Leadership and Trust

The President goes on the offensive declaring how every day that Congress does not provide emergency funding for his war effort undermines and endangers the troops. His spokesmen have hit the media circuit trumpeting the same message. "Either give President Bush unconditioned emergency military funding immediately, or you are undermining the war effort and failing to support the troops." This is a clear and unequivocal soundbite.

The major problem is that it is an outright lie. The most recent Congressional Budget Office Report states that the war effort could continue without negative impact on the basis of funds already appropriated by Congress until at least July 2007. And further, if Congress approved transfers of funds among Military budget accounts, existing funding could extend for an additional two months or more without any additional funding from Congress.

Let us set aside the question of whether it makes sense to send additional troops into Iraq for the latest "surge," a strategy that so far has resulted in MORE casualties and violence in Baghdad and surrounding areas. Whether or not the strategy is well reasoned or working as planned, the President has urged the American people to trust him and give his plan a change to work. When the President of the United States will come before the public and deliberately misrepresent the facts, and for no real practical purpose other than ego and arrogance, why on earth should the public extend him the benefit of doubt. No one doubts that additional funding will be required at some point, unless Bush decides to abruptly end US occupation in Iraq. Even a phased redeployment that Congress has called for would require additional funding. But why lie to the American people and attempt to bully Congress based upon knowing false statements?

There is a difference between leadership and intimidation. People follow leaders because they believe in the leader's vision and the ability of that leadership to tackle problems realistically and with a sense of purpose and integrity. Despite repeated calls for Bush to articulate any credible or realistic purpose or plan for this invasion and occupation of Iraq, no coherent vision has emerged. Weapons of mass destruction were never discovered, yet we are still there. Saddam Hussein has been deposed through unilateral invasion for regime change [a violation of international law], yet we are still there occupying Iraq. There is no evidence that the continued occupation is reducing the threat of terrorism in the world, and indeed there is credible evidence that the continued occupation is doing the exact opposite. When asked about a strategy for resolving or concluding US involvement in iraq, Bush only states that it will be the problem of his successor to solve and that he refuses to consider any timetable or benchmarks that would hold his Administration or the Iraqi government accountable for bringing about peace in the war ravaged country.

The strategy of bravado and BS is wearing thin for the American public. When the GOP was in control of Congress and there was no oversight or challenge to Bush initiatives, he could get away with empty rhetoric. Now that he no longer has an automatic smokescreen and rubber stamp Congress, he is required to provide coherent and at least minimally persuasive justification. The American people have a right to expect from the President an explanation of the merits he sees in the choices and commitments that he makes that involve the sacrifice of so many lives and such a large portion of the country's treasury. What the public does not deserve is blatant lies and deception.

Waiting in the Emergency Room at Walter Reed

President George W. Bush made another grandstanding tour of a disaster area. This time, the “disaster” is the deplorable state of repair of facilities and bureaucratic obstruction to providing quality medical care to US military personnel and veterans at Walter Reed Army Hospital. Walter Reed has long been reputed to be the "crown jewel" of military medical care. Recent reports of how low the actual level of care at that facility has sunk during the Bush Administration, and the disrepair of the buildings as well is cause not only for embarrassment, but for alarm.

The attack of the Bush administration against anyone criticizing the Administration’s war in Iraq is a claim that the critics fail to “support the troops.” How then, we might ask, can Bush maintain any credibility in his position or policies based upon this sancrosanct commitment to support for the troops, when he fails to assure that the young men and women of the armed forces that he sends into harms way are assured decent medical care and attention if they are injured while conducting his "mission"in Iraq? Sadly, follow up reports have confirmed that the deteriorated state of military care and facilities at Walter Red is not an aberration, but instead is truly representative of the general deterioration in Military and VA facilities across the country.

Many will recall that dramatic staged event following Hurricane Katrina in which rescue crews were called away from lifesaving duties to set up and secure the Plaza in hurricane ravaged New Orleans so that Bush could declare before the nation on TV that he would take “immediate and decisive” action to address the problem of slow or non-existent relief efforts following that disaster. Eighteen months later, the media finally got around to checking on the progress of that immediate and decisive action only to find that very little has effectively been accomplished in restoring New Orleans. Much money has been wasted, but little has actually gone to rebuild New Orleans. Temporary measures have been slowly put in place, but no one could suggest with a straight face that the type of action promised by Bush has materialized. Just recently, we learned that a company in which the President's brother Jeb was a former partner received a multi-million dollar no-bid contract to install pumps in the levees of New Orleans. Those pumps are defective and would not function effectively to prevent another disaster if an event approaching the magnitude of Katrina were to recur.

The best advice to the injured soldiers who are hopeful of improved levels of care at US Military facilities, from Walter Reed on down, is not to hold their breath. To place great confidence in a promise from George W. Bush that immediate help is on the way would be unwise, at best. Using the Katrina “fix the problem” time frame of this Administration, one had best be prepared for an extended wait in the emergency room. Former President George W. Bush will likely be sitting with Dick Cheney in Dubai sipping cocktails as guests of Halliburton at its new headquarters long before we see any material improvement in the Military hospitals.

Unraveling the Gonzalez Ties That Bind

The handwriting is not only on the wall but pasted on the Billboards, but apparently George W. Bush cannot read the signs. The end of the rope regarding Alberto Gonzales has been reached and there we find a noose tied by Gonzalez himself. Chuck Hagel has criticized the judgment of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq invasion as one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the nation’s history. Despite being a Republican and respected Senator, it is understandable that Bush would reject Hagel’s opinion, as he has done with the advice of many reasonably intelligent experts who happen to disagree with the Bush Agenda.

Lindsey Graham expressed concern that the President chose to ignore the detailed and pragmatic recommendations of the Iraq Study Group that was commissioned and conducted under GOP leadership with Democratic participation. Nevertheless, Graham is a party loyalist who has backed the President in his troop buildup in Baghdad, albeit grudgingly. He now publicly questions the integrity and fitness of Gonzalez to continue as Attorney General. This is not good news for George W. Bush and his Administration. When a Senator puts his reputation on the line to back a questionable White House policy, when most others have expressed serious doubt, he deserves at least a receptive ear in the White House. The fact that he has gone public with objections to Gonzalez suggests that the White House has turned a deaf ear to his advice as well.

Arlen Specter built a reputation as Chair of the Judiciary Committee, under the GOP led Senate, of a balanced and thoughtful leader who did his best to reconcile the desires of the White House within the bounds of reason and the law. He did object to the nomination of White House Counsel Meiers for the Supreme Court because there was not a shred of foundation to support the notion that she was qualified to serve in the position. He has again drawn the line with Gonzalez because of the growing mass of evidence that Gonzalez has not only bent [if not broken] the laws of this country too many times and compounded those mistakes by lying to Congress in sworn testimony.

As Specter indicated in a public interview, the country deserves a chief legal officer in whom they can have some confidence as to veracity and adherence to the rule of law. Gonzalez has given ample reason to believe that any such confidence in him is misplaced. And the President proposes to prevent him from testifying under oath before Congress in its investigation regarding possible obstruction of justice in the recent termination of eight or more US Attorneys. There is no rational reason why Congress should waste time questioning Gonzalez unless he is under oath, given the documentation of previous false testimony showing that he is not adverse to deliberate deception and misrepresentation to that body.

Yet because Gonzalez was chosen for the job because of his devotion to George W. Bush, more than for his devotion to the US Constitution, Bush is very reluctant to cut him loose. Perhaps more importantly, Gonzalez is privy to the many closed door meetings in which planning of the Iraq invasion and abuse of authority for domestic spying. The White House has to be more worried about allowing Gonzalez to testify truthfully and the possible ramifications of what he might say under oath if the White House withdraws support for him. The old expression of “no honor among thieves” may aptly apply to White House concerns regarding unreasonable steps to try to protect Libby, Rove and Gonzalez despite their obviously unethical and probably unlawful activities.

But George W. Bush may have no choice regarding continued support for Gonzalez. He has so badly compromised the Justice Department that only his removal could begin the restoration of confidence in the rule of law and US Attorney prosecutorial independence that Americans have a right to expect.

A Failure To Communicate

Borrowing a quote from “Cool Hand Luke,” one could describe the disconnect regarding statements by Congress and the White House regarding the recent removal of US Attorneys. “What we have here is a failure to communicate!” It is entirely possible that Bush and his Administration are speaking sincerely when stating that, in their view, there was nothing wrong in the summary firing of the US Attorneys and replacing them with hand picked political loyalists. Equally sincere are the expressions of outrage by members of Congress on both sides of the aisle that the firings transgress the standards by which the American system of justice has survived. The disconnect lies in a very different set of values held by the members of Congress (or at least their vocal constituents) and the Bush Administration.

The US Constitution permits the Administration to appoint officials who serve at the pleasure of the President. This long standing precedent and practice has generally been thought to enable a sitting President to further his general policy objectives through the appointment of qualified persons who shared or were sympathetic to those policies. Thus, the notion of Presidential prerogative has traditionally meant the ability to further broad administrative policies, such as tax reduction, environmental initiatives, space exploration, health care policies, etc. Generally speaking, the concept has not been applied to allow the President to remove or replace an appointee for absolutely any reason, particularly if the reason is to further an illegal or patently unethical purpose.

In contrast, the Bush Administration follows the interpretation of unitary Presidential power that allows the President to do essentially anything he pleases without limitation and without any effective checks or balances in the exercise of that discretion, short of impeachment. Under that interpretation, firing US Attorneys because they have successfully prosecuted GOP financial supporters and key allies is perfectly acceptable. The concept of “equal justice under the law” does not protect the traditional independence that US Attorneys have maintained in the past. For example, removal by Bush of a female appointee because he preferred a man in the position would not be subject to challenge, despite the US laws against gender discrimination. It is enough that the President no longer wants the appointee in the position. His reason for removal is unconstrained and irrelevant because he is not answerable for his motives.

In addition, there are very different sets of values with regard to “right and wrong.” We have been given a view of the disconnect in this arena by the Downing Street Memos [pretext for iraq invasion], the revelation of the Gonzalez Memo regarding acceptability of torture as an interrogation tactic respecting prisoners or detainees in the Bush War on Terror [violations of International Law and Geneva Conventions], the revelation of extraordinary renditions [violations of human rights and International Law], documented abuses of domestic surveillance authority[violations of US laws] and a litany of other similar instances. In summary, the concept of what is “wrong” held by George W, Bush and his subordinates does not comport with what the majority of this country, regardless of religion, gender, race or socioeconomic status believe to be improper and unethical. The same could probably be said of the rest of the world.

Consequently, it makes perfect sense that the White House would offer to permit aides to speak with Congressional investigators into the firing of US Attorneys only if such discussions occurred in private, without being under oath and without transcripts. We have seen a number of instances where Bush Administration operatives have knowingly and deliberately lied to members of Congress, and the American people, in order to further their political agenda or to shield the Administration from criminal prosecution [See Gonzalez Memo]. Indeed the current furor over the firings has been sparked by misrepresentations and differing accounts of the basis or circumstances of for the removals offered to Congress under oath. So it makes perfect sense that the Administration would not permit aides to come before Congressional investigators unless they are unburdened by the constraint of having to tell the truth and be held accountable for the veracity of their testimony.

Such latitude is often extended as a courtesy to Administration officials at the highest levels because of the sensitivity of certain issues and the desire to gain a better understanding and background into events that the Congress is investigating or policies it is weighing in proposed legislation. The presumption in those instances is that the Administration officials would be truthful and candid, and not intentionally mislead Congress. However, that latitude has traditionallybeen granted based upon a level of trust that has been earned. No such trust has been earned by the Bush Administration, and is definitely not warranted in a situation where the crisis at hand was precipitated by Administration officials lying to Congress.

If George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would deliberately deceive Congressional leaders and Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald in “unofficial” meetings regarding topics as important as the pretext for the invasion of Iraq and the violation of national security laws regarding the outing of a covert CIA operative, what is the probability that subordinates would be truthful in statements to Congress regarding the firing of US Attorneys? To the Bush administration, there is nothing “wrong” with lying to Congress, as long as you do not get caught and if it furthers a political objective of the President. The failure to communicate involves a differing set of ethical values and the difference between Adminstration situational ethics and public's basic concepts or right and wrong.

Chickens Come Home to Roost at Justice Department - Un Huevo Malo

Malcolm X is remembered for an incendiary quote regarding the assassination of President Kennedy, commenting that the “chickens had come home to roost.” What Malcolm X meant at the time was that the tacit support of a subculture of lawlessness and corruption by the ruling establishment had allowed the shadowy elements to conspire and bring down the President of the most powerful nation on the planet. He alluded to a cancer within government and within society. The phrase has become synonymous with being forced to face the consequences that grow out of prior malfeasance and neglect.

That phrase is apt when discussing the current furor over Attorney General Gonzalez and the Justice Department. The Chief Legal Officer and Chief Prosecutor of the United States is supposed to be, first and foremost, loyal to upholding and protecting the US Constitution. Although appointed by the President, the holder of that office is duty bound to follow and enforce the laws of the Nation, regardless of what the president may wish them to be and without regard to the position or person who violates those laws.

When Anthony Gonzalez was nominated as Attorney General, there was little doubt that his primary qualification for the job was not his legal acumen or tough-minded independence as a legal prosecutor and guardian of the Constitution. His performance record patently revealed an intensely loyal political operative who would bend and shape the law to its breaking point or beyond in order to protect the interests and career of his “boss” George W. Bush. At the time of his nomination and confirmation to the Attorney General post, there had already been public disclosure of his involvement in authoring and approving a memorandum that suggested that his “boss” could get away with torture of prisoners of war and that the Geneva Conventions could be circumvented. He was instrumental in providing practical advice to the White house that might minimize convictions for War Crimes based upon actions that he knew they planned to take or support.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, to learn that certain US Attorneys were “rated” on a list exchanged between White House Counsel and the Justice Department, based upon their political loyalty to the GOP agenda and whether they were aggressive enough in prosecuting Democratic opponents prior to the 2004 and 2006 elections. The hand of Karl Rove has also been exposed in urging the Justice Department to take a “serious look” at identified US Attorneys who might be pushed out for lack of greater enthusiasm for advancing the GOP political agenda than advancing the fair and independent enforcement of the laws of his country. Rove was involved in communicating to Gonzalez that the White House backed complaints from GOP Senators and representatives that they were not getting adequate political support from the US Attorneys in attacking their political rivals.

Current headlines blare the “news” that the White House was intimately involved in the recent firings of at least eight US Attorneys. Many of the firings cannot be rationally justified by any reason other than arbitrariness and a desire to further a GOP political agenda. The White House calls this a question of “performance” in adhering to the Administration “policies.” Unfortunately everything that is clearly bad is not necessarily illegal. The GOP controlled Congress slipped an obscure provision into the Patriot Act reauthorization that allowed the Attorney General to make “indefinite” interim appointments of US Attorneys without going through the usual process of input from Senators and confirmation by Congress. We now know that the provision was a set piece in a strategy advanced by White House Counsel to permit the summary firing of ALL US Attorneys and replacing them with political hacks and operatives who would enforce the laws against targeted opponents and in compliance with White House directives. This was another tool of the Imperial Presidency scheme.

Congress, now in ostensible control of Democrats, is set to hold hearings on the purported scandal concerning the political firings of supposedly independent US Attorneys. The REAL story lies in the negligence and failure of these same members of Congress to protest in emphatic terms the appointment of Gonzalez in the first place. This outcome was clearly predictable, given the track record of the Attorney General appointee. Calls for ouster of Gonzalez at this point are quite tardy. At the risk of sounding a bit cynical, why would bush want to fire a fierce loyalist who is the first line of defense against the likely prosecution of Administration officials for malfeasance in office? Patrick Fitzgerald was an aberration that surprised the Administration by indicting Scooter Libby. But even his level of ”independence” was not sufficient to permit him to indict Rove and Cheney for what is not manifest violation of the law in deliberately disclosing the identity of a covert CIA operative. It is illogical to expect that Bush and Rove would voluntarily abandon the prophylactic net they have constructed against prosecution. For Democrats and Congress as a whole, the chickens have now come home to roost. And the evidence is a very bad egg sitting in the middle of the nest.

What's In a Label?

An editorial article published today in the Boston Globe decries the deteriorating state of clinical psychological and psychiatric diagnosis in this country. The gist of the article, written by a clinical psychologist, is that the current rush to “label “behaviors is gaining such momentum that the labels have begun to lose their reliability and usefulness.

Unfortunately, the article has great merit. The writer posits examples of a 2 year old diagnosed with “bipolar” disorder, and a violent stabbing suspect diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome. As he aptly points out, the chaotic array of stimuli experienced by a 2 year old in the normal course of child development would make accurate diagnosis of bipolar disorder highly unreliable, if not impossible in a child that young. Moreover, the purpose of such diagnosis would be highly suspect as well. The reference to Asperger’s Syndrome in the case of the student stabbing incident is also of doubtful relevance, as the condition has nothing to do with violent behavior.

In an era of “sound bites” and quick fixes we are all too quick to slap a label on behavior. The pressure is to brand some behavior as pathological in an attempt to find a quick “answer” to the present apparent problem. Typically that “fix” involves medicating the person to near comatose status in order to neutralize the perceived pathology. Obsessed with TV programs like CSI, ER, House and others of that ilk, we try to establish some easy or quick diagnosis and solution within the allotted time, between commercials, of an hour long Program. Real life does not fit within the confines of network programming, and real life problems are infinitely more complex.

Meaningful and effective solutions require that the root of the problems be examined and understood to some degree. A school child acts out and is promptly labeled ADD or hyperactive. Medication is the typical response to calm or quiet the child. Too often, the acting out behavior is simply a symptom of a deeper and more complex problem that medication will only mask and prevent from being discovered and understood. For example, the parents of an unruly child being subjected to abuse at home may be more than willing to agree to medication. Denial of the abusive circumstances or underlying problems prompting the acting out behavior deflects attention from the parenting role. The child winds up further damaged by the quick fix approach. And there are countless other examples. Yet the health care industry bureaucracy typically demands a swift labeling and short term response. It is more concerned with "illness" than it is with "wellness."

Until we collectively take more time to carefully examine and understand the many upsets, variations and eruptions in the Human Condition, we will find ourselves more densely populated but drifting farther and farther from Humanity. Diagnosis that is unreliable will often lead to non-treatment or mistreatment. Without careful and appropriate diagnosis and treatment, we cannot hope to solve or cure real problems. Ironically, our impatience and unwillingness to take more time in individual cases may well cause the clock of our existence as a humane and civilized society to run down more quickly. Once we each have our own pathology label, what then?

George W. Bush - "The Prevaricator"

In one of the opening salvos of his 2004 Presidential bid, John Kerry bluntly characterized George W. Bush and his Administration as one of the worst “bunch of liars” he had seen in national government. Following vicious attacks by Fox media and CNN reporters that Kerry’s remarks were “disrespectful” of a sitting President, he backed off. Perhaps if he had been more steadfast in his resolve and criticism, public attention to the habitual and deliberate prevarication, misrepresentation and disinformation from the White House might have been greater. It was one of those campaign choices where being popular was more important that being candid.

The Bush Administration stated publicly that it did not manipulate intelligence reports to support a preconceived plan to invade Iraq. The Downing Street Memos confirm that such statements were knowingly false. The “intelligence was fixed around the policy,” not the reverse. The Bush Administration stated that there were “weapons of mass destruction,” including biological weapons in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was planning to use against America. After the "Shock and Awe" invasion of Iraq, billions of dollars spent, tens of thousands of lives lost and the country's infrastructure demolished, not a shred of evidence of weapons of mass destruction has been found. The Bush Administration even tried to claim that drainage pipes used in a manufacturing plant were "missle launchers." Intelligence reports available at the time show that the Administration statements were deliberate lies. When Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson attempted to expose the lies of the Administration, the White House conspired to destroy his reputation and went so far as to out his wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA covert operative.

President Bush told us that he doubted we would ever find out who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame. He promised to fire anyone in his Administration who was involved. He later retreated to the position that he would fire anyone “convicted” of violating the law against disclosure of classified and highly confidential national security information. We now know, through sworn Grand Jury and federal court testimony, that Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and other high level White House officials were involved in a deliberate plot against Joseph Wilson that involved leaking the identity of his wife to the press. We even know who the members of the press were. Testimony regarding specific White House meetings also suggests that Bush knew of the operation at the time he made those public statements. No one has been fired, but Libby has been convicted of obstruction of justice and deliberately lying to the prosecutors and the Grand Jury.

President Bush is now in Latin America touting his Administration’s record of supporting the region through increased aid. He cites an increase in aid from $860 Million to $1.6 Billion in aid as proof of that support. The countries, leaders and people of the region are understandably skeptical of the claim. Since 9/11, the United States policy has largely ignored Latin American priorities other than a public war of words with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Without the aid of pervasive news media PR that Bush enjoys in the US, people of Latin America base their assessments upon what Bush has done rather than what he says. This reliance upon actions is wise. Consider the following news report about the Bush claim of nearly doubling aid to Latin America:

Analysts note that Bush is using a misleading base line, comparing this year's figure with 2001, a year when Latin American aid was essentially cut in half temporarily to make up for a large military aid package for Colombia and five neighbors. Moreover, Bush never mentions in his comments that he just proposed cutting the figure he cites in next year's budget.
"The total aid for 2000 was actually higher than the 2008 budget request because of the Plan Colombia supplemental, and in 2002 the amount of aid was about the same as it is now," said Adam Isacson of the Center for International Policy in Washington. "So unfortunately, this change in rhetoric isn't reflected in the budget." MSNBC 3/9/2007

The Bush White House continues to prevaricate, distort and mislead. It seems to be a basic “way of doing business.” In sociological and psychological terms, one who lies deliberately and repeatedly without good reason and without fear of being discovered or remorse for the misconduct is called a “pathological liar.” Perhaps it may sound disrespectful to place that label on the sitting President, but my Grandfather used to say to me: “If the shoe fits, put it on.”

Fooling the American People

It turns out that the American people are not quite as stupid, mindless, apathetic or inattentive as the White house hoped and imagined. The latest evidence is the guilty verdict in the “Scooter” Libby perjury and obstruction of justice case just concluded. One of the jurors characterized the feelings and belief of the jury that Libby was “the fall guy” for the Bush administration, but that he was still guilty of the charges of obstruction and perjury.

The jury and the American people have figured out that they were deliberately lied to and duped into support for a war in Iraq that was never based upon any valid, much less compelling, evidence of a threat to America. When the web of lies began to unravel and the prevaricators exposed, the effort to silence critics and retaliate against those who would expose the duplicity led to a violation of the law in outing a CIA covert cooperative, Valerie Plame. There is no longer basis for reasonable doubt about the involvement of the White House, up to and including Vice President Cheney, in the willful violation of that law.

The aftermath of the guilty verdict is no cause for joy, however. Another issue which the public has figured out is that, in the current political climate, the ones responsible for the more egregious crime will not be held accountable. Prosecutor Fitzgerald has stated that he will file no more charges relating to the Plame Leak Investigation. Former CIA covert operatives have pointed out that the message taken away from these events is that, if you are a covert operative in the field, it is unlikely that you will be exposed and risk loss of your life. However, if high level officials think it is politically expedient to put you at such risk, there will be no negative consequences for their doing so.

The Boston Globe editorial sections stated in today’s edition:

Fitzgerald said the American people would know more about the "cloud over the vice president" and "the cloud over the White House" if Libby had provided straight answers. Now Cheney can lift that cloud by giving the public some straight answers of his own.

The American people won’t be betting on this false hope. They know that pigs don’t fly. And that is when Cheney will come forward and tell the public the truth.

News Flash to White America: It Ain’t News!

Recent media reports highlight a “discovery” that Rev. Al Sharpton is a descendant of slaves once owned by ancestors of Strom Thurmond. Gaining near headline status, the media reports point out that the outspoken public critic of racist and racially discriminatory policies and practices, Rev. Sharpton, has distant ties to the staunch racial segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond. Thurmond has been the symbol of the “Resistance” to Civil Rights progress in the United States. The media obviously believes that the “news story” setting off the descendant of a slave against the descendant of a slave owner will sell in the current "infotainment" marketplace. It is a sad commentary on the current psyche of the American public that the media is probably right.

To any Black American, this is not newsworthy. It is nothing more than a fact of life. To anyone with a marginal understanding of American History, the fact that most Black Americans are the descendants of former slaves and that many White Americans are connected by blood or marriage to former slave owners is not new information. It is also true that many White American property owners draw their inheritance from land illegally seized as a result of broken treaties with Native Americans. These are simple cultural and historical facts. They are not cause for divisiveness unless we attempt to deny or ignore them as fact. That any supposedly "educated" American could pretend that slavery, "separate but equal," Wounded Knee and the "Trail of Tears" never existed should garner news attention. Those who doubt that these historical and cultural facts still maintain residue in the operation of our society today should be studied as an example of the failures of our educational system to teach history with integrity and accuracy.

The Jews maintain a cultural and historical memory of the Holocaust, not as a cudgel or chip on their soldier, but as a reminder that such an abomination should never be allowed to happen again. Yet mankind obviously has an imperfect memory, as evidenced in Rwanda, Bosnia and now in Darfur. The treatment of slaves and Native Americans in this country are abominations as well. Treating the reminders of such history as "news" only suggests that the public has forgotten, and is susceptible of perpetrating the vestiges of these historical atrocities.

So if you approach an American of color with the “news story” about Sharpton and Thurmond, do not be surprised if that person just looks at you oddly, shakes their head and walks away. It ain’t news to us!

Blogitos or-Short Takes

Ann Coulter is a strong believer that there is no such thing as “bad publicity” as long as they spell your name right. During the reign of the GOP government, this self appointed Right Wing successor to Rush Limbaugh held brief media attention with provocative Right Wing commentary. She was a novelty, an anorexic looking, intellectually anemic pseudo academic firebrand Barbie. With her 15 minutes of fame burned out, she apparently is desperate to regain the limelight. So she injects herself into the presidential debate by calling John Edwards a homosexual. Ann, please go away quietly and try to join a bridge club with Phyllis Schlaffly and Barbara Bush.

Democrats are acting like the simpleminded watchdog that chases after a piece of steak thrown by a burglar, while the thief raids the household coffers. The real issue with the proposed military budget is not that it contains funds for increasing troops in Iraq. The problem is that a host of military experts have expressed their opinion that the entire basis for the huge budget, an increase of combat troops in the military by more than 92,000, is a bad idea. In other words, the budget is bloated and needs to be trimmed. The trimming has political implications as well. As one military expert stated:
"The global war on terrorism and Iraq are being used as lame rationales" for enlarging the military, said retired Lieutenant Colonel Frank Hoffman , a researcher at the Marine Corps Center for Emerging Threats and Opportunities in Quantico, Va. "Unless you think we will have more than six brigades in Iraq in 2012, I don't see how this is relevant."
In simple terms, the ENTIRE military budget needs scrutiny to determine whether the priorities and assumptions upon which it is based are relevant, logical and prudent. As another expert observed, the proposed larger combat force will not be ready for any useful deployment for 3-5 years from now at the earliest. Unless we are committing the US to a policy of future military occupation in various parts of the globe, the budget does not make sense. However, most Democrats in Congress are lining up behind the proposed Bush military budget with their tongues wagging.

Shifting Winds: “Support Our Troops”

Changes in the wind sometimes feel subtle, but where evident, they are unmistakable. The shift in Congress to Democratic control seems to have emboldened the media to resuscitate its roles as watchdog, investigator and public information source respecting government sponsored programs. The latest evidence of such scrutiny seems to be the firing of Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, who headed military medical facilities for the North Atlantic Command, including Walter reed army hospital. News media reports of the shabby treatment of wounded outpatient soldiers returning from Iraq led to unusually prompt action by the Secretary of Defense. Mold on the inside walls of outpatient housing at Walter Reed, the facility deemed the crown jewel of military medicine, and the misclassification of patients as outpatient resulting in the denial of care that should have been inpatient drew unwelcome attention to the status of treatment that soldiers returning from Iraq receive at military facilities.

Critics of the Bush Administration, including veteran groups, have protested loudly for several years that the returning soldiers were receiving substandard medical attention and treatment, if they were able to get treatment at all. Yet under a GOP controlled Congress, the matter was typically brushed aside. The media buried the stories and treated the ones that were printed on their back pages as anecdotal events, rather than as a sign of systemic problems. Secretary of Defense Gates has ordered a review not only of conditions at Walter Reed, but of military medical facilities in other parts of the country.

Lest this development be mistakenly viewed as a “change of heart” by the Bush Administration, it is useful to examine the context in a bit more detail. The Democratic Congress has threatened to adopt measures that would either cut off military funding for escalation of the Iraq military mission, or impose conditions under which additional US troops can be deployed. While even most Republican legislators acknowledge that the American voters declared last fall that a change of direction in Iraq policy was needed, President Bush seems to have turned a nearly deaf ear to that mandate. He has embarked upon expansion of troop deployments rather than de-escalation of US involvement. The proposals to cut funding for the additional deployments are an attempt to force legislators to decide whether they are aligning themselves with the president or with the electorate.

The proposal by Jack Murtha D-PA, a veteran and longtime stalwart of military program support, to place conditions on the military funding is a subtle but more powerful threat, politically and pragmatically. The conditions that he would impose involve the necessary level of training and equipment that must be provided to troops that the president wishes to deploy. Additional conditions relate to the amount of time soldiers can be deployed in one tour of duty and the resting time required before the soldier can be sent back to Iraq in subsequent deployments. Unquestionably, these measures are intended to protect and support the men and women deployed for the Iraq mission; an adventure that Murtha thinks is being grossly mismanaged.

The static rejoinder from the White House and its supporters is that criticism and resistance to the troop escalation "emboldens the enemy” and signals a lack of desire to “support the troops.” While the logic of these arguments is empty and fallacious, many Americans are attracted to such simplistic sound bites. [Are not the insurgents more emboldened by the deployment of poorly trained and ill-equipped troops who make realitvely easier targets? ] The exposure of the manner in which the troops are actually being treated by the Bush Administration, the lack of proper equipment, back to back and extended deployments, denial of proper medical care and the homelessness and job displacement suffered by the soldiers who have been deployed in Iraq is a national embarrassment. The men and women asked to sacrifice their lives in service to their country deserve better support and treatment when they return home.

Politically, the exposure of these support deficiencies undercuts the attacks by the White House on its critics, and displays the hypocrisy of the “support our troops” argument. The soldiers who already have been deployed in Iraq, based upon authority that Congress has already provided, are without proper training and equipment. They have been forced to endure extended deployments because of a lack of ready troops to relieve them. When they are injured, whether physically or psychologically, they return home to substandard or denied health care. Thus, Murtha’s proposal has a very simple logical appeal. Regardless of where you stand on the level of troop deployment in Iraq, the men and women who are ordered to serve in Iraq should not be mistreated and abused in the manner that the Administration has done since the initial Iraq invasion byUS troops without adequate armor and equipment.

The practical result, however, is that Murtha’s bill would halt the escalation of US troop involvement by the Administration because the military forces are already overextended. The overuse of National Guard units and reserve units has arguably led to many of the deaths and injuries of US troops because the personnel sent lack proper training for the assignment. Given the current unwillingness or inability of the Bush administration to support the troops already deployed in a proper and reasonable manner, it seems perfectly logical for Congress to say that it will not fund a plan to send even more ill equipped and poorly trained troops into the theater of battle and into harm’s way.

All this seems quite logical and rather obvious when the simple facts are examined. And here is where the shift in the wind has come. These facts have been manifest for some time. Yet the mainstream media, whether from laziness, complicity or intimidation, has failed to adequately investigate and publish the objective facts in a manner that informs and educates the public of the problems that exist with the Bush Administration handling of the Iraq conflict. Major media attention was focused upon White House "spin" and what Congress would investigate. Since the GOP Congress would investigate none of the Administration’s actions, most of the public was uninformed of the sham that was being perpetrated. So the argument has unmistakably shifted. Why should Congress fund the deployment of MORE troops, when the Administration has not shown a willingness or ability to support the troops already deployed? Who is really culpable for the charge of failing to “support the troops?”