hard but necessary decision, he does not seem to be able to control his impulses and appears to be unable to accept responsibility, with remorse, for his actions... not a happy time for all concerned. We celebrated his birthday last night and the only present we had was a portable DVD player that we just found out he's not allowed to take with him.

It is going to be hard for us to relinquish responsibility for him after all these years... it's not easy admitting defeat either... since he is a ward of the state and we are/were his legal guardians I need to be very circumspect about what I write here, I am sure I have already said too much but he is still very much our son and a part of the family we all have a huge emotional investment in him. I am very concerned about his wellbeing and anxious about his future... he will be a part of our life from now on.

Well, he's officially admitted, it was hard for all concerned, Christy lost her fight to hold back tears and I was having  a hard time trying to find something comforting and meaningful to say ... Poor B was pretty upset and, I think, a little frightened by the whole affair. The director for his 'unit' came in and made a good impression on all of us, B even seemed to relax a bit. B has always done well in highly structured environments, his problems comes when he is presented with too many options and too much freedom.

 

Friday  August 12 , 2005

We must not be frightened nor cajoled into accepting evil as deliverance from evil. We must go on struggling to be human, though monsters of abstractions police and threaten us.

Robert Hayden, poet and educator (1913-1980)

I went to the ROF last night , I got there late but several folks were still there. Christy called and told me she got a call from a Realtor that another fella was excited and wanted to buy the house, sight unseen. It sort of lifted my spirits. I had a good time.

We worked on the house all day, I finished the floor and got the bathroom ready for vinyl tile... Christy worked on the boys room, a friend of the lady who wants to buy the hous came by and asked a lot of questions... I don't know the significance of that... wish I did, the guy that wants to buy the house said he would by by to take a look today or tomorrow, it is now almost 2200 so I guess it will be tomorrow.

Saturday  August 13 , 2005

"If you shut up the truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way."

Emile Zola

It's cool this morning, surprisingly cool [66.9], there is even condensation on the cars. it's 0800,

I have been up since 0600, I had a hard time shutting off my mind last night, I have a New England (Garrison Keillor calls it 'Lutheran') sense of worry and dread when things seem to start to go well... the lady that came out to look at the place today for her friend who has made an offer, sort of shook me up, looking at the hovel dispassionately is sobering, I have done it and I know what needs to be done what should be done and what could be done, that's why I priced it at what I had thought was about $50k under market value, it turns out I was about $125k short of what the market value actually is, but that's OK, Christy and I have no great urge to get rich or greedy, we know what we need to get a fresh start and that is all we want.

Well, I got the call that justifies last nights anxiety, the fella that wants to buy the house is having trouble getting a loan because this is a "Manufactured Home"... If he is having trouble then everyone will... damn.

horizontal rule

My country invaded Iraq,

and all I got was this expensive gasoline...

horizontal rule

Just read what Limbaugh O'Riley, Coulter, Hanity and the rest of the self-serving corporate whores on  Entertainment Commercial Media Stations/Channels are saying about Cindy Sheehan... makes me sick, how do they sleep at night. I felt compelled to send her another note

 From: Pete Daggett [mailto:padagge@potc.net]
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 9:11 AM
To: 'SCINDY121@aol.com'
Subject: RE: Kindred spirit...

 

Mrs. Sheehan... Cindy
 
I have been reading about what you are doing over in Crawford... you have taken it upon yourself to become the lightning rod for America's conscience. You are being lauded and reviled from every quarter and I am totally in awe and a bit mystified by how you manage to continue on. The people who are attacking you are unconscionably vile and unnecessarily shrill, you must wonder as I do , what they have invested in BWII (Bush War Two) and what they have to gain... or lose.
 
You have my support and, from most of what I have been reading, the support of millions of others.
 
Thank you again for your commitment, I would be there with you if I could...
 
Pete Daggett

Addendum:
Cindy Sheehan is doing every possible thing she can to end Bush War II. I, for one, will be writing about and following her every move until she is satisfied... The media be damned.

horizontal rule

From a piece by by Charley Reese;

Thomas Jefferson, who once said he'd prefer a free press and no government to a government without a free press, soured on the institution after the Federalist newspapers worked him over so incessantly.

In a letter to a friend, Jefferson complained: "It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle."

In 1941, H.L. Mencken, himself a newspaperman most of his life, wrote: "To the best of my knowledge and belief, the average American newspaper, even of the so-called better sort, is not only quite as bad as Upton Sinclair says it is, but 10 times worse – 10 times as ignorant, 10 times as unfair and tyrannical, 10 times as complaisant and pusillanimous, and 10 times as devious, hypocritical, disingenuous, deceitful, pharisaical, Pecksniffian, fraudulent, slippery, unscrupulous, perfidious, lewd and dishonest."

As you can see, today's liberals complaining that the press is conservative and the conservatives complaining that it is too liberal are Sunday-schoolers compared with some of the real critics of the press.

 

Sunday  August 14 , 2005

Cindy has an invitation to meet with her biological Grandmother, brother and other relatives, Christy and I are very concerned because of the threats from her biological father when the court Discontinued Parental Rights... it was a scary time. He tried to follow us home.

Cindy is also invited to go to her friends to spend the night.

At 1600 I need to go down to where B is living for an indoctrination meeting, I will get to visit with him for about an hour or so.

B called yesterday and said he is sick, I asked with what? he said hasn't had any drugs. That blows me away, how much was he doing? How could Christy and I be so oblivious, we only knew about the stuff he was stealing apparently... I have no idea what else he was doing. I guess we will find out eventually. It's a little strange now, the idea that we don't have to be watching our wallets, purses, and medicine safe anymore is sort of strange. It's a bit like a small weight has been lifted, a subtle shift in the household dynamics... we have six kids at home now, not seven.

I went down to the Phoenix house for the Orientation

Several people came by to look at the house...

 

Home Up August Week 2, 2005 August Week 3, 2005 August Week 4, 2005 August Week 5, 2005

August 10, 2005

Why No Tea and Sympathy?
By MAUREEN DOWD WASHINGTON

W. can't get no satisfaction on Iraq.

There's an angry mother of a dead soldier camping outside his Crawford ranch, demanding to see a president who prefers his sympathy to be carefully choreographed.

A new CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans now think that going to war was a mistake and that the war has made the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorism. So fighting them there means it's more likely we'll have to fight them here?

Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged yesterday that sophisticated bombs were streaming over the border from Iran to Iraq.

And the Rolling Stones have taken a rare break from sex odes to record an antiwar song called "Sweet Neo Con," chiding Condi Rice and Mr.
Bush. "You call yourself a Christian; I call you a hypocrite," Mick Jagger sings.

The N.F.L. put out a press release on Monday announcing that it's teaming up with the Stones and ABC to promote "Monday Night Football." The flag-waving N.F.L. could still back out if there's pressure, but the mood seems to have shifted since Madonna chickened out of showing an antiwar music video in 2003. The White House used to be able to tamp down criticism by saying it hurt our troops, but more people are asking the White House to explain how it plans to stop our troops from getting hurt.

Cindy Sheehan, a 48-year-old Californian with a knack for P.R., says she will camp out in the dusty heat near the ranch until she gets to tell Mr.
Bush face to face that he must pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq. Her son, Casey, a 24-year-old Army specialist, was killed in a Sadr City ambush last year.

The president met with her family two months after Casey's death. Capturing W.'s awkwardness in traversing the line between somber and joking, and his love of generic labels, Ms. Sheehan said that W. had referred to her as "Mom" throughout the meeting, and given her the sense that he did not know who her son was.

The Bush team tried to discredit "Mom" by pointing reporters to an old article in which she sounded kinder to W. If only her husband were an undercover C.I.A. operative, the Bushies could out him. But even if they send out a squad of Swift Boat Moms for Truth, there will be a countering Falluja Moms for Truth.

It's amazing that the White House does not have the elementary shrewdness to have Mr. Bush simply walk down the driveway and hear the woman out, or invite her in for a cup of tea. But W., who has spent nearly 20 percent of his presidency at his ranch, is burrowed into his five-week vacation and two-hour daily workouts. He may be in great shape, but Iraq sure isn't.

It's hard to think of another president who lived in such meta-insulation. His rigidly controlled environment allows no chance encounters with anyone who disagrees. He never has to defend himself to anyone, and that is cognitively injurious. He's a populist who never meets people - an ordinary guy who clears brush, and brush is the only thing he talks to. Mr. Bush hails Texas as a place where he can return to his roots. But is he mixing it up there with anyone besides Vulcans, Pioneers and Rangers?

W.'s idea of consolation was to dispatch Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, to talk to Ms. Sheehan, underscoring the inhumane humanitarianism of his foreign policy. Mr. Hadley is just a suit, one of the hard-line Unsweet Neo Cons who helped hype America into this war.

It's getting harder for the president to hide from the human consequences of his actions and to control human sentiment about the war by pulling a curtain over the 1,835 troops killed in Iraq; the more than 13,000 wounded, many shorn of limbs; and the number of slain Iraqi civilians - perhaps 25,000, or perhaps double or triple that. More people with impeccable credentials are coming forward to serve as a countervailing moral authority to challenge Mr. Bush.

Paul Hackett, a Marine major who served in Iraq and criticized the president on his conduct of the war, narrowly lost last week when he ran for Congress as a Democrat in a Republican stronghold in Cincinnati. Newt Gingrich warned that the race should "serve as a wake-up call to Republicans" about 2006.

Selectively humane, Mr. Bush justified his Iraq war by stressing the 9/11 losses. He emphasized the humanity of the Iraqis who desire freedom when his W.M.D. rationale vaporized.

But his humanitarianism will remain inhumane as long as he fails to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.

 

Liberty Preservation for Dummies

by D. Saul Weiner

Jefferson observed that it is the tendency for liberty to yield over time and for government to grow. Benjamin Franklin commented that the Founders had built a Republic, but it was up to succeeding generations to "keep it." Those who value liberty look back at the American experience and see that the system designed by the Founding Fathers to limit the power of the federal government has mostly been eviscerated. Federalism, the enumeration of powers, the bill of rights, checks and balances among the branches of the government, etc., have at best slowed the growth of the Leviathan state. Today, there are practically no institutional restraints on federal power; the only true limitation is economic law. What went wrong? Clearly there were numerous breakdowns in the Constitutional system along the way, many well documented in the Libertarian literature. However, one could spend a lifetime of technical research and still not arrive at a completely satisfying answer to this question.

On the other hand, there is another way of answering this question which gets to the heart of Franklin’s insight. In 1776, American patriots had a great distrust of their distant central government, resented the British taxes imposed upon them, and felt a loyalty to their own colonies (subsequently their states). Today, Americans live with chronic high taxes, continual warfare, horrendous government debt, and an ever-encroaching State. Yet many believe that the Leviathan state is a great advancement over the initial Republic. Among those who are less than satisfied with the status quo, most have been persuaded to believe that the deficiencies of our current system are the result of the wrong people holding power (e.g., Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, etc.). Only a handful recognize that our problems are systemic in nature and are the inevitable result of ceding virtually unlimited power to a centralized government. From this perspective, the question then becomes "Is there anything the Founders could have done to keep alive the spirit of 1776?" Because the bottom line is that, unless the People are sufficiently wary of and intolerant of actual and potential governmental abuses, liberty is doomed. We know that written documents cannot long sustain that necessary human awareness. Yet there is another avenue for keeping alive eternal truths and the memory of ancient experience, the phenomenon known as ritual. In the rest of this piece, I will share a few examples where the initial design has broken down and show how the creative incorporation of ritual into the Constitutional framework might have helped to keep alive the spirit of 1776.

State of the Union Address

It was quite a breakthrough in political accountability to require that the president report on the State of the Union each year. Unfortunately, over time this speech has degenerated into a long-winded infomercial describing all of the exploits of the past year and paving the way for a whole new slate of interventions. Imagine how differently Americans would respond if the president were constrained by the following required language and format:

"Tonight I share with you the State of the Union, in the manner prescribed in our Constitution. This annual address is required because our Founding Fathers placed a great value on Liberty and knew that the potential for federal usurpation of power and the resulting tyrannizing of its citizens would always be a danger, even with the democratic selection of representatives. As I swore at my inauguration, my duty is to uphold the Constitution. In my speech, I will lay out how my program is compatible with the powers enumerated in that document. In the first 10 minutes, I will present my own message. In the next 20 minutes, I will respond to the 6 most common questions and concerns submitted by the citizens of this land."

The Notion of Public Servant

Americans are constantly reminded that those in government are doing a great public service, allegedly at personal sacrifice, and that we should be very grateful for this. In reality, we see officials who secure for themselves great perks, immunity from the law, and indifference to the hardships they impose on ordinary citizens. Clearly, they have become public servants in name only, for all practical purposes. How might the Founders have prevented this unfortunate role reversal by employing the power of ritual? Well, how do we identify people who are functioning as servants? To start with, they wear uniforms which identify them as such and symbolize their subordinate status. So how about a Constitutional dress code? All presidents, lawmakers, and federal judges are to dress in a manner befitting a butler or maid, at all times while they are serving in these capacities. And these rules will need to be detailed, so as to not allow room for interpretation.

Violation of Oath of Office

The Founders were wise enough to include provision for removal of presidents. Unfortunately, this mechanism has seldom been used and, when it has been utilized, it has often been for the wrong reasons. Even a president who has been caught abusing his powers is afforded a comfortable retirement, an opportunity to write his memoirs, and the prospect of returning to public life in the role of elder statesman. Clearly, these conditions will not prevent liberty from yielding and government from growing. What follows is a partial solution to this problem, in one particularly problematic arena.

One year after he has made his case for taking the country to war and the Congress has declared war, a referendum shall be made on the question of whether or not the president has deceived the citizens into supporting the war venture. If a majority votes yes, the president will need to step down. Now what kinds of rituals might truly reinforce a consequence such as this? Hearkening back to earlier American history, the practice of tar and feathering comes to mind. Of course, religions are a great potential source of inspiration for ritual practices. How about this: 40 years of wandering in the desert might allow the ex-president ample time for contemplation of his misdeeds and also ensure that he does not return to public life!

August 10, 2005

D. Saul Weiner [send him mail] is an actuary and writer living in the suburbs of Chicago.

Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com

What's Next For Saudi Arabia?

Copyright: Eric S. Margolis, 2005

August 8, 2005

NEW YORK - In the interest of full disclosure, let me say that Saudi Arabia has never been one of my favorite places. I’ve spent some of my most memorably miserable times in Saudi Arabia, including being arrested and jailed by the notorious `muttawa,’ or religious police, threatened with confiscation of my precious exit visa, and whipped by airport police during a riot.

That was two decades ago. Saudi Arabia has changed a lot since then, and rather more for the better, but it still remains a feudal monarchy run by 7,000 princes protected by the United States.

The death of King Fahd, and the accession to the throne of his 81-year old half brother Abdullah, has provoked a lot of nonsense in the western media about the possibility of democracy and women’s rights in Saudi. In fact, has Abdullah run the kingdom for the past decade after Fahad was sidelined by a serious stroke, so there’s little reason to expect any major changes, particularly since policy in Saudi is made through a length process of consensus among the senior royal family members and tribal chieftains.

Simmering rivalries between various senior princes has now broken into the open. The powerful defense minister, Prince Sultan, has moved up to Crown Prince, but he’s also 81. Princes Nayef, interior minister, and Salman, governor of Riyadh, are vying for the line of succession. Younger princes are jostling for the second tier power slots: Turki, the wily former head of Saudi intelligence; and Bandar, who just resigned as long-term ambassador to Washington and returned hotfoot to the kingdom.

While personal, family and clan rivalries will roil Saudi Arabia over the coming months, major changes in political or oil policy seem unlikely. That is, unless the low-intensity uprising against the royal family that has been underway in Saudi for the past few years intensifies.

Composed of al-Qaida, other Islamist jihadis, democratic reformers, and anti-American nationalists, the Saudi underground resistance is fragmented and so far mostly ineffective, but it has terrified the ruling family and its American patrons, who routinely dismiss its activities as `terrorism.’

Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, declared war on the royal family’s deep corruption, grotesque prodigality, and embarrassing subservience to the US. His jihad has found deep resonance among Saudi youth, who make up a majority of the population of 23 million.

The Bush Administration and its Israeli mentors have concluded the Saudi royal family may not be able to suppress the Islamist rebellion much longer. While deepening intimate relations with the royals, Washington is also casting about for political alternatives.

Neoconservatives have been urging the US to establish direct rule over Saudi from its bases in Iraq. A military coup by Saudi officers would be difficult since the army is denied ammunition and watched by a heavily-armed Bedouin tribal militia known as the White Army.

The royal family too well recalls how the British puppet king of Iraq, Faisal, made the fatal error in 1958 of allowing a brigade of his soldiers a clip of ammunition each, ostensibly for target practice. The troops, under a renegade officer, Abd el-Karim el-Kassem, marched into Baghdad, and overthrew the royal Regime. Faisal and strongman Nuri as-Said ended up hanging from lampposts in downtown Baghdad.

To prevent such a scenario, US armed forces based in the Gulf and Iraq stand ready to protect the royal family from its own restive people.

Bush Administration’s efforts to `promote democracy’ in Saudi are a charade. The royal family relies for legitimacy on the ultra-conservative Wahabi faith, a narrow-minded, rustic form of Islam that sees many other Muslims as infidels. A prime tenet of Wahabism, like medieval Catholicism or communism, is total loyalty to one’s rulers. So the Wahabi establishment will keep supporting the Saudis who, in turn, will keep enforcing the Wahabi’s social strictures and obscurantism.

The Saudi royal family and the most powerful elements of the US Republican Party are joined at the hip. A thick network of hugely lucrative business partnerships ties the Bush family and Washington’s powerful Carlyle Group to the Saudi royals.

Princes Turki and Bandar have worked hand in glove with CIA for decades. Turki was the liaison between the Saudis and Osama bin Laden during the 1980’s Afghan War. The Saudis, at Washington’s behest, fueled Iraq’s aggression against Iran during the same period, to the tune of US $27.5 billion, and Saddam’s abortive nuclear program.

The Saudis keep $100 billion dollars in US banks with Republican connections. Saudi’s military keeps buying advanced arms it can’t use but which keep arms plants humming in politically important American states. Saudi bases still quietly serve the Pentagon’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Saudi money continues to pour by devious routes into some Republican campaign coffers.

So don’t expect Washington to risk change in Saudi. Window dressing, like empty elections and gushy US prime time TV about Saudi women finally learning to drive, is fine.

The old deal will continue: the royals sell oil cheap to the west in exchange for US protection. US domination of Saudi Arabia, the world’s leading oil producer, means it controls the economies of Europe, Japan and, to a growing extent, China and India. So Saudi is about much more than just oil. It’s all about raw geopolitical power.

But a note of caution to the wildly spending Saudi, who have been running government deficits for years. Back in 1974, the last really respected Saudi ruler, King Faisal, warned that the way the royals were squandering the nation’s oil wealth, the next Saudi generation might be back riding camels.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2005

horizontal rule

August 08, 2005

Book exposes the real ‘New Economy’

By Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas — Haven’t had so much fun reading a book since I was 12 and found “The Three Musketeers.”

Thomas Frank’s “One Market, Under God” is a populist romp over the most delicious idiocies of the past decade. The obligatory subtitle is “Extreme Capitalism, Market Populism and the End of Economic Democracy,” which doesn’t sound promising, but this is a ring-tailed tooter.

The book is a delicious chronicle of the hubris of capitalism in our time, and it contains some of the most savagely funny cultural criticism I have ever come across.

Of course, it’s really not fair — all Frank has to do is quote them: business as God, technology as divinity, the New Economy as the end of history. We live in a culture that produces books like “God Wants You to Be Rich” and “Jesus, CEO.”

What’s startling about this book is the extent to which we’re so surrounded by this nincompoopery but don’t even notice it. How many TV ads for stock brokerages do you suppose you’ve seen in the past 10 years? Anything about them strike you as funny?

It should have. The specific subtext of the IBM-is-God ad is so outrageous that it could gag a maggot. But I, for one, never even thought about it until I read Frank’s dissection of it.

Much of this book has the charm of the child who pointed out that the emperor was wearing no clothes. It’s been a long time since anyone commented on the obvious with such gleeful disrespect:

“Very little of the ‘New Economy’ is new. What the term describes is not some novel state of human affairs but the final accomplishment of the longstanding agenda of the nation’s richest class. ... Once Americans imagined that economic democracy meant a reasonable standard of living for all — that freedom was only meaningful once poverty and powerlessness had been overcome.

“Today, American opinion leaders seem generally convinced that democracy and the free market are simply identical. ... What’s ‘new’ is this idea’s triumph over all its rivals: the determination of American leaders to extend it to all the world; the general belief among opinion-makers that there is something natural, something divine, something inherently democratic about markets.”

One of his most useful observations concerns why politics in the ‘90s was so often surreal — populism got stood on its head. Anyone who questioned the Great God Market was held to be an “elitist.” Pointing out that the majority of American workers either lost ground or barely kept up with inflation during the ’90s was considered bad form, like belching in church.

While the likes of Rush Limbaugh and George Gilder raged against “elitists,” CEO compensation during the decade went from 85 times more than what average blue-collar employees received in 1990 to 475 times what blue-collar workers received in 1999.

Any old populist can rage against the gross maldistribution of wealth; Frank’s special contribution is his mordant examination of the cultural snow job that accompanied the redistribution of wealth to the rich.

Just one symptom of how deeply this nonstop propaganda has affected us lies in the fact that President Bush and Congress repealed the estate tax. Gee, taxing estates — what an un-’90s notion.

The tax affects the 1.5 percent of Americans with estates of more than $2 million; they can pass along the first $2 million tax-free but have to pay now-lowered taxes on the rest. The people who brought us welfare reform on the grounds that getting $8,000 a year to raise three kids is very bad for a mother’s moral fiber now tell us that Junior, who never worked a day in his life, needs to inherit $2 million tax-free. And anyone who thinks otherwise is an elitist.

The redistribution of wealth upward keeps getting worse. Under President Bush’s tax cuts, the richest 10 percent of Americans get 60 percent of the benefits. And this is after a decade in which the rich have made out like bandits while everyone else stalled.

We all know why such decisions are made: The political process no longer represents the people — it represents money. It’s been bought. While we were being sold a bill of goods about how the market “empowers” us because we get to choose between the mint-flavored and the cinnamon-flavored toothpaste, thus expressing our individuality, we lost something important in our vision of a just society.

Frank, being a good populist, is also an optimist. He doesn’t think we’ve really lost the vision of economic democracy — it just sort of got buried beneath the bull.

Ivins is a syndicated columnist.

horizontal rule

Every Mother's Son
    By William Rivers Pitt
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective

    Monday 08 August 2005

The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.
     - Stephen King

    George W. Bush hauled stakes for Texas and a vacation a few days ago. Cindy Sheehan followed. She got off a bus Saturday afternoon and started walking to the Crawford ranch. She wanted some answers and was going to get them.

    Sheehan had met Mr. Bush once before. On April 4, 2004, just shy of a year after Bush stood on an aircraft carrier beneath a banner that read "Mission Accomplished," Cindy Sheehan's son, Army Specialist Casey A. Sheehan, was killed in Iraq when his unit was attacked by rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire. He was 24 years old.

    After Casey's death, Cindy Sheehan was invited to the White House for a visit with Mr. Bush in June of 2004. Her first memory of Bush's appearance that day was when he walked into the room and said in a loud, bluff voice, "Who we'all honorin' today?"

    "His mouth kept moving," Sheehan later recalled of her meeting with Bush, "but there was nothing in his eyes or anything else about him that showed me he really cared or had any real compassion at all. This is a human being totally disconnected from humanity and reality. His eyes were empty, hollow shells." Bush called her "Ma" or "Mom" throughout the whole meeting, and never got around to learning her name.

    "The whole meeting was simply bizarre and disgusting," Sheehan said later. "designed to intimidate instead of providing compassion. He didn't even know our names. I just couldn't believe this was happening. It was so surreal and bizarre. Later I met with some of the other fifteen or sixteen families who were at the White House the same day and, sure enough, they all felt the same way I did."

    That was it. Cindy Sheehan, who had never been politically active in her life, became an activist. She traveled the country to speak to whomever would listen, she told the story of Casey's life and death, and she threw fire at George W. Bush with the passionate anguish of a mother who was forced to bury her son.

    "Casey was told that he would be welcomed to Iraq as a liberator with chocolates and rose petals strewn in front of his unarmored Humvee" Sheehan wrote in February. "He was in Iraq for two short weeks when the Shi'ite rebel 'welcome wagon' welcomed him to Baghdad with bullets and RPG's, which took his young and beautiful life. Casey was killed after George Bush proclaimed 'Mission Accomplished' on May 1, 2003. Hundreds of our young people and thousands of Iraqis have been needlessly and senselessly murdered since George Bush triumphantly announced an end to 'major combat' almost 2 years ago now. All of the above events have been heralded by this administration as 'turning points' in the 'war on terror' - or as wonderful events in the 'march of democracy.'"

    In June of 2005, Cindy Sheehan testified at a hearing in Washington DC about the Downing Street Minutes, the recently leaked British intelligence documents which exposed the fact that Bush intended to invade Iraq almost from the beginning of his first term, and that "Intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of invasion.

    "I believed before our leaders invaded Iraq in March, 2003," said Sheehan in her testimony, "and I am even more convinced now, that this aggression on Iraq was based on a lie of historic proportions and was blatantly unnecessary. The so-called Downing Street Memo dated 23 July, 2003, only confirms what I already suspected: the leadership of this country rushed us into an illegal invasion of another sovereign country on prefabricated and cherry picked intelligence. It appears that my boy Casey was given a death sentence even before he joined the Army in May of 2000."

    And so it came to pass that George W. Bush hauled stakes for Texas and a vacation a few days ago, and Cindy Sheehan followed. She got off a bus Saturday afternoon and started walking to the Crawford ranch. She wanted some answers and was going to get them. She got as far as a police checkpoint, and has gotten no further. She is still there, waiting to speak to Mr. Bush so she can get an answer to her question. Why did her son die?

    The folks on the Crawford ranch sent out some important people to speak to her. They sent Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser. They sent Joe Hagin, a deputy White House chief of staff. Cindy Sheehan sent them both packing.

    By Sunday, a media frenzy had erupted around her. On Sunday night, the New York Times published a story about Sheehan's Texas standoff. "Her success in drawing so much attention to her message - and leaving the White House in a face-off with an opponent who had to be treated very gently even as she aggressively attacked the president and his policies - seemed to stem from the confluence of several forces," wrote the Times. "The deaths last week of 20 Marines from a single battalion has focused public attention on the unremitting pace of casualties in Iraq, providing her an opening to deliver her message that no more lives should be given to the war."

    "At the same time," continued the article, "polls that show falling approval for Mr. Bush's handling of the war have left him open to challenge in a way that he was not when the nation appeared to be more strongly behind him. It did not hurt her cause that she staged her protest, which she said was more or less spontaneous, at the doorstep of the White House press corps, which spends each August in Crawford with little to do, minimal access to Mr. Bush and his aides, and an eagerness for any new story."

    Casey Sheehan was every mother's son. Cindy Sheehan is every son's mother. She loved him with every cell in her body and every breath in her soul, and mourns his absence in every second of every day, and will have some answers for her pain and loss, or will know the reason why. She is down in Crawford, right now, waiting for George W. Bush to stop sending lackeys to placate her. She wants to speak to the man who sent her son to die. She is waiting.

If words, deeds collide, deeds are better compass

By Jay Bookman

Published on: 08/14/05

The Republican Party would never, ever try to win elections by keeping American citizens from entering the voting booth. It's hateful nonsense to even suggest such a thing.

For example, the suggestion that Georgia Republicans might be trying to suppress Democratic turnout by requiring voters to have state-issued ID to vote is absurd. Party officials are just trying to prevent fraud, and who could argue with that?

The fact that state GOP officials can't cite a single instance of people trying to vote by misrepresenting their identity — that doesn't matter. As Donald Rumsfeld suggested in a different context, the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

And the fact that in that same bill, Georgia Republicans made it much easier to vote by absentee ballots — a method for which there is substantial evidence of large-scale voting fraud in Georgia — that doesn't matter either. The fact that absentee-ballot voters tend to be Republican also played no role in that decision.

"The position of the Republican National Committee is simple," RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman wrote recently. "We will not tolerate fraud; we will not tolerate intimidation; we will not tolerate suppression."

But then there's this troubling case in New Hampshire.

In the 2002 election, with a hard-fought U.S. Senate race at stake, the New Hampshire Democratic Party and the Manchester, N.H., firefighters union set up voter hot lines. If you were elderly, handicapped or just needed a ride to the polls, it didn't matter if you were a Republican or Democrat — all you had to do was call one of those six numbers and a volunteer would pick you up and drive you to the voting booth.

But something went wrong. All day long, someone placed hundreds and hundreds of calls to those hot line numbers, tying up the lines and making it impossible to get through. As soon as a hot line volunteer answered the ring, the callers would hang up. As a result, a lot of voters never got rides to the polls that day.

Now, who would devise a plan so clearly intended to keep people from exercising their democratic right to vote? Certainly not the Republican Party.

Except, there's Charles McGee. He has pleaded guilty for his role in proposing the plan and arranging to have a Utah telemarketing firm make all those jamming phone calls. At the time, he happened to be executive director of the New Hampshire Republican State Committee, and he used party funds to pay the Utah firm.

There's also Allen Raymond. The one-time executive director of the Republican Leadership Council and president of GOP Marketplace, a Republican consulting company in Virginia, is today serving five months for his role in the conspiracy to keep Americans from having the chance to vote.

Of course, these were just two rogue operatives. One did happen to head the state party, but that doesn't mean it was an official GOP operation, right?

Well . . .

Meet James Tobin. He has been charged by a federal grand jury with four felonies for conspiring with Raymond and McGee to keep American citizens from voting, and Raymond and McGee will both testify against him. As the federal indictment alleges, "The object of the conspiracy was to deprive inhabitants of New Hampshire and more particularly qualified voters . . . of their federally secured right to vote."

In 2002, Tobin was New England regional director for the Republican National Committee; in 2004, even after news of this scandal broke, he was named New England chairman for President Bush's campaign.

Raymond and McGee will apparently tell a jury that Tobin approved the plan and helped carry it out, even suggesting the Utah firm that would be able to handle the job. They will also testify that Tobin told them the plan had official RNC approval.

Of course, even that doesn't prove that the RNC sanctioned what happened in New Hampshire. Anybody can say anything about anybody, right?

And Mehlman, the RNC chairman, has certainly made it clear that his party will not tolerate any such effort.

"The right to vote belongs to all of us, and no one has the right to take it away or dilute it by intimidation, fraud or suppression," he wrote last week. "The Republican Party will not rest until this principle is upheld."

Clearly, whatever Tobin was up to in New Hampshire, the RNC had nothing to do with it.

Except that, according to the Associated Press, the Republican National Committee has quietly contributed $722,000 to Tobin's defense.

What's up with that?

 

—Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor. His column usually appears Mondays and Thursdays.

Find this article at:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/2005/081405.html

The Rise of the Stupid

 

by Karen Kwiatkowski
by Karen Kwiatkowski

 

Common sense demands the absolute rejection of the idea that public servants are either public or servants.

Politicians and others who dedicate themselves to the state, however, thrill to this particular refrain. They enjoy the idea that they somehow sacrifice something – no matter how small or insignificant – solely to help another citizen, or some group, or some nation.

But the stupidity and crassness of politics always prevails over the idea of public service, as witnessed by the ongoing saga of the Bush vacation at Crawford.

Cindy Sheehan is sitting in the hot sun, leading a simple campaign to extract a small measure of personal accountability from our populist, pedal-pumping president. She and a growing crowd of supporters are waiting for the President to exhibit some sign that he understands what it is he is doing. She is waiting for some sign that Bush understands why he has destroyed Iraq and the lives of thousands of Americans and Iraqis – and can articulate that rationale in either verbal or body language.

Sheehan would like to see some leadership – albeit after the fact – regarding the unacceptable level of pretense and fabrication that led to her son’s untimely and apparently purposeless death. She asks this on behalf of thousands of other American families who are suffering the same angst.

Sheehan wants to know what the President has to say now about his massive propaganda campaign against the American people, and his increasingly bad sales pitch for the neoconservative agenda. She wants to hear from him exactly why he is sponsoring a Washington re-creation of Alexander’s empire, minus the law, the tolerance, the culture, or the courage of political leaders in battle.

She’d like that small sacrifice by a public servant for a citizen, on behalf of our country and our honor. In another world, Cindy Sheehan would be a golden political moment. But in Bushworld she asks too much.

My generation has studied the idiocy of Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs, the ignorance of administrators in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the blighted regimes of LBJ and Nixon, the governing superficiality of Reagan, and the deadly corruption and incompetence of the Bush-Clinton-Bush trinity of post-Cold War emperors. My goodness, we ought to have a clue by now.

We have witnessed the rise of the stupid. Maureen Dowd observes the president and his entourage as meta-insulated; but this is no more than the natural and ideal state for the intellectually incurious and morally weak.

General Tommy Franks said it clearly, in describing the President’s former under secretary for defense policy Doug Feith, who with Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle was a key architect of American security policy, as the "stupidest guy on earth." This description is applicable to most armchair neoconservatives (and there are no other variants). It applies as well to Washington politicians who see no further than their latest deal with lobbies and supporters.

But to explain American foreign and domestic policy as the ascendancy of stupidity seems like a cop-out. Surely there are better, more intellectualized, explanations for our government feeling up old ladies in airports in a search for presumably very tiny terrorists, while attempting to rein in citizens who are actually doing something about drug and human trafficking across the U.S. border with Mexico.

Surely there are better explanations for our government’s mass murder in Iraq for no valid security reason, without possibility of military success, as that same government plans a similarly stupid operation on Iran, or perhaps Syria, or both.

Instead of debating the purpose of American foreign policy and the nature of just war – the Washington pot bubbles over with chatter about the types of weapons we will use in Iran, the sexual charges against this dissenting four star or that one, and how we will justify this next excursion into disaster.

I hope that George W. Bush meets with Cindy Sheehan, in person, and that he does a better job of faking heartfelt empathy than he did last time they met. He seems to be having more trouble acting convinced and convincing, if his television appearances from the ranch are any indication.

This week, Bush presented himself as shaky, repetitive, hoping against hope and pitiful. Diving popularity polls and economic data, neoconservative pressure for war, war, war, and the possibility that comparisons with Nixon in terms of secrecy, illegality and criminality will be the only historical footnote on an otherwise forgettable presidency must weigh heavily on his shrink-wrapped mind. The meta-insulation is peeling off as Republicans realize this Bush is even more toxic for the GOP than his father was. Even the sweet favors of Diebold won’t be enough next time, and they know it.

Perhaps self selected presidential candidate "I don’t bake cookies" Hillary will be better suited to offer the milk of human kindness to a public she will serve oh so humbly. No matter what, we’d better act like we like it, what with our new SS, the sustained Patriot Act, an imminent national financial crisis, and the permanent "war on terra."

Thanks, Dubya.

But wait, Mr. President. Perhaps I have been unfair. Maybe all your cedar chopping and bike riding and failure to report are the real clues as to how Americans will survive the next twenty years in this country. Did I say "stupid?" I meant "genius!" Sir, you are ahead of your time!

August 12, 2005

Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D., [send her mail] is a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon. She lives with her freedom-loving family in the Shenandoah Valley, and among other things, writes a bi-weekly column on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for militaryweek.com.

Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com

Karen Kwiatkowski Archives

August 14, 2005

Someone Tell the President the War Is Over

LIKE the Japanese soldier marooned on an island for years after V-J Day, President Bush may be the last person in the country to learn that for Americans, if not Iraqis, the war in Iraq is over. "We will stay the course," he insistently tells us from his Texas ranch. What do you mean we, white man?

A president can't stay the course when his own citizens (let alone his own allies) won't stay with him. The approval rate for Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq plunged to 34 percent in last weekend's Newsweek poll - a match for the 32 percent that approved L.B.J.'s handling of Vietnam in early March 1968. (The two presidents' overall approval ratings have also converged: 41 percent for Johnson then, 42 percent for Bush now.) On March 31, 1968, as L.B.J.'s ratings plummeted further, he announced he wouldn't seek re-election, commencing our long extrication from that quagmire.

But our current Texas president has even outdone his predecessor; Mr. Bush has lost not only the country but also his army. Neither bonuses nor fudged standards nor the faking of high school diplomas has solved the recruitment shortfall. Now Jake Tapper of ABC News reports that the armed forces are so eager for bodies they will flout "don't ask, don't tell" and hang on to gay soldiers who tell, even if they tell the press.

The president's cable cadre is in disarray as well. At Fox News Bill O'Reilly is trashing Donald Rumsfeld for his incompetence, and Ann Coulter is chiding Mr. O'Reilly for being a defeatist. In an emblematic gesture akin to waving a white flag, Robert Novak walked off a CNN set and possibly out of a job rather than answer questions about his role in smearing the man who helped expose the administration's prewar inflation of Saddam W.M.D.'s. (On this sinking ship, it's hard to know which rat to root for.)

As if the right-wing pundit crackup isn't unsettling enough, Mr. Bush's top war strategists, starting with Mr. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, have of late tried to rebrand the war in Iraq as what the defense secretary calls "a global struggle against violent extremism." A struggle is what you have with your landlord. When the war's über-managers start using euphemisms for a conflict this lethal, it's a clear sign that the battle to keep the Iraq war afloat with the American public is lost.

That battle crashed past the tipping point this month in Ohio. There's historical symmetry in that. It was in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002, that Mr. Bush gave the fateful address that sped Congressional ratification of the war just days later. The speech was a miasma of self-delusion, half-truths and hype. The president said that "we know that Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade," an exaggeration based on evidence that the Senate Intelligence Committee would later find far from conclusive. He said that Saddam "could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year" were he able to secure "an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball." Our own National Intelligence Estimate of Oct. 1 quoted State Department findings that claims of Iraqi pursuit of uranium in Africa were "highly dubious."

It was on these false premises - that Iraq was both a collaborator on 9/11 and about to inflict mushroom clouds on America - that honorable and brave young Americans were sent off to fight. Among them were the 19 marine reservists from a single suburban Cleveland battalion slaughtered in just three days at the start of this month. As they perished, another Ohio marine reservist who had served in Iraq came close to winning a Congressional election in southern Ohio. Paul Hackett, a Democrat who called the president a "chicken hawk," received 48 percent of the vote in exactly the kind of bedrock conservative Ohio district that decided the 2004 election for Mr. Bush.

These are the tea leaves that all Republicans, not just Chuck Hagel, are reading now. Newt Gingrich called the Hackett near-victory "a wake-up call." The resolutely pro-war New York Post editorial page begged Mr. Bush (to no avail) to "show some leadership" by showing up in Ohio to salute the fallen and their families. A Bush loyalist, Senator George Allen of Virginia, instructed the president to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the mother camping out in Crawford, as "a matter of courtesy and decency." Or, to translate his Washingtonese, as a matter of politics. Only someone as adrift from reality as Mr. Bush would need to be told that a vacationing president can't win a standoff with a grief-stricken parent commandeering TV cameras and the blogosphere 24/7.

Such political imperatives are rapidly bringing about the war's end. That's inevitable for a war of choice, not necessity, that was conceived in politics from the start. Iraq was a Bush administration idée fixe before there was a 9/11. Within hours of that horrible trauma, according to Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies," Mr. Rumsfeld was proposing Iraq as a battlefield, not because the enemy that attacked America was there, but because it offered "better targets" than the shadowy terrorist redoubts of Afghanistan. It was easier to take out Saddam - and burnish Mr. Bush's credentials as a slam-dunk "war president," suitable for a "Top Gun" victory jig - than to shut down Al Qaeda and smoke out its leader "dead or alive."

But just as politics are a bad motive for choosing a war, so they can be a doomed engine for running a war. In an interview with Tim Russert early last year, Mr. Bush said, "The thing about the Vietnam War that troubles me, as I look back, was it was a political war," adding that the "essential" lesson he learned from Vietnam was to not have "politicians making military decisions." But by then Mr. Bush had disastrously ignored that very lesson; he had let Mr. Rumsfeld publicly rebuke the Army's chief of staff, Eric Shinseki, after the general dared tell the truth: that several hundred thousand troops would be required to secure Iraq. To this day it's our failure to provide that security that has turned the country into the terrorist haven it hadn't been before 9/11 - "the central front in the war on terror," as Mr. Bush keeps reminding us, as if that might make us forget he's the one who recklessly created it.

The endgame for American involvement in Iraq will be of a piece with the rest of this sorry history. "It makes no sense for the commander in chief to put out a timetable" for withdrawal, Mr. Bush declared on the same day that 14 of those Ohio troops were killed by a roadside bomb in Haditha. But even as he spoke, the war's actual commander, Gen. George Casey, had already publicly set a timetable for "some fairly substantial reductions" to start next spring. Officially this calendar is tied to the next round of Iraqi elections, but it's quite another election this administration has in mind. The priority now is less to save Jessica Lynch (or Iraqi democracy) than to save Rick Santorum and every other endangered Republican facing voters in November 2006.

Nothing that happens on the ground in Iraq can turn around the fate of this war in America: not a shotgun constitution rushed to meet an arbitrary deadline, not another Iraqi election, not higher terrorist body counts, not another battle for Falluja (where insurgents may again regroup, The Los Angeles Times reported last week). A citizenry that was asked to accept tax cuts, not sacrifice, at the war's inception is hardly in the mood to start sacrificing now. There will be neither the volunteers nor the money required to field the wholesale additional American troops that might bolster the security situation in Iraq.

WHAT lies ahead now in Iraq instead is not victory, which Mr. Bush has never clearly defined anyway, but an exit (or triage) strategy that may echo Johnson's March 1968 plan for retreat from Vietnam: some kind of negotiations (in this case, with Sunni elements of the insurgency), followed by more inflated claims about the readiness of the local troops-in-training, whom we'll then throw to the wolves. Such an outcome may lead to even greater disaster, but this administration long ago squandered the credibility needed to make the difficult case that more human and financial resources might prevent Iraq from continuing its descent into civil war and its devolution into jihad central.

Thus the president's claim on Thursday that "no decision has been made yet" about withdrawing troops from Iraq can be taken exactly as seriously as the vice president's preceding fantasy that the insurgency is in its "last throes." The country has already made the decision for Mr. Bush. We're outta there. Now comes the hard task of identifying the leaders who can pick up the pieces of the fiasco that has made us more vulnerable, not less, to the terrorists who struck us four years ago next month.