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.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, September 25, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
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.
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!”
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!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)