Defense “Cover” in the Political War

Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, made some interesting and telling comments in a recent post-election interview regarding Iraq policy. Pace will be meeting with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton. President Bush has been forced [grudgingly] to concede that the American public has repudiated his handling of Iraq policy. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has been neutered and removed from power. Pres. Bush turned to the seasoned pragmatist in his father’s Cabinet to undertake a review of Iraq strategy, as a potential face saving way to change direction from his disastrously inept “Stay the Course” mantra. In an example of Pace’s current attitude, he stated the following: "We need to give ourselves a good, honest scrub about what is working, what is not working, what are the impediments to progress, and what should we change about the way we're doing it."

While Bush insists that the election will not force him to change his "Victory in Iraq" strategy, he now is quick to point out that he recognizes the need for changes in “tactics.” In an apparent departure from his bull headed [apologies to all bovines] and arrogant approach prior to the election, Bush now seems willing to at least listen to military experts whose advice differs from his own agenda. Those same experts have previously been dismissed as “cut and run” sympathizers by the Bush-Cheney-Rove cabal.

Perhaps the most beneficial effect of the US mid-term election with regard to the quagmire in Iraq is a new “openness” for dialogue and a greater opportunity to apply expert, reasoned and intelligent strategic analysis to the problem. These military policy experts of all political stripes, and those of non-partisan persuasion, now have political cover to express their opinions without fear of immediate dismissal from their posts by a micromanaging megalomaniacal Secretary of Defense. All agree that the situation is so badly messed up that there are no easy or quick solutions. However, the country has lost faith in the Bush cowboy rhetoric of “Victory” and has generally turned to the more rational goal of “resolution.” Arguably, if the latter had been in mind from the beginning, the situation would not have turned so dire. That is, of course, hindsight. Generals Pace, Casey and Abizaid can now openly discuss strategies for stabilization of the situation and extrication of US troops while minimizing the risk of further casualties. Few believe that the US can effectively determine or prevent the possibility of civil war in Iraq. That decision is and always has been one for the Iraqi people. Debate over whether the US presence has been an irritant and facilitator of sectarian strife or an ineffective buffer that has retarded the descent into all out civil war is academic as long as our presence remains.

The central question is whether the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people are invested enough in salvaging their country to attempt to work together, no matter how tense the alliance, to establish and implement a central government capable of controlling sectarian violence and rebuilding the country’s infrastructure. The election signaled a defeat of the Bush Strategy in the “political war” against rational and intelligent strategic analysis. The Defense experts now have “cover” to come forward and provide their ideas and advice regarding how to fix the mess created over the past three and one-half years of incompetent leadership by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. The Iraq problem has never truly been connected to, much less a "central front" in, the illusory and mythical "War on Terror," except in the deluded mind of Pres. Bush. Only by de-linking these two politically charged issues and permitting the experts to focus on the specific issues and problems relating to the Iraq occupation can we hope to find a rational and feasible resolution to US engagement.

The degree to which President Bush continues to try to obstruct this progressive turn should determine how aggressively the new Democratic led Congress has to push for immediate and thorough investigation of the massive corruption and incompetence in the Bush Administration’s handling of Iraq to date, including possible war crimes. We should hope that such political firefights will not be necessary to maintain the necessary cover for the Defense experts to develop and implement an effective strategy to get US troops out of an Iraq war that was neither legal nor necessary.

The Sleeping Giant Awakens

The election results are almost complete. Save a potential for recount in Virginia, the reversal of fortunes by the GOP is complete. The public rebuke of the last six years of governance by the GOP in Congress and the White House is manifest. The Democrats will, come January, enjoy a comfortable lead in the House of Representatives, a margin similar to that held by the GOP over the past six years. It now looks like the Democrats will also enjoy a 51-49 majority in the Senate, assuming support of two Independents who have declared they will caucus with Democrats.

Pundits and analysts have attempted to portray the election results as a repudiation of the President’s handling of the War in Iraq. Bush attempted to dissemble in his news conference and to spin the results as an expression by the public that results were not sufficient and fast enough, but the public wants the US to stay in Iraq “until we achieve victory.” To be sure, the handling of Iraq was a factor in the election that has brought change to leadership in Washington. House Speaker elect Nancy Pelosi suggested that the first step President Bush could take to establish dialogue on Iraq would be to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in whom the Public and the military have lost confidence. Wednesday Morning following the Tuesday election, Rumsfeld was gone.

However, the impact of the election runs deeper than Iraq. The widespread dissatisfaction and the retirement of incumbents across the country in quarters thought safe by the GOP signal a more profound disapproval of the manner in which this country has been governed. The rule by a single party had become an antidemocratic and arrogant leviathan that brooked no dissent or opposition and refused to even listen respectfully to opposing ideas, even from within the GOP caucus. The public has waited in vain for answers to the legitimate questions about how and why the country was led into the Iraq invasion. The present Congress had no desire to exercise its Constitutional role of oversight. The perks of rule led those in power to believe that the public trust was instead the public trough. Legislation was guided by the interests of lobbyists willing to shovel truckloads of cash to elected representatives through their campaign accounts and then directly, ignoring completely all ethical rules. At the same time, the public was being stripped of its civil rights based upon jingoistic slogans and fear mongering about the “war on terror.”

The awakening of the public represents a repudiation of the manner in which it is being governed, not a proclamation on any single issue. There is no monolithic response to the many important issues that the country faces. That is precisely the problem with the GOP Neocon ideology and the imperial Presidency. The people of this country believe in discourse and dissent. They believe that opposing views can inform a more reasoned and effective result. The GOP refused to listen to or temper their ideology with opposing viewpoints. With control of Congress and the White House, they believed that they had no need to consider opposing views. They even threatened to eliminate filibuster with the “nuclear option” if the democrats tried to block a GOP initiative. The filibuster was developed as a stopgap tool of the minority to prevent oppression by a majority party. Many of the resulting measures were ill conceived and overreaching. The Congressional leadership was so arrogant that they directed staffers to insert provisions in final legislation that the Conference Committees had not approved, knowing that their control of Congress would back the move if the deception were eventually uncovered. And even measures that were reasonable took on a negative cast because of the way in which they were enacted.

The greatest lesson that the Democrats can take away from this election is how NOT to govern. While maintaining a sense of direction, a coherent strategy and a connection with the public on important issues, the Democrats need to listen carefully and respectfully to ideas and concerns raised by GOP representatives. If the ideas make sense, incorporate them. If they do not, respectfully decline. But never be afraid to listen to ideas that differ from your own, and never be afraid to learn something new. The governance that the American public wants and needs is one of collaboration and leadership, not arrogance and bullying tactics.

An additional move that the Democratic controlled Congress should take is to repeal the measures that stripped the American people of their Constitutional rights of liberty and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The country will only be truly safer when we dispel the ghost of the phony and indefinable “War on Terror” and focus on real threats to safety. Experts from all political stripes tell us that the country is no safer from a potential terrorist attack than before 9/11 occurred. One has to believe that if we had spent $300 Billion on improving the staffing, technical and coordination capabilities of US and international criminal enforcement agencies, that our situation would be far better. Instead, we have mortgaged the future of our children to create a fiasco that has led to civil war in Iraq and a greater risk to world peace than existed prior to 9/11. Calming the public hysteria and “group think” fostered by Bush and the Neocons will be difficult, but it is vitally important if the real threat of terrorist activity is to be addressed.

We forget that the activity of the 9/11 hijackers was known to police, CIA and FBI agencies prior to the attack. They simply lacked the procedures and the mentality to share that information with each other. One certainty is that rational measures specifically targets to address those shortcomings would not have cost the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the Iraq fiasco. There is no way to turn back the clock or to bring back those lost souls. But with the help of God and an awakened public, we may be able to change direction and limit further damage and unnecessary loss of life.

Guest - The Guardian UK - Bush Danger to World Peace

Because the American Media tends not to report views from abroad, and because the article is primarily empirical survey based, I thought I would share it. [Without my own commentary]
______________________________

British Believe Bush Is More Dangerous Than Kim Jong-il
By Julian Glover
The Guardian UK

Friday 03 November 2006

US allies think Washington threat to world peace. Only bin Laden feared more in United Kingdom.

America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours and allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published today that reveals just how far the country's reputation has fallen among former supporters since the invasion of Iraq.

Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.

The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country.

It exposes high levels of distrust. In Britain, 69% of those questioned say they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only 7% thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security.

The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy.

Even in Israel, which has long looked to America to guarantee national security, support for the US has slipped.

Only one in four Israeli voters say that Mr Bush has made the world safer, outweighed by the number who think he has added to the risk of international conflict, 36% to 25%. A further 30% say that at best he has made no difference.

Voters in three of the four countries surveyed also overwhelmingly reject the decision to invade Iraq, with only Israeli voters in favour, 59% to 34% against. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar survey before the US presidential election in 2004.

In Britain 71% of voters now say the invasion was unjustified, a view shared by 89% of Mexicans and 73% of Canadians. Canada is a Nato member whose troops are in action in Afghanistan. Neither do voters think America has helped advance democracy in developing countries, one of the justifications for deposing Saddam Hussein. Only 11% of Britons and 28% of Israelis think that has happened.

As a result, Mr Bush is ranked with some of his bitterest enemies as a cause of global anxiety. He is outranked by Osama bin Laden in all four countries, but runs the al-Qaida leader close in the eyes of UK voters: 87% think the al-Qaida leader is a great or moderate danger to peace, compared with 75% who think this of Mr Bush.

The US leader and close ally of Tony Blair is seen in Britain as a more dangerous man than the president of Iran (62% think he is a danger), the North Korean leader (69%) and the leader of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah (65%).

Only 10% of British voters think that Mr Bush poses no danger at all. Israeli voters remain much more trusting of him, with 23% thinking he represents a serious danger and 61% thinking he does not.

Contrary to the usual expectation, older voters in Britain are slightly more hostile to the Iraq war than younger ones. Voters under 35 are also more trusting of Mr Bush, with hostility strongest among people aged 35-65.

· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from October 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010)

A Bush “Retro” Approach to Immigration Control

The Bush Administration and the GOP seem to have hit upon a novel “Retro” strategy for curbing immigration and suppressing the influx of migrants into the United States. The approach of vigilant border patrols supported by armed vigilante “Minutemen” militias does not seem to have yielded results. Talking about sanctioning employers for hiring illegal immigrants and undocumented workers, but not actually prosecuting them, has failed. This new approach is based upon a reverse psychology theory. By making the US unattractive enough, these immigrants will not even desire to come here, and the immigration problem will be remedied.

One visible step is to build a 700 mile wall along the border, like the Chinese did to repel the invading Huns, or like the Germans did to establish a barrier between East and West Germany. The Berlin wall was much smaller than the proposed US barrier, but we like to do things in a big way. Israel also has constructed a barrier wall to seal off Palestinian inhabited sectors from areas claimed by Israel. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that at least part of that wall was illegal, but such technicalities have apparently not deterred the Israeli government from proceeding with the overall strategy. Such walls are important and imposing symbols of government control and restrictions of movement. They denote a closed off society that is unwelcoming of diverse ethnic and religious adherents and is intolerant of dissent. Any person seeking to come to this country would have to think twice whether this is the type of environment and lifestyle they truly seek.

The next step in the new strategy is to strip away from the citizenry and inhabitants certain rights that were previously viewed in the US, and throughout the world, as basic tenets of a “free nation.” Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, such as domestic wiretapping without court approval, was previously thought to be a Constitutional protection. However, the Bush Administration has dispensed with it. Another fundament of liberty was considered to be the right to be free from arrest or imprisonment without at least the right to challenge the basis for the detention. This principle of habeas corpus predates the Constitution and is embodied in the Magna Carta. The Bush Administration has adopted a number of measures which have stripped away this liberty as well. US citizens theoretically still have the right of habeas corpus that is denied non-citizens, but the procedures adopted do not even require that a detainee be permitted to prove US citizenship or obtain access to a lawyer. All the government has to do is arrest a person and hold them indefinitely without charging them. In such cases, any rights to counsel, to challenge detention or to confront accusers are denied. Anyone trying to immigrate to the US because of an oppressive regime that permits “disappearances” of persons by government agents and indefinite detention without communication with family or coming to America.

In addition, someone imprisoned by the American government, with or without justification, may be subjected to “aggressive interrogation” under the policies of the Bush Administration. The International community, the Geneva Conventions and human rights organizations all deem such treatment to be illegal “torture.” The Bush Administration believes the semantic difference is important, although someone being “water boarded” may not grasp the subtlety and nuance. The Bush objective is to make the risks of false imprisonment in the US like any other authoritarian or totalitarian country. These risks are not just speculative, as there are multiple case histories of abduction, “extraordinary rendition” and torture in "client" or accomplice states where torture is common practice or in secret US prisons abroad. Add to this the experiences disclosed regarding US prison facilities in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, and the message is pretty clear.

As an embellishing touch, the Bush Administration and the Department of Homeland Security have created a permeating and palpable climate of fear and distrust that casts a shadow over the entire country. There is almost no place in the country where one can avoid being confronted by some message or procedure that restricts behavior or brings to one’s consciousness the admonition that some purported risk of “terrorism” is in play. The constant drumbeat of government generated media announcements supports this campaign. The inconveniences, the delays and the confusion created by airport security personnel and procedures could make the most patient person crabby. But a person can be arrested for merely making a statement that is critical of the process or experience. Historically, this was an environment indicative of a “police state.” The Bush Administration would never be so candid as to label the procedures that accurately or with such a negative connotation. Marketing or spin does not, however, diminish the pervasiveness and impact of the environment and the dynamic.

The GOP has supported this campaign by fostering attitudes of racial and religious hostility and bigotry. The term “illegal immigrants” has become “code” for Mexican and Latino immigrants. Conservative campaigns and rhetoric talk about the “invasion” by such illegal immigrants and the “burden” that they place on social systems. No such concerns are expressed about Whites who cross the US/Canadian border and stay in this country illegally. The GOP and the White House has declared the conflict against Muslims, who in their view are explicitly or implicitly presumed to all be suspected “terrorists,” to be a “struggle for the future of civilization.” Coming from the President and the governing authority, such statements are advocacy for bigotry and religious intolerance. Blind adherents to the GOP “party line” are likely to ignore all the hard evidence in the world that Islam is as old as Christianity and no threat to civilization or to US citizens. As with Christianity and any other religion, there are extremists who attempt to use religion as a rallying point for a distorted vision or doctrine to excuse or justify violence. They do not, however, represent the mainstream tenets of the religion. In any event, these rhetorical attacks advance a divisive and suspicious atmosphere that is hostile to people not of White ethnic or Judeo-Christian backgrounds.

The sum of these measures appears designed to project an image of America as a place that is not welcoming and not tolerant of immigrants. Our activities are continually monitored, free speech is limited in public places, one can be spied upon and arrested without notice or the ability to challenge such treatment and detention can mean indefinite imprisonment and possible torture. These characteristics may or may not be as daunting as the experience the prospective immigrant has experienced in their country of origin, but they tend to make the US a much less attractive place to migrate to in order to improve the quality of one’s life. By projecting such images, the “Retro” strategy is to deter foreigners from attempting to enter the US or to stay long if they do come here.

Perhaps national elections will serve as a referendum on whether Americans consider this “Retro” America, and what our society is becoming, a remedy that is worse than the problem to be addressed. If they do feel the cure worse than the disease, the challenge will be to retrieve the America most citizens have believed in and the environment that was once respected and admired by the rest of the world, and considered a beacon of freedom, liberty and democracy.

Honest Patriotism from the Cavalry [Horse’s Mouth]

At some point, perhaps, the public may tire or see through the cynical manipulation of public opinion based upon claims that public objection to the Iraq invasion and occupation is an act of disloyalty to the US military troops serving in Iraq. The Bush Administration also contends that it is necessary to sacrifice the lives of still more soldiers in order to honor those already killed or injured. Consider then the following clear pronouncement from those who have served in the military and who deserve far more credibility than a President who not only avoided active military service, but failed even to fulfill the limited responsibilities of military reserve duty:

Wednesday 01 November 2006 – The Nation
"As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for US troops to come home."

This statement - the Appeal for Redress - has been signed by over 600 active-duty soldiers who have had enough of seeing their brothers and sisters sacrificed to the disastrous war in Iraq. In this month alone, 101 American soldiers have been killed, more than in any month since January, 2005 and the fourth highest monthly total since the war began in March, 2003.

[Sergeant Jonathan] Hutto, who served off the Iraq coast from September 2005 until March, told the Washington Post, "I hear discussions every day among my shipmates about the war in Iraq and how it doesn't make any sense at this point. There is no victory in sight."

The objections raised by these active service members and war veterans are not based upon a lack of nerve or commitment to serve in the military. These people bow to no one in their devotion to country. They voice rational conclusions based upon their personal experiences and knowledge. They cite the deception under which the invasion was initiated and failure to find any weapons of mass destruction. They also criticize the Bush Administration false linkage between Iraq and the Al Qaeda sponsored attack on 9/11. Seeing no credible justification for the “mission” in Iraq, no clear articulation of feasible objectives and no sensible plan for bringing resolution to the situation in Iraq, these patriots have all concluded that continuing to place in harms way and to lose more American troops in Iraq is wrong. They respectfully demand that the troops in Iraq be brought home. In their view, true “support” for the troops would be applying pressure on the Bush Administration to develop and implement a plan to bring the troops home.

The Bush Administration’s shameless misrepresentations and cynical attacks on the character and patriotism of Americans, including combat veterans, who exercise their right to dissent is the truly unpatriotic act. It is a sad development that honored and decorated veterans must band together and make such public statements to defend their honor and to correct the lies and distortions by President Bush and his entourage. The public statement by these service members is an embarrassment to the Administration. Even more embarrassing is the fact that the actions of our “leaders” made such a pronouncement necessary to correct the false propaganda broadcast by the Bush Administration.

The Age of Empire

Many have attempted to dismiss George W. Bush and his Administration as merely incompetent or a bunch of idiots. I would tend to disagree to the extent that bumbling may suggest that the Administration is not also dangerous. Our President is not the brightest bulb on the tree, and he does not pride himself as such. He sees himself as a “man of action.” Too much cerebral energy and reflection is often the enemy of action. And it would be fair to assume that Vice President Cheney prefers that the Chief Executive not be extremely bright, as that makes manipulation more difficult. It is enough that George W. Bush sees himself as the leader of the greatest nation on earth and that God has ordained him to spread the American way of life across the planet. Armed with this “knowledge,” he has implemented a foreign policy based upon confrontation rather than cooperation and diplomacy. Other sovereign states are either his pawns or his enemies. Reaching back to the Jacksonian theory of democracy and foreign relations, Bush believes that any other country that is not “democratic” is a threat to the United States. Any country that refuses to bend to the will of his Administration or that is run by a regime that rejects US claims of arbitrary rights and the license to interfere in that country’s affairs is deemed a threat or even labeled a “rogue” state.

The revived policy of Manifest Destiny that the Bush Administration espouses is not a recent development. George H.W. Bush followed it, but with a bit more finesse than his son, perhaps because of his years with the CIA and an understanding that international relations require some subtlety. The Clinton Administration senior foreign policy advisors harbored the notion that the US had the right to intervene in the affairs of other sovereign nations if there appeared to be a serious threat to US control of global economic markets. Clinton preferred diplomacy, perhaps because he is more adept with language, and followed the Roosevelt advice of “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” The Bush Administration, in contrast, has gone about the globe threatening anyone who raises opposition to its agenda and plans. But conquest and control has been a consistent objective of this country's leadership.

To make sense of the Bush Doctrine, it is important to look at the strategy more than the implementation. The execution of the strategy has been, and is likely to go down in the annals of history as, one of the greatest displays of ineptitude and mismanagement this country has ever seen. But back to the strategy. In order to accomplish a conquest, the central goal is the capture and control of vital resources. Those resources could be in the form of: a)land that has special value because of its volume, climate or strategic location; b)the populace that has special value because of shear numbers, special skills [such as military proficiency] or sophistication and education that would foster productivity by the conquered asset; or c) important natural resources that are valuable because of the universal demand for them and their linkage to global economic markets.

When analyzed in this context, it is easy to understand the desire of the Bush Administration to invade Iraq, topple the Saddam Hussein regime and establish a client state. Iraq is strategically located in the Middle East, and as a gateway between Arabian oil fields and Eastern Europe. The people of Iraq were considered some of the best educated and capable people of the region prior to the imposition of sanctions that strangled the lifeblood of the country and caused the highly trained professionals to flee. It goes without saying that Iraq possesses huge deposits and reserves of petroleum, [approximately 25% of the world reserves] a quantity that could manipulate or destabilize world markets if controlled and developed. The notion that Bush invaded Iraq because of some perceived threat to US citizens or national security has not only been debunked, it was absurd in the first place. The Downing Street Memos confirm that Bush and Blair discussed sending drone planes over Iraq with UN markings in order to provoke an attack, thereby providing justification for military intervention with UN support. Other documented reports from Cabinet level meetings show that Bush entered the White House with the agenda of regime change in Iraq.

When looked at from the vantage point of targets for conquest, the choice to invade Iraq seems the obvious one. The purported excuse for the attack, some form of "anticipatory self-defense," only serves to distract attention and confuse the real issues. One has to put aside considerations of international law, ethics and compassion for innocent civilians to pursue the Bush Doctrine. But Karl Rove has been so masterful in manipulating the public through a campaign of fear and hysteria, the country seems to have simply forgotten about moral principles and national integrity. The loss of innocent lives has not seemed to trouble the Bush Administration too much, whether the deaths took place abroad or in the Gulf Coast of teh United States. It also does not seem to matter to the White House if the deceased were US soldiers and citizens or Iraqis. The Bush Administration has always regarded international law as a tool to pressure other governments to follow Washington directives, and a mere inconvenience when it would appear to impede that plans of the Administration. [e.g., Geneva Conventions, Tokyo Protocol, NPT, and the list goes on]

That the Bush Doctrine can be articulated and explained does not make it legal. Neither does it suggest that the majority of American people support it. The approval ratings for Bush are stuck at around 33% and are unlikely to improve. If more people actually understood the strategy and Bush Doctrine, it is possible that those approval ratings could go even lower. It is ironic that a single political party controls the White House and Congress and yet the leadership is so out of touch with the majority of American people. The belief that the American people would approve of torture of prisoners, rape and murder of civilians, use of white phosphorous [napalm equivalent or worse] on civilians, kidnapping and indefinite detention of people without any right to contest the basis for their imprisonment seems to push the envelope. Even if the public had been inclined to endorse an immoral, illegal and foolhardy adventure such as invading another country and deposing its ruler [keep in mind that the US has done so before], one could hardly expect continued support when the job has been done so poorly.

Democracy and Free & Fair Elections

On Sunday [October 8, 2006], the New York Times reported that tens of thousands of Georgia voters recently received letters telling them they must show a photo ID to vote on Election Day despite repeated court rulings striking down Georgia's restrictive voter ID requirement.

The media is quickly prepared to dismiss the conspiracy theorists who suggest that concerted and planned measures to subvert the democratic and fair election process. The research and testing of the Diebold electronic voting machines showing the very real potential for manipulation of vote tabulations and “fixing” election results have received little consistent and in depth reportage. Substantial evidence of the ease with which security of the voting machines could be breached and compromised has been presented and verified by independent analysts. The voting tabulation could be manipulated to cause the machine to record votes cast for one candidate to be placed in another candidate’s column. Moreover, programming sophistication has been shown to enable the machine to impose these “adjustments” only when voting results are within certain parameters, thus rendering the manipulation more difficult to discover. Concerns that the majority party currently in control might stoop to unethical or illegal voting fraud measures to maintain that hold on to power are ignored or dismissed as paranoia.

But are these concerns so far fetched? When the Secretary of State in two critical election jurisdictions also served as the Campaign Chair of the Republican Party, and thereafter took deliberate and persistent actions to thwart investigations into alleged irregularities in election procedures, does manipulation seem out of the question? Katherine Harris took every measure that she could, including one or more that were enjoined by the Florida judiciary, to obstruct the full examination and counting of ballots. Kenneth Blackwell adopted measures and issued orders to restrict the investigation of voting irregularities. Complaints about the failure to provide adequate voting machines in heavily populated precincts that were traditionally Democratic went unresolved and largely unexamined by Blackwell’s office. Subsequently, both Harris and Blackwell have been rewarded by substantial GOP financial support backing their candidacy for higher elective office.

Stalin declared that those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything. The federal legislation enacted by the GOP controlled Congress is resulting in the rapid expansion of electronic voting machines across the country. Many of these devices have no paper backup to provide for audit and verification that the tabulations reported electronically actually reflect the votes cast on Election Day. The development of technology may or may not keep pace with the development of methods to pervert the technology for unethical and illegal purposes. One very interesting suggestion was raised during the 2004 election. That suggestion was that international observers be employed to help assure that the election was conducted in a fair and legal manner. This is the same process that the US frequently urges when elections are conducted in developing countries or countries where the US Government has concerns about which regime will obtain control as a result of the election. However, the suggestion that similar independent international observation of the US election process and the potential that an objective report of the facts bearing upon whether the election was free and fair was treated almost as an insult and a preposterous idea. The only thing that is perhaps more absurd is the way in which the American public stands by quietly as the democratic institutions are continually and substantially eroded. The GOP stated objective is a “permanent majority” that controls the White House, Congress and the Judiciary.

Perhaps the question deserves being raised again. Is it possible that there could be a concerted effort to suppress voters or to manipulate voting results? Nawwww, never happen! This is America.

Diagnosis Democracy - Critical Internal Systemic Failure

The handling of American policy, foreign and domestic, poses serious risks to the vitality of democracy in this country. However, the potentially greater danger to a functional democracy is when the basic institutions that are supposed to balance the equation fail to act responsibly. The Constitutional counterbalance to an overly aggressive or out of control executive branch should come from Congressional and judicial oversight and action. The counterbalance to secrecy and violations of law and ethics by the government should come from professional and thorough investigative reporting. If the public is reasonably informed, survival of democracy ultimately depends upon the citizenry taking action to remove from power those elected representatives that break faith with their sworn public trust.

A great deal of ink has been spilled on the incestuous and complicit GOP Congress led by the same party as the President. Ethics, regard for the welfare of the public and even principles of common sense have taken a back seat to the accretion and consolidation of power. When we consider that the “investigation” of the potential cover up by Speaker Hastert is being conducted by the same committee that wanted to change the House Ethics Rules so that Tom Delay would not have to step down, despite a federal indictment, it seems obvious that the current Congress is too far gone to be effectively retrieved or “fixed” unless and until the GOP majority is broken. When and if that happens, there will at least be the possibility of holding accountable those who have breached public trust and sold out their constituents and the country. Accountability does not necessarily require mass witch hunts, congressional investigations and recriminations. More importantly, the change of majority would create a true check and balance, the risk of being taken to task for one’s actions. It would thereby require members of Congress to act with greater fidelity to the job description they were sent to Washington to accomplish.

An institutional failure of equal or greater magnitude has been the unwillingness or inability of the media to develop and maintain a focus and a level of professionalism that would justify their special protections under the Constitution. For years, investigative reporting has been in suspended animation. The media, whether because of its corporate ownership, its lack of professionalism or its lack of courage, failed to expose available facts and inform the public of misconduct and breaches of trust by the White House and Congress. When stories did surface, typically months or years after the percipient facts were available, they were given the kind of attention that a puppy gives to a stick that is thrown. The story would get a few moments of cursory attention and then the media would chase off after some other distraction. The attention that the media focused on the White House upon release of the Bob Woodward book [“State of Denial”] was quickly wiped from the media spotlight when the Foley – Hastert scandal broke, involving Congressional Pages and failure of Congressional leadership to discipline its members.

It is true that the degree and the number of issues in which the staggering incompetence and venality of the Bush Administration and the Frist-Hastert [Delay] Congress have betrayed the American people makes keeping up with all of the stories of misconduct difficult. But no one said the job was supposed to be an easy one. And there clearly should be sufficient media outlets and journalists to permit multitasking. Every reporter need not attempt to cover the same story. The prevailing attitude stems from laziness and unprofessionalism. Moreover, it could be persuasively argued that a strong, vigilant and vital press might have discouraged such blatant corruption and discouraged the proliferation of misconduct that prevails. But a critical function lacking in the media today is the professional ability to discern real news from distraction and propaganda.

One easy example is the reporting on the Bush and Cheney stump speeches being delivered on the campaign trail. Both toss out meaningless jingoistic rhetoric about “cut and run” and “soft on terrorism” and national security. These blatant attempts to reintroduce the hysteria of fear are transparent. However, the media seems incapable of the courage to step back and disengage from being used as a propaganda tool. The editors should follow a simple rule. If the speech is not delivered to the public and fails to contain any new substantive information, it does not deserve daily public airing. Unless Bush and Cheney include specific information that supports their name calling and demagoguery, the media should simply treat the speech or appearance as a footnote and a campaign stop on the President's or Vice President’s itinerary. In the case of the recent Bush and Cheney campaign speeches to closed partisan audiences, the "content" is no more than the typical pandering, sloganeering and baseless rhetorical attacks. The media should spend their time and energy developing and publishing stories that are fact based and which involve important issues and events that affect the public.

The same standard should hold true for press coverage of Democratic representative speeches. In general, however, speeches by Democrats that do involve specific reference to factual matters and documented malfeasance by the GOP Congress or the White House have seen little daylight in the press. Balance is needed, professionalism and a greater attention span is needed. The notion that an item is not necessarily news because Bush or Cheney opens his mouth need attention. Instead of reportage that is miles wide and a millimeter deep, we need more in-depth reporting and analysis of a narrower range of issues that are more central to the functioning of our democracy. Do we really need to hear more of Bush or Cheney accusing Democrats of treason because of their dissent? What is needed is specific information about why, after five years of rhetoric and control of the government by the same party, the American people are less safe or certainly no safer than they were on 9/11. We need factual reporting about specific successes and failures of the Administration in the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The media needs to give us the facts, we can generate the spin ourselves.

We the People deserve better; and we can achieve better government. But we need at least minimal functioning or the fundamental institutions that make up our democratic form of government. If the current rate of deterioration and destruction of those institutions continues, the vital signs will fade and the loss will be irretrievable.

.........
footnote: If you think that PBS is giving you "balanced" news reporting, think again. See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100806Y.shtml

Of Foxes and Chickens

The reader will hopefully forgive the barnyard analogies from a writer with solid Midwestern beginnings. But the recent events in Washington bring to mind obvious problems that arise when the party responsible for supervision and the public trust to safeguard the vulnerable is also a ruthless predator who regards those to be protected more as prey than as wards. Midwesterners call that putting the “fox in charge of protecting the chickens.”

Mark Foley, R-Fla, resigned from Congress on Friday following media disclosure of sexually explicit e-mails he sent to a 16 year old former Page. The messages were inappropriate and contained sexual content that probably renders the actions of sending them to a minor over the internet illegal. Subsequent reporting indicates that there were other incidents in which similar communications and advances or overtures were made to other Pages by Foley. Apparently, the matter will now be investigated by the FBI more than a year after the occurrence was first reported. Congressional Pages are positions in which students are given the opportunity to experience how Congress does business, as they carry messages and do basic administrative or “gofer” tasks for the Members. To include being sexually propositioned by Members of Congress as part of that internship or curriculum would be a real stretch. Members of Congress are expected to treat Pages, who look up to them as potential role models, with respect. There is an office in the Capitol with a Congressional member specifically assigned to administer the Page program and to assure that these young people are supervised and not mistreated. In the case of Foley, the Congressman was a sexual predator instead of a mentor, teacher or role model.

But the analogy goes to another level. The Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, was alerted to the situation and the problem of reported misconduct by Foley more than a year ago. We do not know how much more Hastert knew of Foley’s peccadilloes, but even the single publicly reported incident should have been sufficient notice to take serious action. Instead, Hastert’s office says they merely told Foley to “stay away” from that particular Page. The Speaker now professes outrage that a member of Congress has “breached a public trust,” but says nothing of the breach of trust he himself failed to uphold by taking action against Foley as soon as he became aware of the misconduct. Again, fox in charge of foxes roaming about in the henhouse.

Newt Gingrich came up with a purported excuse that would be laughable, were the offense not so serious. He claims that if Hastert had taken action when he first heard of the complaint by the parents of the 16 year old, Hastert might have been accused of “gay bashing.” We are talking about a mature adult in a position of power making improper sexual advances toward a 16 year old minor that was under his authority or influence. Whether same sex or heterosexual, the offense was equally abhorrent. Political affiliation too should have been totally irrelevant. Gingrich’s attempt to trivialize it indicates the level of moral bankruptcy to which Congressional behavioral standards have sunk.

That the matter could have been dealt with, even without as much public embarrassment, serves to demonstrate how jaded and corrupt Washington has become. Let’s look at a scenario. Speaker of the House and Majority Leader Hastert, after getting word of the parental complaint regarding the 16 year old former Page, walks into Foley’s office and closes the door. Hastert says to fellow Republican Congressman Foley:

“It has been brought to my attention that there are allegations against you of sexual improprieties involving a former Page who is 16 years old. I am not accusing you of anything, nor am I judging you. I am not even asking you to explain to me what did or did not happen. What I am asking you to consider is whether, upon full investigation of this incident and any related conduct, and publication of the findings of that investigation, you would feel comfortable continuing to represent your district in Congress. You have one week to give me your answer to my question”

That is how private and backroom deals are made in Congress. It is fair to assume that Hastert would have received Foley’s resignation “for personal and family reasons” within that week. Any subsequent actions by the 16 year old Page would have been directed to Foley as a private citizen. And some measure of discipline would have been maintained with respect to the behavior of Congressional members respecting Pages. But instead, the prevailing "standard" of discipline seems to be doing whatever you feel like, as long as you don’t get caught. Delay, Cunningham, Frist and a host of others provide us examples of how well Congress polices itself regarding ethical and moral conduct. Is it any wonder then why this Congress would pass legislation approving use of torture, authorizing searches and seizure of property and communications in violations of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and erecting a “Berlin Wall” over 1/3 the length of the border with Mexico? These are the “foxes” that we have placed in charge of our nation's business, the security and well being of us “chickens.” If you get an invitation to dinner from this Congress, you might first want to ask which of your neighbors is likely to be on the menu.

None So Blind….

The United States has plunged itself and the world into an unstable mix of factors that threaten the destabilize the Middle East, spread warfare [conventional and unconventional] beyond the Middle East arena and re-enervate the deadly nuclear arms proliferation race. The threat to the world at large lies not only from the potential for misguided deliberate actions by world leaders, but also from inadvertent, accidental and unintended consequences of circumstances and actions that are being taken. When placed in an atmosphere of actual threats, aggression and bellicose rhetoric from the United States, so-called “rogue” states of North Korea, Iran, Syria and others targeted by US foreign policy salvos can easily be understood when they seek to escalate their arms capability as a deterrence to such threats. The reasoning is neither obscure nor far fetched. All the predicates for disaster are manifest and documented. We need only look at the situation with objective, unbiased and unclouded vision.

The Iraq invasion and occupation has been the subject of massive, but totally unnecessary, public “debate” regarding its bona fides. Despite all the smoke, propaganda and deception that has lasted over three years, the public is finally beginning to awaken to the facts that have been manifest firmly establishing that the Bush Administration manipulated intelligence in order to orchestrate a predetermined strategy to invade Iraq for the purpose of regime change. That such actions were a clear violation of international law seems not to have sunken into the American consciousness generally.

A myriad of independent sources have put forward compelling evidence that the Bush Administration initiated the strategy of invasion prior to obtaining any resolution, authorization or approval from the UN or the US Congress. Internal memoranda, statements from former White House operatives and the Downing Street Memoranda all confirm that Bush intended to depose Saddam Hussein even prior to his inauguration. The manifest evidence also confirms that the Bush Administration knew that there were no viable “weapons of mass destruction” [WMD] or biological weapons systems in Iraq. Although the US had provided such weaponry to Iraq under the Bush I Administration, the years of sanctions and intervening events had eliminated the capacity of Saddam Hussein to maintain or advance these programs. Moreover, continual international monitoring gave the US and the world reasonable confidence that no such systems existed to seriously threaten Iraq’s neighbors, and certainly not the US.

The recently released book by Bob Woodward, “State of Denial,” further documents the faulty judgments by the White House and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in preparations for and execution of the invasion of Iraq. The White House continues to make public speeches about how well it is doing in the Iraqi conflict, and progress that is being made. They do this in the face of almost weekly reports from knowledgeable observers regarding the actual state of affairs in Iraq. Just a day or two ago, the entire city of Baghdad had to be placed on lockdown curfew. Despite reports of “progress” in training and preparing the Iraqi army and security forces, a recent report confirmed that only 25% of Iraqis in the national security forces reported for duty when deployed to defend Baghdad. That hardly sounds like “progress” even under the most generous characterization of the state of Iraqi readiness.

The ersatz “War on Terrorism” has been equally disestablished. Richard Clarke’s book amply documents the existence of information and briefings regarding the potential threat of an attack by Terrorists led or incited by Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden long before the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. Other independent reports statements and documents from government officials from the Department of Defense and the CIA confirm the multiple failed attempts were made to raise the level of priority and urgency within the White House enclave. Public pronouncements by the White House and Condoleeza Rice have been, one after another, proven to be blatant lies. That the Administration would try to “spin” or whitewash the facts is not surprising. The remarkable aspect is the arrogance of doing so with clear knowledge that the disproof of their assertions is available through multiple corroborating sources. The discrepancies were not simply a difference of “interpretation,” the Administration attempted to gainsay documented facts relating to the very occurrence of certain events or existence of certain documents.

The most remarkable observation of all is the apparent willingness of the American public to turn a blind eye to the incompetence, corruption and blatant deception by the White House and Congressional leadership. The media has been far too complicit for too long in this process, by ignoring or burying stories that would disclose the deceit and failures of the Administration. However, now that the truth is appearing in print, and despite the Right Wing “talking heads” who continually try to downplay or discount the governmental incompetence and misconduct, the public still has not mobilized in any meaningful way to demand accountability of the White House and Congress. It would appear that the American public has bought into a kind of self delusional mindset that allows them to accept statements that they know to be untrue, as long as they appear to support some jingoistic mantra of “national security” or “war on terror.”

Hard evidence of torture used on US detainees is sidestepped or ignored as long as it was proclaimed necessary to fight terrorism. Never mind that torture of a crime under national and international law, that in most instances we know about the torture was inflicted upon people who were not terrorists and the Administration has been unable or unwilling to give the public any concrete evidence to support the claimed necessity for using illegal and morally reprehensible tactics. We ignore weekly reports of the devolution of Iraq into civil war and chaos as the President exhorts us to “stay the course” and continue to pour over $8 Billion per week of precious US resources and numerous lives of US military personnel into an Administration adventure that Bush cannot even hazard a guess as to when it can be brought to a successful conclusion. This is the case even if we allow the Administration to define a “successful” conclusion.

All of this is done in the name of the American people and with the lives of our children and citizens and with our precious financial resources. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Unfortunately, the American people and our children will pay the price for this willful disregard for many years to come.

“We Must Destroy You to Save You”

A classic philosophical dilemma continually surfaces to challenge leaders and policymakers: whether the “ends” justify the “means” employed to achieve them. Embarking upon that path has proven a difficult and slippery slope. Excessive focus upon some theoretically laudable ends can divert attention from a moral compass that guides or governs the tactics we employ. Losing sight of that moral compass can lead to the abandonment or destruction of the very principles that are the foundation of the “ends” being sought.

There are no doubt instances when aggressive and unpleasant tactics are necessary to achieve a greater good. Yet each decision to employ these undesirable measures should be examined in the context of whether their adoption changes who we are fundamentally, and whether their use undermines the essential values upon which we have built our society. That a tactic can be used or even that it may be effective cannot be the end of the inquiry into whether a tactic or procedure is justifiable. Nor can the immorality of the foe or opponent be used as a valid excuse for resort to fundamentally abhorrent and inhumane measures. To do so is both dishonest and corrupting. The existence of the Geneva Conventions confirm that, despite the horrors and inhumanity of war, there are standards of conduct below which civilized peoples must not stoop.

These fundamental standards of civilized behavior are distilled from experience and from the basic tenets of a wide array of religions and articles of faith throughout the world. It is not determinative whether the standard is incorporated into some self enforcing edict. Theft and murder are inherently wrong because we accept these restrictions on behavior as part of our collective moral compass, not because they are illegal. So passing a law that immunizes someone who commits a murderous or inhumane act does not make the action less wrong, simply because the authority of a court to punish the act is curtailed.

This brings us to the soon to be enacted legislation advanced by the Bush Administration regarding detention, interrogation and trial of persons that the Administration designates as “suspected terrorists” or “enemy combatants.” The Senate has passed legislation, with support from Republicans and some Democrats, which authorizes the practices demanded by President Bush as "essential tools" in his war on terrorism. For decades, by international treaty and domestic law, the American people have accepted that torture and inhumane treatment of detainees or prisoners is illegal. On a societal level, we have generally accepted that such practices are morally wrong. Yet this legislation sidesteps legal and moral standards by “dressing up” the practices with euphemistic labels such as aggressive interrogation or “alternative procedures.” But a rose by any other name is still a rose.

Moreover, law enforcement and military experts with actual knowledge and understanding of armed conflict and battle situations tell us that torture and inhumane coercive tactics are usually counterproductiveat and often useless. The “intelligence” or information that is obtained under such procedures has less than a 50% chance of being accurate or useful because the detainee will say whatever he or she believes the interrogator wants to hear, simply to cause the torture to stop. In addition, use of these tactics provides an invitation to opponents to use equally inhumane or perhaps escalated tactics against detainees of American personnel or allies. As General Colin Powell admonished the Bush Administration recently, the world is beginning to question the moral basis for the actions of the US in its "war on terror."

The extent to which the adoption of the legislation and the tactics it authorizes diminishes the character of the American people themselves is a more direct and fundamental issue. While it is important how the rest of the world views the American people, it is essential that we carefully consider how we view ourselves. The proposed law condones practices and pardons American government agents, including the President and Secretary of Defense, for actions that have historically constituted war crimes under the Geneva Conventions and the US War Crimes Act. The law establishes a new and revised standard of American character and morality. Upon passage, the activities that the Administration has engaged in since 9/11: extraordinary renditions, torture, isolation, water boarding, electroshock, hypothermia, use of threats with attack animals, harsh psychological intimidation, use of religious tenets to coerce prisoners and other “alternative procedures” are all to be declared legal and acceptable behaviors. Officials at the highest levels who authorized such measures are immunized from future prosecution for war crimes.

Individuals, including American citizens, may be arrested and detained indefinitely without being formally charged. They would have no right to a habeas corpus hearing to challenge the legitimacy or basis for their detention, or even to show that they are not the person that the authorities intended to arrest. They simply “disappear” to Guantanamo or some secret prison like the countless individuals lost in the Pinochet and other authoritarian regimes. IF the Bush Administration chooses to charge the detainee and put him or her on trial, there is language in the law that provides some limited due process protections. However, the basic principle of due process that prohibits indefinite imprisonment without formal charges, and a showing that the government has at least a reasonable basis for believing that the detainee has engaged in prohibited conduct, is woefully lacking. So the simple solution for the Bush Administration under the new law is to imprison the person secretly and refuse to formally charge or bring the person to trial.

Add to those measures the legislation moving forward in Congress to authorize domestic wiretapping and search and seizure of private information and communications without warrants. These measures, we are told, are necessary “tools” in the war against terrorism. They would appear to violate the Fourth Amendment protections under the US Constitution against unreasonable search and seizure by government authorities. But the encroachment on freedom and personal liberty is essential, we are told, to protect us from the potential threat of a terrorist attack. We must simply trust the government not to abuse us once we have relinquished these rights.

Thus, in order to “protect” Americans and to secure our safety from “terrorism” in this new and dangerous world, we are instructed that we must now condone torture, kidnapping, and indefinite imprisonment without due process. Anyone who opposes or disagrees with these tactics and measures is "soft on terrorism and national security." These naysayers are presumably a threat to the American "way of life." We must sacrifice these long standing moral principles and fundamental tenets of our democracy in order to protect our “way of life.” Protecting “freedom” and our “way of life” are the “ends” that the Bush Administration and GOP controlled Congress seek. The means they would employ to achieve those ends make each and every one of us complicit in acts that are inhumane and immoral, and they require us to relinquish basic rights of freedom and liberty upon which our “way of life” was established.

That is who YOU, the American citizen will become with the adoption of this legislation. And that is why the White House asserts that it must destroy you in order to protect and save you. It is assumed that you will appreciate all that the Administration is doing for you. And it is also assumed that you are fine with the demise and destruction of character and moral authority that this country once had. After all, your “way of life” is protected.

Wizardry at the White House

President Bush, still attempting to maintain the façade of the “Wizard of Oz,” proclaims that the recent National Intelligence Estimate [NIE] supports the Administration’s position, while refusing to declassify and release the NIE document that would either support or disprove his assertion. What we do know from leaks of portions of the NIE findings is that the Iraq fiasco has made the world and the US less safe and more vulnerable to terrorist attack. We also know the intelligence community consensus is that continuation of the current path will lead to greater risk. How these stark findings can be “spun” into an assertion that the report bolsters the Bush Administration’s current policies [rather than calling for a serious rethinking of those policies in light of their lack of success] is a marvel to behold. The excuses and rationale put forward by Administration talking heads are so weak and transparent that the public must be total idiots or be able to suspend belief in reality to accept them.

Press secretary Tony Snow said releasing the full report, portions of which President Bush declassified on Tuesday, would jeopardize the lives of agents who gathered the information.

Since exactly when did this Administration become concerned about protecting the identity and lives of agents and intelligence operatives. More specifically, is it not more likely that this Administration would deliberately disclose and compromise, rather than protect, the identity of CIA operatives who give assessments that contradict the President’s agenda? Consider the fate of Valerie Plame carefully before you answer.

It would also risk the nation's ability to work with foreign governments and to keep secret its U.S. intelligence-gathering methods, Snow said, and "compromise the independence of people doing intelligence analysis."

The first part of the rationale may have some merit. We know that the public admission by the President of “secret prisons” in foreign countries used to hold “suspected terrorists” has created a firestorm of disapproval. These secret enclaves used for extraordinary rendition and torture were not operations that our allies were eager to associate themselves with. These other countries have a far different respect for international law and the Geneva Conventions than Bush appears to have. Public disclosure of such practices in intelligence assessments could undercut the lies and deceit used by the Administration to maintain working relationships with countries not fully aware of the US Administration’s practices.

The second part of the rationale is laughable. The experience of Richard Clark tells us a great deal about the Bush Administration’s true regard for the independence of intelligence and counterterrorism professionals. Clark had worked as a high level intelligence professional on counter terrorism operations under at least four different administrations, GOP and Democrat. He was repeatedly sent back to the drawing board by the Bush - Cheney White House because his “independent” analysis did not match the Bush – Cheney agenda. Subsequent revelations have confirmed the pervasive attitude of the White House. Either you told them what they wanted to hear or you were out of a job in a New York minute. Release of the NIE could scarcely do harm to the “independence” of these professionals that has not already been accomplished through White House intimidation that has gone on for years.

In the bleak National Intelligence Estimate, the government's top analysts concluded Iraq has become a "cause celebre" for jihadists, who are growing in number and geographic reach. If the trend continues, the analysts found, the risks to the U.S. interests at home and abroad will grow… Snow said the report confirms the importance of the war in Iraq as a bulwark against terrorists. "Iraq has become, for them, the battleground," he said. "If they lose, they lose their bragging rights. They lose their ability to recruit."

This phrase and meaning contortion is worthy of circus billing. What we know of the findings by the intelligence professionals is that they report exploitation of the chaotic situation in Iraq by terrorist groups who use the confusion and lack of order as a cover for training extremists in terroristic methods and indoctrination. The report also [and quite logically, I would add] suggests that many of these trainees are sent from or choose to leave Iraq to establish cells and train others in different parts of the world. One obvious reason is that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated to the point that it is an unsafe environment even for the terrorists. Active combat training in guerilla and urban warfare is supplied by the uncontrolled environment in Iraq. It provides a real life "boot camp" that allows these extremists to try out and hone their skills and training. However, unless they are intimately involved in the sectarian and tribal militias and death squads running rampant in Iraq, these Islamic extremists trained to be terrorists find it safer to leave Iraq than to stay and risk being killed in the crossfire of the Iraqi civil war. Their time in Iraq is a temporary way station. Perpetuating the chaos in Iraq, as noted by intelligence experts, thus serves as a recruitment and training tool for global terorrists. We have reduced the Iraqi citizenry to residents in the functional equivalent of a large artillery range or mock battleground where competing teams conduct "war games" more for the sake of miklitary exercises than for the achievement of actual control and stabilization of the battleground. Traditionally, military exercises to train troops have been conducted in deserted areas to prevent civilian casualties. Unfortunately for the Iraqi civilians, the US occupation seems to have dispensed with that precaution.

The battle in Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaida at the beginning, and has very little to do with Al Qaida now. Al Qaida was not a presence or contender for a ruling regime in Iraq before the US invasion, and does not now seek to govern the country. The current battle is simply about restoring some semblance of a rule of law in an otherwise lawless environment. It is not, in any rational sense, a battleground between the US and international terrorist groups. The battle is between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions attempting to position themselves for control in any resulting governance of Iraq. The deaths of more than 300 Iraqis per month, as a result of sectarian violence, tells us that the war is for control of the Iraqi territory and not some epic "struggle for civilization." The US has lost the war to control the government of Iraq, in failing to install a proxy regime. The US has legitimate concerns about what form of centralized regime or balkanized republics will ultimately arise out of the chaos the US invasion and occupation have precipitated. But it is by no means clear that continued occupation of the country will further US interests. Indeed, the NIE briefing strongly suggests the opposite. In any event, Iraq is clearly NOT a bulwark against terrorists or a "central front" in the war on terrorism.

It is time to pull back the curtain and expose the Wizard as a charlatan. When Intelligence professionals candidly assess the situation, military experts evaluate the conditions and available options, humanitarian agencies investigate and report on the circumstances on the ground, and all of them say that the mission has failed, it is time to at least consider a correction in course or policy adjustment. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration would choose to ignore all of the available evidence and exhort us to support the “stay the course” mantra. There are examples of such behavior: Custer at the Little Big Horn, the Titanic in the North Atlantic, and the Light Brigade charge in North Africa. None of these examples are particularly confidence-inspiring toward the leadership. In the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy and her pals learned that success lay not in chasing some useless and impossible quest, but rather in facing the truth that was right before them and within themselves. Perhaps that is the fiction to which we ought to be paying attention, instead of the “Snow” being broadcast by the White House.

An Impossible Dream?: Truth in Government

One of the most remarkable elements of political campaigning and governmental policy these days is the stark contrast between the public representations and any factual or concrete basis. We have gone from an environment of "bending" the facts and record to what amounts to a compound fracture of reality. The public is well acquainted with a divergence of political viewpoints when candidates attempt to differentiate their positions by "coloring" the facts and "interpreting" them through the lens of their political philosophy. However, the past decade has seen a marked shift in which the point of departure for the bend or "spin" is no longer an objective and concrete set of facts or even a semblance of the truth. What we see and hear repeatedly these days are complete fabrications, often 180 degrees from any reasonable conclusion drawn from underpinning facts. And even worse, these openly false representations are made in the face of readily available facts that disprove the truth of the assertions.

Let's talk examples. In Massachusetts, there is a current debate over "taxes" and which candidate would raise or roll back taxes. Set aside, for the moment, the reasonableness of the political dogma that declares taxes as bad in all circumstances. The public debate turns upon whether a candidate can successfully claim that fee increases or other "revenue enhancements" are not taxes, and thus contend that taxes have not been raised. We all know, at least those of us that adhere to some logical integrity, that inflation and cost increases for government services require either more revenue or reduced services. Government services and state aid to local governments have been cut, whether by direct reductions or by failing to adjust funding for inflation and permitting a de facto reduction to occur. We also know that there have been some increases in government revenue. So the public debate is based upon common factual underpinnings, but positions are differentiated by sophistry and labels, or "characterizations."

No candidate wants to campaign on a promise to cut services, so each candidate must face the problem of how to address the need for increased revenue. One party claims that it will "not raise taxes," but resorts to fee increases and revenue enhancers that it says are not "taxes" despite the fact that they look and act precisely like taxes. The other party claims that the public deserves more "honesty" and accountability. This opposing party asserts that when the government imposes economic burdens in order to raise revenue, the attempt to disguise that action as something other than a tax is not being fair or honest with the public. Whether you ascribe to the technicality approach or the "quacks like a duck" approach, this is fair political debate because neither side denies the common facts that the government has raised revenues that it needed to carry out a public purpose.

Enter the new era of public debate. Congress passes legislation called the "Clean Skies" law that one can see, upon cursory reading, permits an increase in the volume of air pollution permitted by industries that are prime contributors to air contamination. These industries have provided strong lobbying and large political campaign contributions to the GOP legislators that control Congress. The "Help America Vote" Act passed by Congress imposes measures that require use of electronic voting machines that have been shown by objective testing to be highly prone to hacking, manipulation and corruption of voting results tabulation. This legislation also imposes voter ID requirements of questionable constitutionality, with which the states and local governments cannot comply for lack of funding and resources. The direct and objective result of the legislation is to suppress voting and to undermine the integrity of the voting process. Were these acts of Congress subject to FDA or truth in packaging approval, they could never be released fButublic consumption. Butu there is no requirement that Congress act honestly or that legislation must be labeled truthfully.

President Bush yesterday proclaimed that Americans can "read for themselves" the National Intelligence Briefing report that critics of the administration have cited in support of assertions that the Bush Administration invasion and occupation of Iraq has made the world less safe from terrorism. In fact, the White House has declassified only a portion of the 3 page "key findings" summary from that report. In fact, the public cannot read for themselves what the consensus of all major intelligence agencies reported regarding the recent historical background, current status and future prospects regarding one of the largest issues facing this country in its history. These examples are different from the "taxation vs. fees" debate. These involve outright lies, prevarication and deliberate deception of the public in the face of clear and objective information that proves the lie.

We might question why the President of the United States would go on public television and declare that the National Intelligence Briefing does not say that the world and the country is less safe as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, when even the selective portion released by the White House under pressure patently does provide that assessment. Indeed we should raise that question. It is one thing to publicly disagree with the report. Underlying foundation, political philosophy and one's connection with reality can be debated on common factual grounds. It is an entirely different matter when an elephant is standing in the room for all to see, and the President of the United States declares publicly that it is not an elephant but rather a mouse we are seeing. This is not a matter of nuance; it is a matter of basic competence. We can all understand that the President would like the report to have said that he has done a successful job of protecting national interests and reducing the threat of terrorism. But regardless of one's sympathies toward the Commander in Chief, the NIB summary that we have seen states otherwise. If there are other portions of the report that contradict the summary findings, it behooves the President to release them publicly. Any claimed threat to national security from releasing the report is outweighed by the legitimate concern that the person occupying the most powerful position on the planet is entirely out of touch with reality and incapable of even comprehending, much less following the best available expert advice.

A fundamental tenet of the political doctrine of democracy is that freedom of information and debate will enable the better ideas to percolate to the surface and guide the governance of the country and body politic toward a reasonably viable future. What we have currently is an environment in which important factual information is withheld from the public on the purported basis of "national security." Furthermore, the leaders who are keeping such information secret are openly and audaciously lying to us. They are telling us that a set of facts and circumstances are true when they know that those facts are not true. They are not coloring the facts in order to lead us; they are deliberately misrepresenting the facts in order to mislead us.

Perhaps the most frightening and hopeful sign of late is the increasing number of highly experienced and respected professionals and experts who were within the Bush Administration. They are now departing from the ranks and exercising the courage to tell the public what they know about the development of our current situation. They acknowledge that they were unable to be open or honest with Congress or the American people while in the Administration, and they explain why. We know that their reasons are valid because we have ample instances of persons who dissented while in office and were summarily relieved of their duties. But these experts do not come forward expecting us to hold them blameless for their failings and complicity. They come forward because they fear that the current course this government and this country is on, based upon their knowledge and experience, portends far greater peril that we have so far experienced. The Bush Administration would label these people traitors, when in truth there are few acts of patriotism needed more by this country than the service these people are providing.

On the Home Front

Attention that has been focused in this Blog and others on International crises, not the lease of which are the conflicts in the Middle East, Sudan and Indonesia, can be a distraction from the problems we face domestically. The distraction does not, however, make the problems any less real or serious. Indeed, some would argue that the occupation in Iraq and the drumbeat from the Bush Administration, preparing the country for a military assault on Iran, are intended to pull attention away from the failed domestic policies and the deteriorating economic situation in the US.

Two economic sectors have traditionally been reliable indicators of the way in which macro economic policies and Wall Street translate to real world circumstances faced on Main Street in the USA: the Housing and the Automobile Industries. The Housing market represents the major repository of family assets for the average American citizen. Many retirement and mutual funds include real estate backed securities as part of the typical portfolios as well. Admittedly, we are not describing assets of the small segment of the populace whose annual incomes exceed $250,000 and have personal stock portfolios. The Automobile industry represents a bellwether for the state of the labor market and for the vitality of the durable goods market as well. The decisions that average families make regarding the immediate purchase or delayed purchase of a vehicle, and the type of vehicle they purchase, depend heavily upon their confidence in their current and near term future outlook. The plethora of manufacturing and distribution jobs that are associated with and dependent upon the Automobile Industry give us guidance respecting the health of the jobs outlook for the country. So let’s take a look at what the factual reports indicate about the prospects for the domestic economy.

Recent reports from National Realtor Association studies reveal that housing prices are declining in real terms for the first time in eleven years. We know that the housing market experiences ups and downs over time, but over the past decade the “downs” usually have been simply plateaus or lessening rates of increase in prices and values. Soft markets can be identified in various geographic markets as a result of overbuilding and other transitory factors. The current situation is different, in that it suggests a true recession in home values. Without falling into the hyperbole of the “housing boom or bust speculation,” we can focus on some real life consequences from the current trend. The steady run up in prices caused two significant reactions among home buyers. The first was a drive to buy more house than the homebuyer could reasonably afford, on the theory that the rising value would create equity. Lenders ventured into higher risk mortgage products that went beyond variable rate mortgages and interest only instruments, to includesome truly exotic negative amortization products. These high risk exotic products banked upon the steadily increasing home prices to maintain the loan to value ratios. With the real decline in home prices and real estate values, combined with increased interest rates, these incautious homebuyers [many of whom were misled by aggressive mortgage brokers and builder based finance agents] now face potential economic crisis and foreclosures. In short, they face loss of their homes and destruction of their credit rating.

Builder confidence [Builders' Association National Survey] has dropped to a low not seen for more than a decade, and there is a larger than average inventory of properties that would have been readily absorbed by home buyers and speculators in the past years. Since many builders depend upon turnover of stock and sale of speculative properties to support cash flow and the development of new properties, this stagnant period threatens the viability of many small and medium sized home builders. The only real bright spot in these developments is the growth in the home improvement sectors, when home buyers turn to fixing up and staying in their homes rather than attempting to sell their houses and move to a newer or larger property. But the volume of the “Home Depot” sales is unlikely to offset the drop in sales for lumber, plumbing fixtures and other staple components of the home building industry.

The Automobile Industry looks even worse. The UAW is reeling from the recent split in the AFL/CIO that took away a large segment of its membership, a defection by union members who were dissatisfied with effectiveness of union leadership. Ford Motor Company and GM have both announced losses in excess of $1 Billion over each of the past three fiscal quarters. Ford announced that it will be reducing its labor force by more than 30,000 jobs by the end of 2008, and will be shuttering 16 plants [up from 14 plants a few months ago] by 2009. This is a desperate attempt to stem the huge losses as Ford seeks to find its “Way Forward” in the new economic environment. The American automakers are steadily losing market share, but seem oblivious to the factors that drive their demise. Foreign auto makers have focused attention on high quality, fuel efficient vehicles. US automaker fleets are still replete with gas guzzling dinosaurs like the Dodge Durango, Lincoln Navigator and Ford 150 series. Vice President Dick Cheney stated that it is "every American’s right" to own a road hogging, gas guzzling SUV if they want to do so. That arrogant posture may sit well for someone with Cheney’s wealth and the dividends from Halliburton pouring into his family trust. But the average American has to be a bit more pragmatic, even if oblivious to the political and environmental irresponsibility of the Cheney dogma.

The timing for the loss of these 30, 000 jobs is being advanced by a recent Ford offer to buy out any of its hourly workers immediately. Obviously, the losses cannot all come from retirees or even from persons taking an early retirement inducement. And the Ford example is one among many places within the spectrum of the Automobile Industry related employment array. The parties in the Automobile Industry, union and management, have engaged in the same kind of willful denial and delusion that led to the demise of the domestic steel industry in this country.

The layoff and loss of pensions by thousands of Delphi employees highlighted the fact that one cannot produce competitive motor vehicle products in the US with a labor force cost of over $65 per hour, when the same product can be manufactured elsewhere for less than half that cost. Even when importation and shipping costs are added, the resulting products will have a significant price advantage. The result is that Toyota can sell a competitive product at 5-10% below the cost of a comparable US vehicle and profit because the actual cost to Toyota may be 30% less. Add that to the Toyota focus on fuel efficient models and it is easy to see why Ford and GM are in such trouble. The production jobs being lost are ones paying $65 to $130k or more. They are disappearing rapidly.

The jobs created by the Bush Administration over the past 6 years consist largely of lower paying jobs, and a large number of artificial jobs in the “homeland security” industry created by the Administration to under gird its fear based political agenda. [The recent National Security Briefing Report confirms that the country is less safe from terrorism that it was before the 9/11 World Trade Center Attack, and that the occupation of Iraq has exacerbated rather than lessened the problem of terrorism worldwide.] The ironic ethnocentricism and bigotry that is being promoted by the Far Right, by demonizing Mexican undocumented workers is a strange phenomenon. [There is, in fact, no demonstrable increase in risk or connection between the illegal immigrant problem and "national security" than the risk that existed a decade ago. The predominant crime problems associated with illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America related to human traffiking and drug related incidents, not terrorist attacks.] These workers are taking the low wage and unskilled jobs that are increasingly the only ones available in the developing economy. There may be some subconscious or subliminal resentment that these jobs are being swallowed up, together with the resentment that the primary jobs that are available are those that were previously thought "undesirable."

While we hear many “man on the street” comments about the importance of “national security” being a high priority, the FACT is that we are no safer than before the 9/11 attack. The Bush Administration seeks to capitalize on the issue of Homeland Security, but is the least desirable or rational alternative to which that citizen should turn for protection. The record of actual performance demonstrates the failure and incompetence of the current policies in making us safer from the threat of terrorist attack. Other than the incitement and belligerent rhetoric of the Bush preemptive war doctrine, we are at no greater risk of terrorist attack than we were prior to 9/11. To the extent that there may be greater risk, that risk is caused and enhanced by the very parties who claim to be the protectors of our national security. And fear and insecurity leads to economic stagnation. People tend not to spend freely when they feel uncertain about their future.

The improvements that we see in the Dow Jones Averages for the Stock Market must be interpreted. The media either fails to inform or assist our understanding of the meaning of these "indicators," or deliberately defers to the Right Wing spin that distorts and confuses. In the economic climate that we currently face, return on shareholder investment has to come from either increased revenue above the cost margin, or from reducing costs. Since the highest cost factor in most production and service businesses is the unit labor cost, the prime target for reducing costs is to lay off employees, cut wages, cut benefits or other steps that negatively affect the resident of Main Street. In an economy where housing values are declining, job security is tenuous at best and wages are not increasing above the inflation level, the prospect of generating revenues from increased sales is not great. So when one sees the stock market push upward, it is more than likely to precede or coincide with significant reductions in jobs and benefits for the average American. The corresponding result, however, is an increase in the stock portfolio of the wealthy.

Under the current economic circumstances, the ones most likely to see real gain are the participants in the “Ownership Society” that is the true constituency of the GOP and the Bush Administration. The wealthiest 5% who are not dependent upon daily job security issues, those who hold stock portfolios in pharmaceutical, chemical and munitions manufacturing companies, those who participate in the corrupt practices of influence peddling and lobbying for large special interest groups and the participants in war profiteering and non-bid government contracts arising out of disasters like the Iraq occupation and Hurricane Katrina are all participants in the “Ownership Society.” But they are not the residents of Main Street USA.

When the November election comes, the crucial question is whether we will succumb to the politics of fear that has us distrusting and distancing ourselves from our neighbors. The alternative is to look toward our neighbors and look out for the economic well-being of our neighbors and vote for the candidates that understand and respect the crisis that looms on Main Street USA. Those who are currently in control of Congress and the White House have proven that they either do not comprehend or do not care about Main Street. The proof is not in opinion or hyperbole, the proof is in the objective facts described above [and these are only a few examples of the deteriorating situation] and others that are playing out each and every day. As stated before, we will get the worst government that we are willing to accept, and only the best government we are willing to work to create and sustain.

Dangerous Foolishness

P. T. Barnum attributed his commercial success to the maxim that one would never go broke overestimating the intelligence of the American public. In other words, no matter how smart you think the public should be, chances are they are more stupid than you think; and there is profit to be made from such stupidity. He built his wealth on the belief that you can fool most of the people most of the time. Today we are faced with a more macabre circus with a ringmaster that appears to be applying those same principles. The salient difference is that Barnum’s product was relatively harmless amusement [albeit with some arguably inhumane treatment of people with deformities in his sideshows], while the current ringmaster, George W. Bush, sells war and bloodshed. Few would agree that the staggering and climbing death toll from the Bush Follies is amusing or entertaining.

President Bush spoke to the nation on September 11 and urged the country to unite behind his “struggle for civilization” against the Islamic terrorists who want to kill us and destroy our way of life. He tells us that the struggle in Iraq is a “critical front” in the “war on terror” and that progress is being made. His Administration spokesmen assure us Iraq is not descending into a civil war. Yet each day we receive independent reports demonstrating that the White House is lying to the American people about the magnitude of the chaos and killing. The current situation certainly fits the definition of a chaotic civil war, regardless of the label or spin that the White House would place on it.

US military can do little to secure region in western Iraq. The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western al Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents… The officials described Col. Pete Devlin's classified assessment of the dire state of Anbar as the first time that a senior U.S. military officer has filed so negative a report from Iraq… One Army officer summarized it as arguing that in Anbar province, "We haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically - and that's where wars are won and lost." [Washington Post, Sept 11, 2006]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Police recovered 60 bodies over the past day across Baghdad, most bound and tortured, officials said on Wednesday, highlighting how sectarian death squads are still plaguing the Iraqi capital despite a major security drive... The Health Ministry has yet to publish its complementary full data for other violent deaths in August. Figures for July put the total at more than 3,000 people, concentrated in Baghdad, where more than one in four Iraqis live. [Reuters, Sept. 13, 2006]

The American military did not count people killed by bombs, mortars, rockets or other mass attacks including suicide bombings when it reported a dramatic drop in the number of murders in the Baghdad area last month, the U.S. command said Monday. [Associated Press, Sept. 12, 2006]

Perhaps some elements of the fundamentalist right have bought into the modern day “Crusades” policy, that the US has the God given mandate to rescue the people of Persia and Mesopotamia from heathen godlessness as European Christian soldiers believed in the Middle Ages. In retrospect, we see that religion was simply a tool used by the ruling class as an excuse for conquest and colonization to exploit the wealth of the regions attacked. That paradigm seems to be equally at play in the Bush policy. Certainly, the current economic elite have no need to buy into the religious mythology when they can busy themselves with shoveling in profits derived from US government expenditures on war making at the rate of more than $6 Billion per month.

Less myopic analysis shows that the Bush foreign policy and the invasion of Iraq have caused enormous loss of life, destruction of homes and displacement of millions of people, loss of standing and respect in the international community and growing hostility against the US around the world. The cost of admission to a Barnum & Bailey circus was about a half week’s wages during depression times, an amount most families could ill afford. But the cost of the Bush Follies threatens to mortgage our children’s future and permanently taint this country’s reputation.

But the question that is still perplexing is why the rest of the country has either bought into or acquiesced in this fallacious enterprise. Is it that we have been so heavily bombarded by false information and messages that we are unable or unwilling to see the current situation as it really is? Has the educational system in this country degraded to the point that the average American lacks the intelligence to connect the dots and recognize that it has been and is being duped? Or are we simply living proof of the P. T. Barnum saying? Did we not learn this lesson from past experiences, including the Viet Nam catastrophe?

But there is another saying: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!”

Towards a Political "Theory of Relativity"

Einstein taught us that much of the world of physics can be explained through logic and mathematics. Understanding the relationship between mass, acceleration and energy has opened doors to novel applications and brought us tremendous power. That power can be, and has been, used for beneficial or evil purposes. A critical variable has been the intelligence and wisdom of those who control such power. What is needed, therefore, is a “theory of relativity” to help us explain the laws and principles of the human intelligence and human behavior, at least with respect to world leaders. It is by no means certain that such inescapable principles, or “laws,” do exist. But hope for survival of the planet and the human race suggests that we should attempt to find out if they do.

Most proven laws of science began with observation and recognition of apparent relationships. Exploration of those relationships led to hypotheses of durable and constant characteristics in those observed relationships. Theoretical proofs followed to explain the countless potential variables and permutations until we reached a consensus that theories about the observed relationships were valid. So let us begin likewise, by making observations about relationships between intelligence, wisdom and the use of power.

Some relationships seem evident, if only by their disproof. While education can provide enlightenment and insight to an intelligent person and we can suppose that they are “related,” it is apparent that education does not truly “cause” intelligence or wisdom. We have many examples of highly “educated” individuals who wield great power, but who have displayed a remarkable lack of intelligence and wisdom. President George W. Bush who graduated from Yale University is one such example, although in fairness to his alma mater he was not a very good student [i.e. highly but not well educated] Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld are other examples of individuals with strong educational backgrounds, but who have displayed a gigantic dearth of wisdom and intelligence in their use of power. If “intelligence” follows the scientific principle of stasis, the process of adaptation to external factors that threaten survival by adjusting systems and behavior to ensure greater chances for success, then we might observe that these “leaders” seem to lack the essential “property” of intelligence. Neither education at institutions of higher learning nor experience has imparted wisdom or enlightenment to these people. Individually, and as a group, these leaders have stubbornly resisted acknowledgement of gross errors in judgment and observation, despite mountains of information and evidence of failure, and clung to dysfunctional foreign policy strategies that are causing daily increases in hostility and bloodshed and undermining world peace and domestic security.

This leaves us with two salient hypotheses to explore. One theory was eloquently set forth by the philosopher “Forest Gump” when he stated that “stupid is as stupid does.” When a person has access to information, expert advice and almost unlimited resources, yet repeatedly chooses to ignore those assets and chooses ignorant and unwise courses of action, that person acts with stupidity and without regard to educational potential. Such evidence supports the “Gump” theory.

The second possible theory is that power corrupts, and that otherwise intelligent people become stupid when entrusted with great amounts of power. Former President Clinton seems to have succumbed to or supported this hypothesis. A man with near genius level intelligence and the highest level education chose to act stupidly in his personal affairs and permitted his critics to derogate most of the positive accomplishments of his administration by exposing his peccadillo with Monica Lewinski. But the latter transgression was neither pervasive nor characteristic of the Clinton administration. And Clinton’s folly or "stupidity" did not result on thousands of American soldier deaths and tens of thousands of innocent civilians being killed.

The administration of a “corrupted” intelligent President gave us a budget surplus, a stable economy, relatively balanced and effective foreign policy and a populace that generally had faith in the institutions of government, despite legitimate criticism of specific policies. The administration of a “stupid” President has brought us historical budget deficits, an intractable and unnecessary preemptive war, loss of credibility for the US in the international community and widespread distrust of US government institutions because of displayed incompetence, illegal domestic spying and other serious concerns. General observation and common sense tells us that we would be better off risking the potential corruption of an intelligent President, than electing a stupid President who seems incapable of making intelligent and wise decisions or acknowledging and correcting mistakes. But the laws of physics are not democratic principles that atoms and elements can choose to obey. The relativity laws expressed here are subject to choices by the electorate. Since the electorate has power, will they choose to exercise it intelligently and wisely? Or will they follow the “Gump” theory and make stupid choices in the coming national elections as they seem to have done in the recent past?

[Yes, I am aware that George W. Bush did not win the popular vote, and that there was substantial evidence of voting compilation fraud in Ohio.]