The world of politics is indeed a strange one. It would seem that logic holds no sway when it comes to taking positions against the opposition. Take for example the latest blast from GOP legislators and the White House against the passage of a Democratic sponsored Bill to cut interest rates on some federally subsidized student loans. The GOP criticized the measure for “not doing enough” and for not also “providing additional funding for grants to students.”
To be sure, the Democratic legislation to aid students is imperfect and does not even purport to correct fully the plight of students whose dream of a college education now seems more elusive as their economic circumstances deteriorate and the cost of higher education rises constantly. Cynics also point out that some colleges may raise tuition costs and defeat the intended beneficial impact of the legislation. But the measure is at least an effort and a step in the right direction.
What defies logic is the nature of the GOP criticism. During absolute control of the Congress and the White House for six years, the GOP failed to take any of the steps that they now complain that the Democratic measure lacks. Intent upon raiding the treasury to grant tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of Americans and bankrupting future revenues with the tab for the Bush war in Iraq, GOP Congressional leaders failed to take any steps to assist students obtain their dreams of a college education. Now they complain that the Democrats are not doing enough.
The Mad Hatter presses Alice, insisting that she take “more tea.” Alice protests that she cannot have more tea since she has not yet had any tea. And so the mad party continued. We will no doubt hear more of this type of nonsensical repartee in the Congress as the year progresses.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Guest Article - Bush and the Psychology of Incompetent Decisions
Friends-
I came across this well written and researched article by clinical psychology experts and felt it was important enough to share with you. I am including the article in its entirety for you. It is not a polemic dressed in technical jargon. It is a careful analysis of observed and objective evidence to which accepted psychological and psychiatrict principles have been applied. I hope it provides food for thought. P
___________________________
Bush and the Psychology of Incompetent Decisions
By John P. Briggs, MD, and J.P. Briggs II, PhD
t r u t h o u t Guest Contributors
Thursday 18 January 2007
President George W. Bush prides himself on "making tough decisions." But many are sensing something seriously troubling, even psychologically unbalanced, about the president as a decision-maker. They are right.
Because of a psychological dynamic swirling around deeply hidden feelings of inadequacy, the president has been driven to make increasingly incompetent and risky decisions. This dynamic makes the psychological stakes for him now unimaginably high. The words "success" and "failure" have seized his rhetoric like metaphors for his psyche's survival.
The president's swirling dynamic lies "hidden in plain sight" in his personal history. From the time he was a boy until his religious awakening in his early 40s, Bush had every reason to feel he was a failure. His continued, almost obsessive, attempts through the years to emulate his father, obtain his approval, and escape from his influence are extensively recorded.
His biography is peppered with remarks and behavior that allude to this inner struggle. In an exuberant moment during his second campaign for Texas governor, Bush told a reporter, "It's hard to believe, but ... I don't have time to worry about being George Bush's son. Maybe it's a result of being confident. I'm not sure how the psychoanalysts will analyze it, but I'm not worried about it. I'm really not. I'm a free guy."
A psychoanalyst would note that he is revealing here that he has been worrying about being his father's son quite a lot.
Resentment naturally contaminated Bush's efforts to prove himself to his father and receive his father's approval. The contradictory mix showed up in his compulsion to re-fight his father's war against Iraq, but this time winning the duel some thought his father failed to win with Saddam. He could at once emulate his father, show his contempt for him, and redeem him. But beneath this son-father struggle lies a far more significant issue for Bush - a question about his own competence, adequacy and autonomy as a human being.
We have seen this inner question surface repeatedly, and we have largely conspired with him to deny it:
· On September 11, 2001, we saw (and suppressed) the image of him sitting stunned for seven minutes in a crowd of school children after learning that the second plane had hit the Twin Towers, and then the lack of image of him when he vanished from public view for the rest of the day. Instead, we bought the cover-up image, three days after the attack, of the strong leader, grabbing the bullhorn in New York City and issuing bellicose statements.
· In 2004, we saw and denied the insecurity displayed when the president refused to face the 9/11 Commission alone and needed Vice President Cheney to go with him.
· In 2003, we saw and suppressed the dark side of the "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier landing, in which a man who had ducked out on his generation's war and dribbled away his service in the Texas Air National Guard dressed up like Top Gun and pretended that he was a combat pilot like his father.
· Asked by a reporter if he would accept responsibility for any mistakes, Bush answered, "I hope I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't - you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not quick - as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one." What we heard, and yet didn't hear, was a confession of his feelings of inadequacy and an arrogant denial those feelings all at once.
· In early 2006, when his father moved behind the scenes to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the son responded, "I'm the decider and I decide what's best" - and when he clenched his fist at a question about his father's influence, proclaiming, "I'm the Commander in Chief" - we glimpsed what was going on.
To cover up and defend himself against his feelings of his inadequacy and incompetence, Bush developed a number of psychological defenses. In his school years he played the clown. (His ability to joke about his verbal slip-ups is an endearing adult application of this defense to public life.) His heavy drinking was a classic way to anesthetize feelings of inadequacy. Indeed, drinking typically makes the alcoholic grandiose, which has led some commentators to argue that Bush has the "dry drunk" syndrome, where the individual has stopped drinking but retains the brittle psychology of the alcoholic. Other defenses now play especially powerful roles to protect the president against his internal feelings of insufficiency.
The Christian Defense
Bush has carefully let it be known that he believes the decisions he makes in office are directed by God. His famous claim to make decisions by "gut" ("I'm a gut player," he told Bob Woodward) equates with his claim of the spiritual inspiration he receives through prayer, his own and the prayers of others. Whatever else it is, this equation of his own choices with God's will has unparalleled advantages. It creates the perfect defense against any doubts he or anyone else might have that he can't make the right decision. The need to engage in analysis and explore alternatives to get there comes off the table. Instead, he has his gut; he has his God.
Being "born again" also allows the president to present himself as having relegated to the past all those previously inadequate behaviors of his younger days: the poor academic performance, the drinking, the failed businesses. He's a new man, no longer incompetent but now supremely competent as a result of his faith.
When Woodward asked Bush if he had consulted his father before invading Iraq, he replied, "He is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to." How wonderfully that appeal must seem to resolve the internal conflict about adequacy we have described above.
The Bully Defense
Bush's mother, Barbara (sarcastic, mean, disciplinarian, always with an acid-tongued retort), is probably the model for another major defense Bush deploys to defend himself against feelings of inadequacy. A friend at the time described her as "sort of the leader bully."
That bullies are insecure people is well known and fairly obvious. A bully covers insecurity with bluster and intimidation so that others won't find an opening to see how weak he feels.
Much of the world outside the US considers Bush a bully. "You're either with us or against us" is a bully's threat that anyone can recognize. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes is a bully's doctrine.
For his intimates and those closer to home, Bush appears to be what is called an emotional bully. An emotional bully gains control using sarcasm, teasing, mocking, name calling, threatening, ignoring, lying, or angering the other and forcing him to back down. Bush administration insider accounts describe this sort of behavior from the president. He's well known for his dismissive remarks. His penchant for giving nicknames to everyone has its dark, bully's side. Naming people is a way to control them.
In report by Gail Sheehy in 2000, recalled recently by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, we get a glimpse of how Bush's pervasive fear of failure (his absolute refusal to consider "failure as an option") and his bully defense go together. Sheehy interviewed friends from his teenage years and college years. In basketball or tennis games he would insist points be played over because he wasn't ready; he would force opponents who had beaten him to continue playing until he beat them. At Yale he would interrupt his fellow students' studying for exams (helping them fail) to compete in a popular board game, "The Game of Global Domination," at which he was the player noted for taking the most risks, being the most aggressive.
It's likely that speculations about Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice functioning as Bush's puppet-masters are 180 (or at least 160) degrees off. Bush is the president; he gets his way, and they know it. Chances are they have learned to channel his "gut" and give him policy advice that matches it. They may even imagine they are steering him, not clear about the ways that he has bullied them, elicited in them "The Stockholm Syndrome," in which hostages come to identify with and even defend the very person who is threatening them. This is the same dynamic evident in the behavior of battered spouses and members of gangs.
Ron Suskind described the small group around the president: "A disdain for contemplation or deliberation, an embrace of decisiveness - a sometimes bullying impatience with doubters and even friendly questioners."
Biographical reports tell us that Bush's parents taught him to keep his inner feelings to himself. As psychiatrist Justin A. Frank noted in Bush on the Couch, this results in a "self-protective indifference to the pain of others." This is another aspect of his bully defense, projecting his inner pain onto others. Bush's remarkable drive for the power to torture terrorist suspects and his reported glorying in Texas executions during his terms as governor testify to his lack of compassion, despite his recent statement of qualms about seeing Saddam Hussein drop through the trap.
The Man of Splits and Oppositions
Being in the world, for all of us, involves the challenge to somehow integrate the opposites of our nature and to select our way through the many opposing choices presented us in life. The bully polarizes the natural ambivalence (the internal opposition) anyone feels about whether he is strong or weak, safe or vulnerable. A person who needs to feel invulnerable and completely adequate all the time, or who always feels helpless and inadequate, has polarized these emotions and leads a deformed life. The degree of internal polarization in President Bush appears to be serious - and widespread. Commentators have made lists of the president's polarities: the proclaimed uniter who is a relentless divider, the habit of "saying one thing and doing another," as Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords put it. The list is long and growing. It should include the oppositions that show up in his famous Bushisms, such as:
There is no doubt in my mind that we should allow the world worst leaders to hold America hostage, to threaten our peace, to threaten our friends and allies with the world's worst weapons.
They [the terrorists] never stop thinking of ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we.
To a psychiatrist, these are not mere malapropisms and mistakes in speech. They suggest ambivalence oscillating violently between poles. They suggest a desperate uncertainty about everything that the president reflexively seeks to hide by taking absolutist, rigid positions about "victory," "success," "mission accomplished," "stay the course," "compassion," "tax cuts," "no child left behind," and a host of other issues.
The Presidential Defense
Once Bush took the bullhorn at ground zero, he found perhaps the ultimate defense for his secret fears of inadequacy. As he told Bob Woodward, in Bush at War, "I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." As commander in chief, as a war president, he could assemble his other psychological defenses around him. He could split the world into good and evil and the country would follow. His internal oppositions could be projected without much resistance from the populace or his adversaries. He could be the gut-led, divinely inspired "Decider," to save the country. He could project own internal fears of being "discovered as a fraud" into a threat "out there" waiting to happen. He could surround himself with loyalists whom he could emotionally bully, creating a new family that would admire him and that he could control. Meanwhile the ambiguities of political decisions that can always be rationalized offer a safe haven. Until history judges me (and that's a long way off, maybe never) I can't be definitively seen as incompetent.
But as much as the presidency is a perfect defense for disguising incompetence, it's also the perfect trap. It accelerates the positive feedback loop that was set in motion when he "changed his heart" around age 40 (committing himself to God) and presumably put his failures, and his feelings of failure behind him.
In recent weeks, anyone following the news must have intuitively sensed from watching and hearing the president that he would reject the Iraq Study Group's report, co-authored by a person he must have felt was the emissary of his father come to tell him that he had failed again. He chose escalation, the one solution most knowledgeable people agree cannot succeed, in order to keep alive the fiction that success still lies in the future.
The dynamic is becoming obvious to almost everybody.
But how much is Bush aware of this psychological dynamic and of the secret he's keeping? Not aware enough. That's the problem. Psychotherapists use the term "unconscious," but it isn't quite an accurate descriptor. We are aware of feelings, sensations and scripts that occur when one of our unseen psychic mechanisms is triggered. So, when an interviewer asked about the generals who demanded Rumsfeld be removed, and the president knew his father had been working behind the scenes to replace Rumsfeld, the question would not have triggered the conscious thought: there goes dad again trying to make me feel incompetent. Instead, the president may have felt a hollow sensation or a flush of anger, an urge to form a clownish grin to cover his watery feelings, and a script that would come out of his mouth as "I'm the decider." Beneath that would be the inadequacy and cover-up dynamic outlined here.
A president's psychology and his inner secrets are his or her own business, except in one important area. That is area covered by the question, "Does the psychology of this individual interfere with his or her ability to make sound decisions in the best interest of the nation?" Recent history has certainly been witness to presidents with psychodynamics that have damaged their historical legacies. Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon come to mind. But in neither case was the very ability to make sound decisions compromised to the extent we believe it is with this president.
A Failed Process
Many accounts of the president suggest that his decision-making process is a failed one; in an important sense, it is no process at all.
Ambivalent feelings are normal at certain stages of decision-making, and the ability to tolerate ambivalence has been shown to be the hallmark of creative thinkers. The inability to tolerate uncertainty because you think that may imply incapacity brings decision-making to an end.
Thus, instead of focusing on the process needed to arrive at a decision, Bush marshals his defenses in order not to feel incompetent. That doesn't leave much room for exploring the alternatives required of competent decision-making. Not interested in discussion or detail (where the devil often lies), he seeks something minimal, just enough so he can let the decision come to him; it's his "gut" (read "God") that will provide the answer. But these gut feelings are the very feelings associated with his deep sense of inadequacy and his defenses against those feelings. So while he brags that he makes the "tough decisions," psychologically, he's defending himself against the very feelings of uncertainty that are the necessary concomitant to making tough decisions. His tough decision-making is a sham.
In the recent maneuvering toward the "new strategy" in Iraq, we have witnessed a great pretense of normal decision-making. But the president clearly made up his mind almost as soon as the "surge" alternative appeared, and apparently moved to cow others, including his new secretary of defense Robert Gates (his father's man) in the process. "Success" is the only alternative for him. "Failure" and disintegration of Iraq is unthinkable because it would be synonymous with his own internal disintegration.
As his decisions go awry, he exudes a troubling, uncanny aura of certitude (though some find it reassuring). He seems to expect to feel despised and alone (and probably has always felt that), as he has always secretly expected to fail. That expectation of failure leads to sloppy, risky, incompetent decisions, which in turn compel him to swerve from his fears of incompetence.
At this point, the president seems to have entered a place in his psyche where he is discounting all external criticism and unpopularity, and fixing stubbornly on his illusion of vindication, because he's still "The Decider," who can just keep deciding until he gets to success. It's hard not to feel something heroic in this position - but it's a recipe for bad, if not catastrophic, decisions.
Psychologically, President Bush has received support for so long because many have thought of him as "one of us." Most of us feel inadequate in some way, and watching him we can feel his inadequacies and sense his uncertainties, so we admire him for "pulling it off." His model tells us, "If you act like you're confident and competent, then you are." We are the culture that values the power of positive thinking and seeks assertiveness training. We believe that the right attitude can sometimes be more important than brains or hard work. He's bullied us, too. We don't dare to really confront the scale of his incompetent behavior, because then we would have to face what it means to have such an incompetent and psychologically disabled decision-maker as our president. It raises everyone's uncertainty. And that is, in fact, happening now.
----------
John P. Briggs, MD, is retired from over 40 years of private practice in psychotherapy in Westchester County, New York. He was on the faculty in psychiatry at the Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York City for 23 years and was a long-time member of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. He trained at the William Alanson White Institute in New York. J.P. Briggs II, PhD, is a Distinguished CSU professor at Western Connecticut State University and is the senior editor of the intellectual journal The Connecticut Review. He is author and co-author of books on creativity and chaos, including Fire in the Crucible (St. Martin's Press); Fractals, the Patterns of Chaos (Simon and Schuster); and Seven Life Lessons of Chaos (HarperCollins), among others. He is currently at work with Philadelphia psychologist John Amoroso on a book about the power of ambivalence in the creative process.
I came across this well written and researched article by clinical psychology experts and felt it was important enough to share with you. I am including the article in its entirety for you. It is not a polemic dressed in technical jargon. It is a careful analysis of observed and objective evidence to which accepted psychological and psychiatrict principles have been applied. I hope it provides food for thought. P
___________________________
Bush and the Psychology of Incompetent Decisions
By John P. Briggs, MD, and J.P. Briggs II, PhD
t r u t h o u t Guest Contributors
Thursday 18 January 2007
President George W. Bush prides himself on "making tough decisions." But many are sensing something seriously troubling, even psychologically unbalanced, about the president as a decision-maker. They are right.
Because of a psychological dynamic swirling around deeply hidden feelings of inadequacy, the president has been driven to make increasingly incompetent and risky decisions. This dynamic makes the psychological stakes for him now unimaginably high. The words "success" and "failure" have seized his rhetoric like metaphors for his psyche's survival.
The president's swirling dynamic lies "hidden in plain sight" in his personal history. From the time he was a boy until his religious awakening in his early 40s, Bush had every reason to feel he was a failure. His continued, almost obsessive, attempts through the years to emulate his father, obtain his approval, and escape from his influence are extensively recorded.
His biography is peppered with remarks and behavior that allude to this inner struggle. In an exuberant moment during his second campaign for Texas governor, Bush told a reporter, "It's hard to believe, but ... I don't have time to worry about being George Bush's son. Maybe it's a result of being confident. I'm not sure how the psychoanalysts will analyze it, but I'm not worried about it. I'm really not. I'm a free guy."
A psychoanalyst would note that he is revealing here that he has been worrying about being his father's son quite a lot.
Resentment naturally contaminated Bush's efforts to prove himself to his father and receive his father's approval. The contradictory mix showed up in his compulsion to re-fight his father's war against Iraq, but this time winning the duel some thought his father failed to win with Saddam. He could at once emulate his father, show his contempt for him, and redeem him. But beneath this son-father struggle lies a far more significant issue for Bush - a question about his own competence, adequacy and autonomy as a human being.
We have seen this inner question surface repeatedly, and we have largely conspired with him to deny it:
· On September 11, 2001, we saw (and suppressed) the image of him sitting stunned for seven minutes in a crowd of school children after learning that the second plane had hit the Twin Towers, and then the lack of image of him when he vanished from public view for the rest of the day. Instead, we bought the cover-up image, three days after the attack, of the strong leader, grabbing the bullhorn in New York City and issuing bellicose statements.
· In 2004, we saw and denied the insecurity displayed when the president refused to face the 9/11 Commission alone and needed Vice President Cheney to go with him.
· In 2003, we saw and suppressed the dark side of the "Mission Accomplished" aircraft carrier landing, in which a man who had ducked out on his generation's war and dribbled away his service in the Texas Air National Guard dressed up like Top Gun and pretended that he was a combat pilot like his father.
· Asked by a reporter if he would accept responsibility for any mistakes, Bush answered, "I hope I don't want to sound like I've made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't - you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not quick - as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one." What we heard, and yet didn't hear, was a confession of his feelings of inadequacy and an arrogant denial those feelings all at once.
· In early 2006, when his father moved behind the scenes to replace Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the son responded, "I'm the decider and I decide what's best" - and when he clenched his fist at a question about his father's influence, proclaiming, "I'm the Commander in Chief" - we glimpsed what was going on.
To cover up and defend himself against his feelings of his inadequacy and incompetence, Bush developed a number of psychological defenses. In his school years he played the clown. (His ability to joke about his verbal slip-ups is an endearing adult application of this defense to public life.) His heavy drinking was a classic way to anesthetize feelings of inadequacy. Indeed, drinking typically makes the alcoholic grandiose, which has led some commentators to argue that Bush has the "dry drunk" syndrome, where the individual has stopped drinking but retains the brittle psychology of the alcoholic. Other defenses now play especially powerful roles to protect the president against his internal feelings of insufficiency.
The Christian Defense
Bush has carefully let it be known that he believes the decisions he makes in office are directed by God. His famous claim to make decisions by "gut" ("I'm a gut player," he told Bob Woodward) equates with his claim of the spiritual inspiration he receives through prayer, his own and the prayers of others. Whatever else it is, this equation of his own choices with God's will has unparalleled advantages. It creates the perfect defense against any doubts he or anyone else might have that he can't make the right decision. The need to engage in analysis and explore alternatives to get there comes off the table. Instead, he has his gut; he has his God.
Being "born again" also allows the president to present himself as having relegated to the past all those previously inadequate behaviors of his younger days: the poor academic performance, the drinking, the failed businesses. He's a new man, no longer incompetent but now supremely competent as a result of his faith.
When Woodward asked Bush if he had consulted his father before invading Iraq, he replied, "He is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to." How wonderfully that appeal must seem to resolve the internal conflict about adequacy we have described above.
The Bully Defense
Bush's mother, Barbara (sarcastic, mean, disciplinarian, always with an acid-tongued retort), is probably the model for another major defense Bush deploys to defend himself against feelings of inadequacy. A friend at the time described her as "sort of the leader bully."
That bullies are insecure people is well known and fairly obvious. A bully covers insecurity with bluster and intimidation so that others won't find an opening to see how weak he feels.
Much of the world outside the US considers Bush a bully. "You're either with us or against us" is a bully's threat that anyone can recognize. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes is a bully's doctrine.
For his intimates and those closer to home, Bush appears to be what is called an emotional bully. An emotional bully gains control using sarcasm, teasing, mocking, name calling, threatening, ignoring, lying, or angering the other and forcing him to back down. Bush administration insider accounts describe this sort of behavior from the president. He's well known for his dismissive remarks. His penchant for giving nicknames to everyone has its dark, bully's side. Naming people is a way to control them.
In report by Gail Sheehy in 2000, recalled recently by New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, we get a glimpse of how Bush's pervasive fear of failure (his absolute refusal to consider "failure as an option") and his bully defense go together. Sheehy interviewed friends from his teenage years and college years. In basketball or tennis games he would insist points be played over because he wasn't ready; he would force opponents who had beaten him to continue playing until he beat them. At Yale he would interrupt his fellow students' studying for exams (helping them fail) to compete in a popular board game, "The Game of Global Domination," at which he was the player noted for taking the most risks, being the most aggressive.
It's likely that speculations about Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice functioning as Bush's puppet-masters are 180 (or at least 160) degrees off. Bush is the president; he gets his way, and they know it. Chances are they have learned to channel his "gut" and give him policy advice that matches it. They may even imagine they are steering him, not clear about the ways that he has bullied them, elicited in them "The Stockholm Syndrome," in which hostages come to identify with and even defend the very person who is threatening them. This is the same dynamic evident in the behavior of battered spouses and members of gangs.
Ron Suskind described the small group around the president: "A disdain for contemplation or deliberation, an embrace of decisiveness - a sometimes bullying impatience with doubters and even friendly questioners."
Biographical reports tell us that Bush's parents taught him to keep his inner feelings to himself. As psychiatrist Justin A. Frank noted in Bush on the Couch, this results in a "self-protective indifference to the pain of others." This is another aspect of his bully defense, projecting his inner pain onto others. Bush's remarkable drive for the power to torture terrorist suspects and his reported glorying in Texas executions during his terms as governor testify to his lack of compassion, despite his recent statement of qualms about seeing Saddam Hussein drop through the trap.
The Man of Splits and Oppositions
Being in the world, for all of us, involves the challenge to somehow integrate the opposites of our nature and to select our way through the many opposing choices presented us in life. The bully polarizes the natural ambivalence (the internal opposition) anyone feels about whether he is strong or weak, safe or vulnerable. A person who needs to feel invulnerable and completely adequate all the time, or who always feels helpless and inadequate, has polarized these emotions and leads a deformed life. The degree of internal polarization in President Bush appears to be serious - and widespread. Commentators have made lists of the president's polarities: the proclaimed uniter who is a relentless divider, the habit of "saying one thing and doing another," as Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords put it. The list is long and growing. It should include the oppositions that show up in his famous Bushisms, such as:
There is no doubt in my mind that we should allow the world worst leaders to hold America hostage, to threaten our peace, to threaten our friends and allies with the world's worst weapons.
They [the terrorists] never stop thinking of ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we.
To a psychiatrist, these are not mere malapropisms and mistakes in speech. They suggest ambivalence oscillating violently between poles. They suggest a desperate uncertainty about everything that the president reflexively seeks to hide by taking absolutist, rigid positions about "victory," "success," "mission accomplished," "stay the course," "compassion," "tax cuts," "no child left behind," and a host of other issues.
The Presidential Defense
Once Bush took the bullhorn at ground zero, he found perhaps the ultimate defense for his secret fears of inadequacy. As he told Bob Woodward, in Bush at War, "I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." As commander in chief, as a war president, he could assemble his other psychological defenses around him. He could split the world into good and evil and the country would follow. His internal oppositions could be projected without much resistance from the populace or his adversaries. He could be the gut-led, divinely inspired "Decider," to save the country. He could project own internal fears of being "discovered as a fraud" into a threat "out there" waiting to happen. He could surround himself with loyalists whom he could emotionally bully, creating a new family that would admire him and that he could control. Meanwhile the ambiguities of political decisions that can always be rationalized offer a safe haven. Until history judges me (and that's a long way off, maybe never) I can't be definitively seen as incompetent.
But as much as the presidency is a perfect defense for disguising incompetence, it's also the perfect trap. It accelerates the positive feedback loop that was set in motion when he "changed his heart" around age 40 (committing himself to God) and presumably put his failures, and his feelings of failure behind him.
In recent weeks, anyone following the news must have intuitively sensed from watching and hearing the president that he would reject the Iraq Study Group's report, co-authored by a person he must have felt was the emissary of his father come to tell him that he had failed again. He chose escalation, the one solution most knowledgeable people agree cannot succeed, in order to keep alive the fiction that success still lies in the future.
The dynamic is becoming obvious to almost everybody.
But how much is Bush aware of this psychological dynamic and of the secret he's keeping? Not aware enough. That's the problem. Psychotherapists use the term "unconscious," but it isn't quite an accurate descriptor. We are aware of feelings, sensations and scripts that occur when one of our unseen psychic mechanisms is triggered. So, when an interviewer asked about the generals who demanded Rumsfeld be removed, and the president knew his father had been working behind the scenes to replace Rumsfeld, the question would not have triggered the conscious thought: there goes dad again trying to make me feel incompetent. Instead, the president may have felt a hollow sensation or a flush of anger, an urge to form a clownish grin to cover his watery feelings, and a script that would come out of his mouth as "I'm the decider." Beneath that would be the inadequacy and cover-up dynamic outlined here.
A president's psychology and his inner secrets are his or her own business, except in one important area. That is area covered by the question, "Does the psychology of this individual interfere with his or her ability to make sound decisions in the best interest of the nation?" Recent history has certainly been witness to presidents with psychodynamics that have damaged their historical legacies. Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon come to mind. But in neither case was the very ability to make sound decisions compromised to the extent we believe it is with this president.
A Failed Process
Many accounts of the president suggest that his decision-making process is a failed one; in an important sense, it is no process at all.
Ambivalent feelings are normal at certain stages of decision-making, and the ability to tolerate ambivalence has been shown to be the hallmark of creative thinkers. The inability to tolerate uncertainty because you think that may imply incapacity brings decision-making to an end.
Thus, instead of focusing on the process needed to arrive at a decision, Bush marshals his defenses in order not to feel incompetent. That doesn't leave much room for exploring the alternatives required of competent decision-making. Not interested in discussion or detail (where the devil often lies), he seeks something minimal, just enough so he can let the decision come to him; it's his "gut" (read "God") that will provide the answer. But these gut feelings are the very feelings associated with his deep sense of inadequacy and his defenses against those feelings. So while he brags that he makes the "tough decisions," psychologically, he's defending himself against the very feelings of uncertainty that are the necessary concomitant to making tough decisions. His tough decision-making is a sham.
In the recent maneuvering toward the "new strategy" in Iraq, we have witnessed a great pretense of normal decision-making. But the president clearly made up his mind almost as soon as the "surge" alternative appeared, and apparently moved to cow others, including his new secretary of defense Robert Gates (his father's man) in the process. "Success" is the only alternative for him. "Failure" and disintegration of Iraq is unthinkable because it would be synonymous with his own internal disintegration.
As his decisions go awry, he exudes a troubling, uncanny aura of certitude (though some find it reassuring). He seems to expect to feel despised and alone (and probably has always felt that), as he has always secretly expected to fail. That expectation of failure leads to sloppy, risky, incompetent decisions, which in turn compel him to swerve from his fears of incompetence.
At this point, the president seems to have entered a place in his psyche where he is discounting all external criticism and unpopularity, and fixing stubbornly on his illusion of vindication, because he's still "The Decider," who can just keep deciding until he gets to success. It's hard not to feel something heroic in this position - but it's a recipe for bad, if not catastrophic, decisions.
Psychologically, President Bush has received support for so long because many have thought of him as "one of us." Most of us feel inadequate in some way, and watching him we can feel his inadequacies and sense his uncertainties, so we admire him for "pulling it off." His model tells us, "If you act like you're confident and competent, then you are." We are the culture that values the power of positive thinking and seeks assertiveness training. We believe that the right attitude can sometimes be more important than brains or hard work. He's bullied us, too. We don't dare to really confront the scale of his incompetent behavior, because then we would have to face what it means to have such an incompetent and psychologically disabled decision-maker as our president. It raises everyone's uncertainty. And that is, in fact, happening now.
----------
John P. Briggs, MD, is retired from over 40 years of private practice in psychotherapy in Westchester County, New York. He was on the faculty in psychiatry at the Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center in New York City for 23 years and was a long-time member of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. He trained at the William Alanson White Institute in New York. J.P. Briggs II, PhD, is a Distinguished CSU professor at Western Connecticut State University and is the senior editor of the intellectual journal The Connecticut Review. He is author and co-author of books on creativity and chaos, including Fire in the Crucible (St. Martin's Press); Fractals, the Patterns of Chaos (Simon and Schuster); and Seven Life Lessons of Chaos (HarperCollins), among others. He is currently at work with Philadelphia psychologist John Amoroso on a book about the power of ambivalence in the creative process.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
When and How to “Cut” and “Run”
Some have expressed doubt of the power or ability of Congress to rein in an Executive Branch that has exceeded or misused authority granted under an emergency Resolution. The issue is not one of legal authority, as the Constitution clearly allows Congress the power to declare war or refrain from doing so, to revoke or rescind authority granted by an act of Congress and to cut off funding of actions that it does not support or authorize. The problem currently faced is one of practicality and political willpower to exercise any of those powers.
President Bush requested authority to use military force in Iraq, based upon the premise that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons which he intended to use against the United States and its allies or interests. This grant of authority followed the failure of the United States to persuade the United Nations to pass a resolution indicating that international intervention was warranted. While some nations refused to align themselves with the US position regarding the invasion for political reasons, most rejected the proposal on grounds that military force was unwarranted and likely to be unproductive when diplomatic measures had not been exhausted. Others were skeptical of the alleged “proof” of weapons of mass destruction.
Subsequent events have shown us that President Bush planned to invade Iraq and put those plans into motion even without United Nations approval or support. The purported justification for the attack has been shown to be false, as it was based upon erroneous intelligence or deliberately “cooked” reports and analyses. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no biological weapons being developed or stockpiled and there was no actual threat of attack by Iraq or Saddam Hussein against the United States or any of its allies. The alleged link between Osama Bin laden and Saddam Hussein made by the Bush Administration has been thoroughly discredited. In consequence, the entire basis or justification for the Congressional authorization to use military force in Iraq has been proven false and unsubstantiated.
The justification that Bush now advances for keeping troops in Iraq is not a legal justification, it is clearly a bootstrap rationale. Having invaded Iraq, overthrown its government and destabilized its security and military organizations, Bush now justifies keeping American troops in Iraq based upon predictions that the situation will descend further into chaos and civil war if our troops leave. Rhetoric of “winning” in Iraq has been replaced with talk of “prevailing,” while neither term has been clearly defined for the American public nor the military personnel asked to sacrifice life and limb for the mission. In this regard, the current situation resembles Viet Nam.
Sen. Kennedy is on the right track in his Senate speech declaring that under any analysis possible, the current situation in Iraq does not resemble or reflect the circumstances or purpose for which Congress was requested to grant authority for military action in Iraq. Some might argue that by continuing to fund the continuously morphing “Mission” advanced by the Administration, Congress has implicitly renewed the authorization. However flawed this argument may be, it also supports the argument that cutting funding is an appropriate way to revoke that implied consent. Cutting off funding for any increase in troop deployment should be accompanied by a conditional appropriation that requires the President to provide Congress withy a detailed plan for extricating US military forces from Iraq.
But Congress needs to go a step further. An express finding that the basis for the prior authorization was unsubstantiated should be followed by a vote to rescind the authority. This action of cutting off the legal foundation for pursuing the “Mission” that Bush advances in greater and greater isolation would leave the President no choice except to develop and execute a strategy for bringing the troops home as promptly and safely as possible. While Bush is the Commander in Chief of military forces, this function only enables him to determine the manner in which military action authorized by Congress can be carried out. He does not have the unilateral authority to declare war or prosecute a military action not authorized by Treaty or an act of Congress.
When a beast has gone mad and is out of control, it must be “run to ground” and captured so that it cannot do harm to others. In a figurative sense, President Bush is acting like a mad animal. He refuses to listen to the mandate of the public, clearly expressed in the election last fall. He refuses to listen to military and foreign policy experts who have advised him or the risks and errors of his actions. He rejects the concerns of Democratic legislators as partisan sniping, and also rejects the advice and concerns expressed by members of his own party.
And so it falls to the Congress that unleashed the beast to run him to ground. To be sure, it is a scary and downright unpleasant task. We all would hope that the president would wake up some morning and see the situation as it really is and act rationally. But he has proven that he is incapable or unwilling to see past the delusions. Unless and until Congress takes action, the death toll and irreparable damage caused by the Bush rampage in Iraq will increase. So the time has clearly come to “cut” off the authority and funding for the mission, and to “run” the rampaging and uncontrolled beast to ground.
President Bush requested authority to use military force in Iraq, based upon the premise that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction and biological weapons which he intended to use against the United States and its allies or interests. This grant of authority followed the failure of the United States to persuade the United Nations to pass a resolution indicating that international intervention was warranted. While some nations refused to align themselves with the US position regarding the invasion for political reasons, most rejected the proposal on grounds that military force was unwarranted and likely to be unproductive when diplomatic measures had not been exhausted. Others were skeptical of the alleged “proof” of weapons of mass destruction.
Subsequent events have shown us that President Bush planned to invade Iraq and put those plans into motion even without United Nations approval or support. The purported justification for the attack has been shown to be false, as it was based upon erroneous intelligence or deliberately “cooked” reports and analyses. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no biological weapons being developed or stockpiled and there was no actual threat of attack by Iraq or Saddam Hussein against the United States or any of its allies. The alleged link between Osama Bin laden and Saddam Hussein made by the Bush Administration has been thoroughly discredited. In consequence, the entire basis or justification for the Congressional authorization to use military force in Iraq has been proven false and unsubstantiated.
The justification that Bush now advances for keeping troops in Iraq is not a legal justification, it is clearly a bootstrap rationale. Having invaded Iraq, overthrown its government and destabilized its security and military organizations, Bush now justifies keeping American troops in Iraq based upon predictions that the situation will descend further into chaos and civil war if our troops leave. Rhetoric of “winning” in Iraq has been replaced with talk of “prevailing,” while neither term has been clearly defined for the American public nor the military personnel asked to sacrifice life and limb for the mission. In this regard, the current situation resembles Viet Nam.
Sen. Kennedy is on the right track in his Senate speech declaring that under any analysis possible, the current situation in Iraq does not resemble or reflect the circumstances or purpose for which Congress was requested to grant authority for military action in Iraq. Some might argue that by continuing to fund the continuously morphing “Mission” advanced by the Administration, Congress has implicitly renewed the authorization. However flawed this argument may be, it also supports the argument that cutting funding is an appropriate way to revoke that implied consent. Cutting off funding for any increase in troop deployment should be accompanied by a conditional appropriation that requires the President to provide Congress withy a detailed plan for extricating US military forces from Iraq.
But Congress needs to go a step further. An express finding that the basis for the prior authorization was unsubstantiated should be followed by a vote to rescind the authority. This action of cutting off the legal foundation for pursuing the “Mission” that Bush advances in greater and greater isolation would leave the President no choice except to develop and execute a strategy for bringing the troops home as promptly and safely as possible. While Bush is the Commander in Chief of military forces, this function only enables him to determine the manner in which military action authorized by Congress can be carried out. He does not have the unilateral authority to declare war or prosecute a military action not authorized by Treaty or an act of Congress.
When a beast has gone mad and is out of control, it must be “run to ground” and captured so that it cannot do harm to others. In a figurative sense, President Bush is acting like a mad animal. He refuses to listen to the mandate of the public, clearly expressed in the election last fall. He refuses to listen to military and foreign policy experts who have advised him or the risks and errors of his actions. He rejects the concerns of Democratic legislators as partisan sniping, and also rejects the advice and concerns expressed by members of his own party.
And so it falls to the Congress that unleashed the beast to run him to ground. To be sure, it is a scary and downright unpleasant task. We all would hope that the president would wake up some morning and see the situation as it really is and act rationally. But he has proven that he is incapable or unwilling to see past the delusions. Unless and until Congress takes action, the death toll and irreparable damage caused by the Bush rampage in Iraq will increase. So the time has clearly come to “cut” off the authority and funding for the mission, and to “run” the rampaging and uncontrolled beast to ground.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Seriously Now Folks!
There is a joke about a fellow driving the wrong way down a busy street where all the other traffic is headed the other way. Someone yells out to him that it is a one way street. To this he replies: “I’m only going one way!” George Bush, if he has heard the joke, must have misunderstood. He clearly has sided with the driver. Our President is nothing if not resolute and impervious. He is impervious to public opinion, expert advice, rational logic and common sense.
Every conceivable interested party, with the exception of Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Malaki (whose motives as well as his capabilities must be held suspect), has spoken out against the wisdom or even sanity of the Bush troop surge plan. Bush has declared his intention to send more than 20,000 additional American troops into Iraq and spend an additional $1 Billion dollars on “reconstruction” projects. With a cost of $500 Billion for the Iraq war to date, the additional deployment is projected to cost at least $5 Billion more per month. There is no end date indicated in the Bush “New Strategy” and he says it is justified by “commitments” from the Iraqi government to form a unity government and to end political interference with military security initiatives. There is no concrete basis for confidence that the iraqi Prime Minister can deliver. Moreover, there is no deadline or target date for the Iraqi government to meet these so-called commitments. Nor are there any defined benchmarks that the Iraqi government has to meet to demonstrate compliance with or progress on meeting its commitments. When asked what the Bush Administration would do if the Iraqi’s failed to honor these commitments, Secretary Gates replied to the Senate Committee that they would have to “re-look at this strategy.”
Military experts with intimate knowledge of Iraq have stated publicly and privately that they do not support the troop surge for a number of reasons. The most salient reasons seem to be that it will be as ineffective as prior attempts to do the same thing, costing unjustified loss of life, and also that the military does not currently have the troops to rationally commit to such an initiative. They fear that the Bush strategy will push the military beyond the breaking point, as there has been no concurrent plan developed or executed to build up troop strength prior to proposing the deployment. In addition to the effect on morale from a failed mission, military experts point out that the initiative can only be accomplished by extending existing deployments and sending troops that have already served in Iraq back into the conflict.
The American people have demonstrated quite consistently over the past year that they do not support Bush’s handling of the Iraq situation. Polls have consistently shown disapproval ratings for Bush on Iraq at 65% or more. The public opposition to the current proposal approaches 80% in recent public polls. The Congressional election last fall demonstrated a clear message from the public that a change of course in Iraq was necessary. Bush’s response was to package more of the same policies and strategy and label it “New” while proceeding to ignore the voter mandate.
The worst tragicomedy can be found in Congress. A substantial number of Republican Representatives and Senators have taken the duplicitous position that they will support the President, because he is the “Commander in Chief,” despite being unable to articulate any rational basis for supporting the troop surge plan itself. They also decline to endorse the plan specifically because of fear of the voter reaction in the next election. Those vocally supporting the deployment have failed to state any specific reason why they believe that the additional troops will be successful in bringing an end to the sectarian violence. They bandy about undefined and largely meaningless terms about “winning” the war in Iraq.
Democrats have captured control of the House of Representatives and the Senate, but seem to have utterly failed to consider or plan what they would do in the event that they gained control and needed to confront the President on his Iraq policies. They propose a weak “resolution” against the troop surge that is non-binding. Sen. Kennedy has shown the courage to introduce a Bill that would restrict government funding for any additional troop deployment, while continuing funding of current troops. The legislation would also call for a plan by the administration for a gradual redeployment of troops out of Iraq. The measure is not “new” because similar legislation was introduced in connection with the Viet Nam War to pressure the Administration to end involvement there. However, Democrats are squabbling among themselves about whether such a measure is appropriate. Ironically, the Kennedy Bill is probably the closest reflection of the voter mandate of the fall election: Support the troops; develop and implement a plan to bring them home; and end US involvement in what has become an Iraqi civil war.
The family of Ron-Michael Pellant of Minnesota represents a real life example of the impact of this political insanity. As a military reservist, he has been deployed in Iraq and was scheduled to come home in March of this year. His family learned from the media that his deployment would be extended an additional 125 days, and Ron-Michael still has not been officially informed. This tends to validate the assessments by top military professionals (Bush incidentally has relieved them of command) that the surge would require the extension of existing deployments.
Other GI’s have spoken out against the plan and troop morale will clearly be affected. Many reservists are scrambling to get out of their enlistment and reserve commitment because repeated deployment in Iraq was never what they contemplated when they signed on for the National Guard. At a time when the US Military needs to step up recruiting simply to fulfill basic staffing needs, the administration Iraq policies is further depleting the pool of recruits.
Despite this overwhelming consensus against deployment of additional troops in the middle of a civil war that most believe can only be resolved through a political solution, Bush stubbornly forges ahead with his so-called “New Strategy.” He continues to go his own “one way.” GOP Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a 2008 Presidential hopeful, publicly called the Bush troop surge proposal strategy the “worst strategic blunder since the Viet Nam War.” To paraphrase a quote borrowed from Charles Barkley: “(Chuck) may be wrong, but I doubt it!”
Every conceivable interested party, with the exception of Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Malaki (whose motives as well as his capabilities must be held suspect), has spoken out against the wisdom or even sanity of the Bush troop surge plan. Bush has declared his intention to send more than 20,000 additional American troops into Iraq and spend an additional $1 Billion dollars on “reconstruction” projects. With a cost of $500 Billion for the Iraq war to date, the additional deployment is projected to cost at least $5 Billion more per month. There is no end date indicated in the Bush “New Strategy” and he says it is justified by “commitments” from the Iraqi government to form a unity government and to end political interference with military security initiatives. There is no concrete basis for confidence that the iraqi Prime Minister can deliver. Moreover, there is no deadline or target date for the Iraqi government to meet these so-called commitments. Nor are there any defined benchmarks that the Iraqi government has to meet to demonstrate compliance with or progress on meeting its commitments. When asked what the Bush Administration would do if the Iraqi’s failed to honor these commitments, Secretary Gates replied to the Senate Committee that they would have to “re-look at this strategy.”
Military experts with intimate knowledge of Iraq have stated publicly and privately that they do not support the troop surge for a number of reasons. The most salient reasons seem to be that it will be as ineffective as prior attempts to do the same thing, costing unjustified loss of life, and also that the military does not currently have the troops to rationally commit to such an initiative. They fear that the Bush strategy will push the military beyond the breaking point, as there has been no concurrent plan developed or executed to build up troop strength prior to proposing the deployment. In addition to the effect on morale from a failed mission, military experts point out that the initiative can only be accomplished by extending existing deployments and sending troops that have already served in Iraq back into the conflict.
The American people have demonstrated quite consistently over the past year that they do not support Bush’s handling of the Iraq situation. Polls have consistently shown disapproval ratings for Bush on Iraq at 65% or more. The public opposition to the current proposal approaches 80% in recent public polls. The Congressional election last fall demonstrated a clear message from the public that a change of course in Iraq was necessary. Bush’s response was to package more of the same policies and strategy and label it “New” while proceeding to ignore the voter mandate.
The worst tragicomedy can be found in Congress. A substantial number of Republican Representatives and Senators have taken the duplicitous position that they will support the President, because he is the “Commander in Chief,” despite being unable to articulate any rational basis for supporting the troop surge plan itself. They also decline to endorse the plan specifically because of fear of the voter reaction in the next election. Those vocally supporting the deployment have failed to state any specific reason why they believe that the additional troops will be successful in bringing an end to the sectarian violence. They bandy about undefined and largely meaningless terms about “winning” the war in Iraq.
Democrats have captured control of the House of Representatives and the Senate, but seem to have utterly failed to consider or plan what they would do in the event that they gained control and needed to confront the President on his Iraq policies. They propose a weak “resolution” against the troop surge that is non-binding. Sen. Kennedy has shown the courage to introduce a Bill that would restrict government funding for any additional troop deployment, while continuing funding of current troops. The legislation would also call for a plan by the administration for a gradual redeployment of troops out of Iraq. The measure is not “new” because similar legislation was introduced in connection with the Viet Nam War to pressure the Administration to end involvement there. However, Democrats are squabbling among themselves about whether such a measure is appropriate. Ironically, the Kennedy Bill is probably the closest reflection of the voter mandate of the fall election: Support the troops; develop and implement a plan to bring them home; and end US involvement in what has become an Iraqi civil war.
The family of Ron-Michael Pellant of Minnesota represents a real life example of the impact of this political insanity. As a military reservist, he has been deployed in Iraq and was scheduled to come home in March of this year. His family learned from the media that his deployment would be extended an additional 125 days, and Ron-Michael still has not been officially informed. This tends to validate the assessments by top military professionals (Bush incidentally has relieved them of command) that the surge would require the extension of existing deployments.
Other GI’s have spoken out against the plan and troop morale will clearly be affected. Many reservists are scrambling to get out of their enlistment and reserve commitment because repeated deployment in Iraq was never what they contemplated when they signed on for the National Guard. At a time when the US Military needs to step up recruiting simply to fulfill basic staffing needs, the administration Iraq policies is further depleting the pool of recruits.
Despite this overwhelming consensus against deployment of additional troops in the middle of a civil war that most believe can only be resolved through a political solution, Bush stubbornly forges ahead with his so-called “New Strategy.” He continues to go his own “one way.” GOP Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a 2008 Presidential hopeful, publicly called the Bush troop surge proposal strategy the “worst strategic blunder since the Viet Nam War.” To paraphrase a quote borrowed from Charles Barkley: “(Chuck) may be wrong, but I doubt it!”
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Bush's "New Strategy" in Iraq - More Questions Than Answers
Advance information about the new "Iraq Strategy" being prepared for release this week suggests that the President will propose more troop deployment by the US and Iraq plus a commitment of approximately $1 Billion dollars for reconstruction projects. There are many pertinent questions to be raised and answered regarding such a strategy. Hopefully, Congress will ask these questions and demand answers before taking any further steps to authorize action or to fund Bush "new" escapade. Let's just address a few of the more obvious questions:
A. More Troops?
Did the development of this "new" strategy have the benefit of internal debate and thorough analysis of its weaknesses as well as its potential strengths? Last week, Bush has dismissed dissenting Generals who have questionewisdomwisdon or objected to the proposed deployment of more US troops.
Does the "promise" by the Iraqi Prime Minister to deploy up to five Iraqi Security Forces brigades have any credibility? More than three years of "training" effort by US forces has yielded, at most, only one fully capable Iraqi brigade. Evidence of desertion rates suggests that we have been most effective in training local militia forces that are now engaged in the sectarian strife, attacks and atrocities on Sunni civilians and the civil war combat. Even if deployed, would such forces create any greater stability or security, given the lack of trust they engender among Iraqi civilians?
Why would additional US troops create greater suppression of the civil war violence at this time when such "surges" in the past have failed? Gen. Casey, Gen. Powell and other knowledgeable military experts have concluded that such deployments at this time would be ineffective and potentially counterproductive.
B. Reconstruction Funding
Why would expenditure of $1Billion in additional reconstruction not be wasteful at this time? Although the Administration has endeavored mightily to prevent public release of the information, substantial evidence establishes that millions of dollars have been totally wasted in prior "reconstruction" efforts because no competent, reliable or secure means to administer the reconstruction efforts existed. The situation now is less stable and less secure.
Why should the administration be trusted to handle the proposed reconstruction? The Bush Administration previously sent marginally qualified political representatives to Iraq to handle reconstruction. This resulted in bags of cash being tossed off the back of trucks without any accounting and millions of dollars transferred to foreign accounts by corrupt Iraqi politicians and US contractors. More than a year has passed since Hurricane Katrina. The Bush Administration has been unable to administer substantial reconstruction authorization of less than $1Billion in an area that is stable and welcoming. The Bush administration has not proven itself capable of mobilizing and executing a reconstruction program on a substantially smaller scale in a non-hostile environment.
Why should the US taxpayers support the cost of reconstruction at a time when there is no real central government in Iraq and Iraq has the resources in petroleum reserves to fund its own needs? It is true that the US invasion destroyed much of the infrastructure, but repair of the damage from the constant bombing of roads and buildings need not be placed on the US taxpayer's tab.
To the extent that expertise is needed, the US or other civilian contractors could provide such assistance when the Iraqi people decide to create enough internal stability to make such construction feasible. Such efforts should not be controlled by the same failed Bush policies that led to no-bid and exclusive contracts to GOP cronies.
The presence of US troops provides a distraction and easy target for sectarian militia and other factions. With the American occupation force available as a common “enemy” the local Iraqi populace is not required to squarely confront the implications of sheltering those factions when they obstruct the rehabilitation and reconstruction of basic services in the cities and towns.
These are just the most basic practical questions that need to be addressed and have nothing to do with partisan politics. These and similar questions need to be addressed in order to provide even the most basic accountability. Bush wishes to invest more American lives and more financial resources in an adventure that to date has been an abysmal failure. The American people deserve some clear and direct answers before any such investment is even considered.
A. More Troops?
Did the development of this "new" strategy have the benefit of internal debate and thorough analysis of its weaknesses as well as its potential strengths? Last week, Bush has dismissed dissenting Generals who have questionewisdomwisdon or objected to the proposed deployment of more US troops.
Does the "promise" by the Iraqi Prime Minister to deploy up to five Iraqi Security Forces brigades have any credibility? More than three years of "training" effort by US forces has yielded, at most, only one fully capable Iraqi brigade. Evidence of desertion rates suggests that we have been most effective in training local militia forces that are now engaged in the sectarian strife, attacks and atrocities on Sunni civilians and the civil war combat. Even if deployed, would such forces create any greater stability or security, given the lack of trust they engender among Iraqi civilians?
Why would additional US troops create greater suppression of the civil war violence at this time when such "surges" in the past have failed? Gen. Casey, Gen. Powell and other knowledgeable military experts have concluded that such deployments at this time would be ineffective and potentially counterproductive.
B. Reconstruction Funding
Why would expenditure of $1Billion in additional reconstruction not be wasteful at this time? Although the Administration has endeavored mightily to prevent public release of the information, substantial evidence establishes that millions of dollars have been totally wasted in prior "reconstruction" efforts because no competent, reliable or secure means to administer the reconstruction efforts existed. The situation now is less stable and less secure.
Why should the administration be trusted to handle the proposed reconstruction? The Bush Administration previously sent marginally qualified political representatives to Iraq to handle reconstruction. This resulted in bags of cash being tossed off the back of trucks without any accounting and millions of dollars transferred to foreign accounts by corrupt Iraqi politicians and US contractors. More than a year has passed since Hurricane Katrina. The Bush Administration has been unable to administer substantial reconstruction authorization of less than $1Billion in an area that is stable and welcoming. The Bush administration has not proven itself capable of mobilizing and executing a reconstruction program on a substantially smaller scale in a non-hostile environment.
Why should the US taxpayers support the cost of reconstruction at a time when there is no real central government in Iraq and Iraq has the resources in petroleum reserves to fund its own needs? It is true that the US invasion destroyed much of the infrastructure, but repair of the damage from the constant bombing of roads and buildings need not be placed on the US taxpayer's tab.
To the extent that expertise is needed, the US or other civilian contractors could provide such assistance when the Iraqi people decide to create enough internal stability to make such construction feasible. Such efforts should not be controlled by the same failed Bush policies that led to no-bid and exclusive contracts to GOP cronies.
The presence of US troops provides a distraction and easy target for sectarian militia and other factions. With the American occupation force available as a common “enemy” the local Iraqi populace is not required to squarely confront the implications of sheltering those factions when they obstruct the rehabilitation and reconstruction of basic services in the cities and towns.
These are just the most basic practical questions that need to be addressed and have nothing to do with partisan politics. These and similar questions need to be addressed in order to provide even the most basic accountability. Bush wishes to invest more American lives and more financial resources in an adventure that to date has been an abysmal failure. The American people deserve some clear and direct answers before any such investment is even considered.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Heroism or Naivete? 2007 - Lesson #1
A man, who considers himself just a typical New Yorker, acted with split second instinct and heroic judgment to save the life of a teenage youth who had fallen from a New York City Subway platform after suffereing a seizure. This "average" man left his two young daughters on the platform, jumped down onto the tracks and used his body to shield the youth in the sunken cavity between the tracks as the oncoming subway train ran over them both. They both survived, though the cavity was only about 24 inches deep.
Wesley Autrey, a Black ex-Navy veteran, went where few of us would have dared to enter. He decided to risk his own life to save a youth he did not even know. He risked leaving his two young daughters fatherless, acting in a manner in which he believes that any true New Yorker should respond in a crisis. Some have called him foolish for undertaking the risk. What if he had been killed in front of his daughters? But Mr. Autrey apparently only knew that he was confronted with a crisis in which a young man faced life or death; and that he, Mr. Autrey, had the opportunity to do something about it. So he acted, and the youth's life was saved.
Whether his actions were naive and foolish or heroic bravery is perhaps in the mind of the beholder. But not since the firefighters and police responded to the disaster on September 11, 2003 have New Yorkers seen such a clear exposition of the selflessness and outright humanity that New Yorkers are capable of in times of crisis. Mr. Autrey sought no personal gain, and appears to be a man of limited means despite prior military service to his country. Indeed he even lacked the resources or the motivation to dress up in a suit and tie for national media exposure on the Today Show the next morning when the story broke. the only adornments he brought with him were his daughters, who witnessed their Daddy teach them a lesson in courage, humanity and humility that we all could benefit from. There will undoubtedly be hype and hoopla, but it is very doubtful that such attention was on the mind of Mr. Autrey when he dove beneath the train.
Perhaps we can take a page from the lesson book of Mr. Autrey. If he was capable of heroic response to a major crisis, by acting upon his beliefs and stepping up to help his fellow citizen, may we not feel emboldened to step up and support and defend our beliefs and help our fellow citizens as we face much less daunting challenges each day? Can we retrieve and revive an America "of the people and for the people," working together to help each other for the benefit of all, the way Mr Autrey apparently sees it? Or will we continue in the wasteland of self centered opportunism and arrogant greed and venal corruption that ignores the needs of our fellow man, our community and our children?
And what lessons are we teaching our children? Are we modeling courage and sacrifice to our children? Or are we supporting and praising short sighted greed and corruption that will leave an impoverished legacy for our children. The object lesson Mr. Autrey has brought us comes at an auspicious and an opportune time. May we study it well as we embark uppon the journey into 2007. And let us be thankful that men like Mr. Wesley Autrey are not yet extinct.
Wesley Autrey, a Black ex-Navy veteran, went where few of us would have dared to enter. He decided to risk his own life to save a youth he did not even know. He risked leaving his two young daughters fatherless, acting in a manner in which he believes that any true New Yorker should respond in a crisis. Some have called him foolish for undertaking the risk. What if he had been killed in front of his daughters? But Mr. Autrey apparently only knew that he was confronted with a crisis in which a young man faced life or death; and that he, Mr. Autrey, had the opportunity to do something about it. So he acted, and the youth's life was saved.
Whether his actions were naive and foolish or heroic bravery is perhaps in the mind of the beholder. But not since the firefighters and police responded to the disaster on September 11, 2003 have New Yorkers seen such a clear exposition of the selflessness and outright humanity that New Yorkers are capable of in times of crisis. Mr. Autrey sought no personal gain, and appears to be a man of limited means despite prior military service to his country. Indeed he even lacked the resources or the motivation to dress up in a suit and tie for national media exposure on the Today Show the next morning when the story broke. the only adornments he brought with him were his daughters, who witnessed their Daddy teach them a lesson in courage, humanity and humility that we all could benefit from. There will undoubtedly be hype and hoopla, but it is very doubtful that such attention was on the mind of Mr. Autrey when he dove beneath the train.
Perhaps we can take a page from the lesson book of Mr. Autrey. If he was capable of heroic response to a major crisis, by acting upon his beliefs and stepping up to help his fellow citizen, may we not feel emboldened to step up and support and defend our beliefs and help our fellow citizens as we face much less daunting challenges each day? Can we retrieve and revive an America "of the people and for the people," working together to help each other for the benefit of all, the way Mr Autrey apparently sees it? Or will we continue in the wasteland of self centered opportunism and arrogant greed and venal corruption that ignores the needs of our fellow man, our community and our children?
And what lessons are we teaching our children? Are we modeling courage and sacrifice to our children? Or are we supporting and praising short sighted greed and corruption that will leave an impoverished legacy for our children. The object lesson Mr. Autrey has brought us comes at an auspicious and an opportune time. May we study it well as we embark uppon the journey into 2007. And let us be thankful that men like Mr. Wesley Autrey are not yet extinct.
Why Not Just Kill The Messenger?
In a “shocking” [strike that] “startling” [no, not really, strike that too”…oh well..] “significant” development, following the broadcast of video footage of the execution of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi government announced that arrests were made respecting the unofficial depiction of misconduct by Iraqi officials handling the execution. The arrests, however, were of the persons accused of exposing the misconduct to the public. No charge has yet been publicly lodged that the persons being arrested were actually perpetrating the disrespectful and disgraceful taunting that preceeded the hanging or the cheering over Hussein’s dead body. While it may yet be revealed that the cell phone video footage was taken as a “souvenir” by Shiite attendees hoping to brag about their “final conquest”of Saddam Hussein, all that we know for certain is that the persons accused of revealing to the public the shoddy behavior and the disgraceful handling of what should have been a serious and official event have been arrested and accused of unlawful conduct. Since there was an Official Government Video of the event, any misrepresentation of the proceedings in the bootleg video could easily have been demonstrated. But the iraqi government has not disputed the accuracy of what was reported, only the public revelation of the truth.
In a better world, we might have hoped for the official response to focus on the perpetrators of the misconduct and the officials responsible for managing the execution with civility and due respect. However, in the current environment of cynicism and official corruption the response of attacking the messenger does not seem at all unpredictable. At least the public attention drawn to the matter, for whatever motives, will expose the baseness and inhumanity to which Iraqi society [and the international community] has sunk.
Perhaps the incident will also open the eyes of the US Congress to the obvious fact that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into a civil war that no US military force can “win.” The continuing bloodbath is clearly no longer about defeating an insurgency. It is a power struggle, carried out in bloody street warfare, over control of territory and resources in a deeply divided and chaotic country left with a leadership vacuum because of the bungled US invasion and subsequent occupation. Since our misguided President seems determined to pursue the absurd mission of “winning the war”in iraq, only the actions of Congress can intervene to limit further unnecessary loss of US military personnel. Whether by cutting off funding, except under a specific plan to withdraw forces, or through impeachment (if necessary), Congress must act to restore some sanity to US policy respecting Iraq.
In a better world, we might have hoped for the official response to focus on the perpetrators of the misconduct and the officials responsible for managing the execution with civility and due respect. However, in the current environment of cynicism and official corruption the response of attacking the messenger does not seem at all unpredictable. At least the public attention drawn to the matter, for whatever motives, will expose the baseness and inhumanity to which Iraqi society [and the international community] has sunk.
Perhaps the incident will also open the eyes of the US Congress to the obvious fact that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into a civil war that no US military force can “win.” The continuing bloodbath is clearly no longer about defeating an insurgency. It is a power struggle, carried out in bloody street warfare, over control of territory and resources in a deeply divided and chaotic country left with a leadership vacuum because of the bungled US invasion and subsequent occupation. Since our misguided President seems determined to pursue the absurd mission of “winning the war”in iraq, only the actions of Congress can intervene to limit further unnecessary loss of US military personnel. Whether by cutting off funding, except under a specific plan to withdraw forces, or through impeachment (if necessary), Congress must act to restore some sanity to US policy respecting Iraq.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Gerald Ford - Rest in Peace
The rise to power of Gerald Ford was as improbable as it was fortuitous for this country. Here was a man who became President and validated the maxim that the person most suited for the job is the person who does not seek it. Yet he answered the call of his country when perhaps it needed him most.
Torn asunder by a Viet Nam conflict that much of the country neither understood nor supported, and shaken by the revelation of extreme venality and cynical corruption by the President of the United States, the country needed a humble and essentially honest man. That commodity is something one would not expect to find in great supply in the halls of Congress. Yet from the ranks came Gerald Ford, a man who was more concerned about doing the peoples' business than doing side deals to line his pockets or increase his personal power.
Many question his decision to grant Nixon a pardon. Ford believed that history would judge Nixon, and in retrospect he was right. It was more important for the country to focus its energies upon healing and unification than persecuting a fallen leader who had resigned in disgrace. That decision seems so inconceivable in the context of the Congress that we have had for the past decade, one so immersed in political extremism and vendetta. The GOP led Congress would allow the country to sink into the sewer while focusing its energy upon scoring political points against the "enemy" Democrats. And the Democratic Congressional leadership has been quite willing to play along with the game while the White House has led an administration of global corruption that would make the puny efforts of Nixon look like those of a schoolyard punk.
The calm grace and humanity of President Ford, his support of Betty Ford at a time when many politicians would have turned their back upon an ailing wife {consider Newt Gingrich), and his ability to shift focus away from his person to the job he was determined to get done requires that history judge him kindly and with great respect. He deserves our thanks and our prayers. Rest in Peace, Mr. President.
Torn asunder by a Viet Nam conflict that much of the country neither understood nor supported, and shaken by the revelation of extreme venality and cynical corruption by the President of the United States, the country needed a humble and essentially honest man. That commodity is something one would not expect to find in great supply in the halls of Congress. Yet from the ranks came Gerald Ford, a man who was more concerned about doing the peoples' business than doing side deals to line his pockets or increase his personal power.
Many question his decision to grant Nixon a pardon. Ford believed that history would judge Nixon, and in retrospect he was right. It was more important for the country to focus its energies upon healing and unification than persecuting a fallen leader who had resigned in disgrace. That decision seems so inconceivable in the context of the Congress that we have had for the past decade, one so immersed in political extremism and vendetta. The GOP led Congress would allow the country to sink into the sewer while focusing its energy upon scoring political points against the "enemy" Democrats. And the Democratic Congressional leadership has been quite willing to play along with the game while the White House has led an administration of global corruption that would make the puny efforts of Nixon look like those of a schoolyard punk.
The calm grace and humanity of President Ford, his support of Betty Ford at a time when many politicians would have turned their back upon an ailing wife {consider Newt Gingrich), and his ability to shift focus away from his person to the job he was determined to get done requires that history judge him kindly and with great respect. He deserves our thanks and our prayers. Rest in Peace, Mr. President.
Put another in the “W” Column
Just when we were prone to think that President George W. Bush had pushed the limits of imagination in terms of incompetence, arrogance and poor judgment, our feckless leader seems to find a new way to top his latest achievement.
One recent rung achieved on the ladder of incredulity is the decision to send additional (ranging from 20,000 to 40,000) troops to Baghdad in the face of the deteriorating Iraqi civil war currently playing out. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have expressed their professional opinion that sending such additional troops would be ill-advised and quite possibly counterproductive. Past troop surges have done little or nothing to quell the rising sectarian violence and have provided additional cannon fodder, both political and physical, to warring factions who object to the US occupation forces. Additional troops signal Bush Administration intent to stay in Iraq indefinitely and to occupy the country under an already discredited puppet regime. Additional troops also provide more physical targets upon which these warring sectarian factions can direct and vent their wrath.
Former high ranking military officials, including Gen. Colin Powell (former Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State), have stated that there really are no additional troops to send. The redeployment would require sending troops who have already served their tours of duty back to Iraq, and requiring those already in theater to remain longer. While it is not news that President Bush would ignore seasoned professional military advice regarding Iraq, his current proposal in the face of an already overtaxed military constitutes dereliction of responsibility as Commander in Chief.
Rising to even greater heights, or sinking to lower depths (depending upon one’s political viewpoint) the Bush Administration has also displayed publicly how poorly it can manage the Iraq fiasco. Just prior to the end of 2006, and coinciding roughly with the Hajj, one of the most holy events in the Muslim world, the Shiite led Iraqi regime that is tenuously propped up by the Bush Administration and US occupation forces chose to execute Saddam Hussein. This execution was carried out in haste, without time for a thorough appeal process or the opportunity for international diplomacy to weigh in. Moreover, the execution was apparently conducted in an unruly and disrespectful manner ill befitting a responsible government. The execution was recorded in video on a cell phone and the footage was subsequently broadcast, showing scandalous jeers and cheering by Shiite officials in charge of the proceeding. There is little wonder that Sunni claims of unfairness, political vendetta and impropriety could feel well grounded.
More importantly, history has taught those of us willing to learn that a martyr is a far more powerful foe than a deposed and incarcerated one. President Bush, rather than use his influence to forestall the execution, went to bed leaving an aide to issue a vacuous press statement following the hanging of Saddam Hussein. In an Iraq rife with sectarian violence, Bush took no action to prevent fuel from being thrown upon the current conflagration. This response to the official execution of a major "villain" over whom the President has taken this country to war and sacrificed the lives of many thousands is a travesty. And having allowed the conflict to escalate, through incompetence or impotence, Bush now wants to send yet more US soldiers into Iraq to add more deaths to the toll that has already climbed above 3000. He has failed to articulate any strategy or plan that would justify the additional deployment or respond rationally to the clearly stated opposition voiced by experienced military experts. Folks, I would say that it cannot get any more absurd than this, but I believe I said that last time….
One recent rung achieved on the ladder of incredulity is the decision to send additional (ranging from 20,000 to 40,000) troops to Baghdad in the face of the deteriorating Iraqi civil war currently playing out. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have expressed their professional opinion that sending such additional troops would be ill-advised and quite possibly counterproductive. Past troop surges have done little or nothing to quell the rising sectarian violence and have provided additional cannon fodder, both political and physical, to warring factions who object to the US occupation forces. Additional troops signal Bush Administration intent to stay in Iraq indefinitely and to occupy the country under an already discredited puppet regime. Additional troops also provide more physical targets upon which these warring sectarian factions can direct and vent their wrath.
Former high ranking military officials, including Gen. Colin Powell (former Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State), have stated that there really are no additional troops to send. The redeployment would require sending troops who have already served their tours of duty back to Iraq, and requiring those already in theater to remain longer. While it is not news that President Bush would ignore seasoned professional military advice regarding Iraq, his current proposal in the face of an already overtaxed military constitutes dereliction of responsibility as Commander in Chief.
Rising to even greater heights, or sinking to lower depths (depending upon one’s political viewpoint) the Bush Administration has also displayed publicly how poorly it can manage the Iraq fiasco. Just prior to the end of 2006, and coinciding roughly with the Hajj, one of the most holy events in the Muslim world, the Shiite led Iraqi regime that is tenuously propped up by the Bush Administration and US occupation forces chose to execute Saddam Hussein. This execution was carried out in haste, without time for a thorough appeal process or the opportunity for international diplomacy to weigh in. Moreover, the execution was apparently conducted in an unruly and disrespectful manner ill befitting a responsible government. The execution was recorded in video on a cell phone and the footage was subsequently broadcast, showing scandalous jeers and cheering by Shiite officials in charge of the proceeding. There is little wonder that Sunni claims of unfairness, political vendetta and impropriety could feel well grounded.
More importantly, history has taught those of us willing to learn that a martyr is a far more powerful foe than a deposed and incarcerated one. President Bush, rather than use his influence to forestall the execution, went to bed leaving an aide to issue a vacuous press statement following the hanging of Saddam Hussein. In an Iraq rife with sectarian violence, Bush took no action to prevent fuel from being thrown upon the current conflagration. This response to the official execution of a major "villain" over whom the President has taken this country to war and sacrificed the lives of many thousands is a travesty. And having allowed the conflict to escalate, through incompetence or impotence, Bush now wants to send yet more US soldiers into Iraq to add more deaths to the toll that has already climbed above 3000. He has failed to articulate any strategy or plan that would justify the additional deployment or respond rationally to the clearly stated opposition voiced by experienced military experts. Folks, I would say that it cannot get any more absurd than this, but I believe I said that last time….
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Defense “Cover” in the Political War
Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, made some interesting and telling comments in a recent post-election interview regarding Iraq policy. Pace will be meeting with the bipartisan Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker and Lee Hamilton. President Bush has been forced [grudgingly] to concede that the American public has repudiated his handling of Iraq policy. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has been neutered and removed from power. Pres. Bush turned to the seasoned pragmatist in his father’s Cabinet to undertake a review of Iraq strategy, as a potential face saving way to change direction from his disastrously inept “Stay the Course” mantra. In an example of Pace’s current attitude, he stated the following: "We need to give ourselves a good, honest scrub about what is working, what is not working, what are the impediments to progress, and what should we change about the way we're doing it."
While Bush insists that the election will not force him to change his "Victory in Iraq" strategy, he now is quick to point out that he recognizes the need for changes in “tactics.” In an apparent departure from his bull headed [apologies to all bovines] and arrogant approach prior to the election, Bush now seems willing to at least listen to military experts whose advice differs from his own agenda. Those same experts have previously been dismissed as “cut and run” sympathizers by the Bush-Cheney-Rove cabal.
Perhaps the most beneficial effect of the US mid-term election with regard to the quagmire in Iraq is a new “openness” for dialogue and a greater opportunity to apply expert, reasoned and intelligent strategic analysis to the problem. These military policy experts of all political stripes, and those of non-partisan persuasion, now have political cover to express their opinions without fear of immediate dismissal from their posts by a micromanaging megalomaniacal Secretary of Defense. All agree that the situation is so badly messed up that there are no easy or quick solutions. However, the country has lost faith in the Bush cowboy rhetoric of “Victory” and has generally turned to the more rational goal of “resolution.” Arguably, if the latter had been in mind from the beginning, the situation would not have turned so dire. That is, of course, hindsight. Generals Pace, Casey and Abizaid can now openly discuss strategies for stabilization of the situation and extrication of US troops while minimizing the risk of further casualties. Few believe that the US can effectively determine or prevent the possibility of civil war in Iraq. That decision is and always has been one for the Iraqi people. Debate over whether the US presence has been an irritant and facilitator of sectarian strife or an ineffective buffer that has retarded the descent into all out civil war is academic as long as our presence remains.
The central question is whether the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people are invested enough in salvaging their country to attempt to work together, no matter how tense the alliance, to establish and implement a central government capable of controlling sectarian violence and rebuilding the country’s infrastructure. The election signaled a defeat of the Bush Strategy in the “political war” against rational and intelligent strategic analysis. The Defense experts now have “cover” to come forward and provide their ideas and advice regarding how to fix the mess created over the past three and one-half years of incompetent leadership by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. The Iraq problem has never truly been connected to, much less a "central front" in, the illusory and mythical "War on Terror," except in the deluded mind of Pres. Bush. Only by de-linking these two politically charged issues and permitting the experts to focus on the specific issues and problems relating to the Iraq occupation can we hope to find a rational and feasible resolution to US engagement.
The degree to which President Bush continues to try to obstruct this progressive turn should determine how aggressively the new Democratic led Congress has to push for immediate and thorough investigation of the massive corruption and incompetence in the Bush Administration’s handling of Iraq to date, including possible war crimes. We should hope that such political firefights will not be necessary to maintain the necessary cover for the Defense experts to develop and implement an effective strategy to get US troops out of an Iraq war that was neither legal nor necessary.
While Bush insists that the election will not force him to change his "Victory in Iraq" strategy, he now is quick to point out that he recognizes the need for changes in “tactics.” In an apparent departure from his bull headed [apologies to all bovines] and arrogant approach prior to the election, Bush now seems willing to at least listen to military experts whose advice differs from his own agenda. Those same experts have previously been dismissed as “cut and run” sympathizers by the Bush-Cheney-Rove cabal.
Perhaps the most beneficial effect of the US mid-term election with regard to the quagmire in Iraq is a new “openness” for dialogue and a greater opportunity to apply expert, reasoned and intelligent strategic analysis to the problem. These military policy experts of all political stripes, and those of non-partisan persuasion, now have political cover to express their opinions without fear of immediate dismissal from their posts by a micromanaging megalomaniacal Secretary of Defense. All agree that the situation is so badly messed up that there are no easy or quick solutions. However, the country has lost faith in the Bush cowboy rhetoric of “Victory” and has generally turned to the more rational goal of “resolution.” Arguably, if the latter had been in mind from the beginning, the situation would not have turned so dire. That is, of course, hindsight. Generals Pace, Casey and Abizaid can now openly discuss strategies for stabilization of the situation and extrication of US troops while minimizing the risk of further casualties. Few believe that the US can effectively determine or prevent the possibility of civil war in Iraq. That decision is and always has been one for the Iraqi people. Debate over whether the US presence has been an irritant and facilitator of sectarian strife or an ineffective buffer that has retarded the descent into all out civil war is academic as long as our presence remains.
The central question is whether the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people are invested enough in salvaging their country to attempt to work together, no matter how tense the alliance, to establish and implement a central government capable of controlling sectarian violence and rebuilding the country’s infrastructure. The election signaled a defeat of the Bush Strategy in the “political war” against rational and intelligent strategic analysis. The Defense experts now have “cover” to come forward and provide their ideas and advice regarding how to fix the mess created over the past three and one-half years of incompetent leadership by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. The Iraq problem has never truly been connected to, much less a "central front" in, the illusory and mythical "War on Terror," except in the deluded mind of Pres. Bush. Only by de-linking these two politically charged issues and permitting the experts to focus on the specific issues and problems relating to the Iraq occupation can we hope to find a rational and feasible resolution to US engagement.
The degree to which President Bush continues to try to obstruct this progressive turn should determine how aggressively the new Democratic led Congress has to push for immediate and thorough investigation of the massive corruption and incompetence in the Bush Administration’s handling of Iraq to date, including possible war crimes. We should hope that such political firefights will not be necessary to maintain the necessary cover for the Defense experts to develop and implement an effective strategy to get US troops out of an Iraq war that was neither legal nor necessary.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
The Sleeping Giant Awakens
The election results are almost complete. Save a potential for recount in Virginia, the reversal of fortunes by the GOP is complete. The public rebuke of the last six years of governance by the GOP in Congress and the White House is manifest. The Democrats will, come January, enjoy a comfortable lead in the House of Representatives, a margin similar to that held by the GOP over the past six years. It now looks like the Democrats will also enjoy a 51-49 majority in the Senate, assuming support of two Independents who have declared they will caucus with Democrats.
Pundits and analysts have attempted to portray the election results as a repudiation of the President’s handling of the War in Iraq. Bush attempted to dissemble in his news conference and to spin the results as an expression by the public that results were not sufficient and fast enough, but the public wants the US to stay in Iraq “until we achieve victory.” To be sure, the handling of Iraq was a factor in the election that has brought change to leadership in Washington. House Speaker elect Nancy Pelosi suggested that the first step President Bush could take to establish dialogue on Iraq would be to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in whom the Public and the military have lost confidence. Wednesday Morning following the Tuesday election, Rumsfeld was gone.
However, the impact of the election runs deeper than Iraq. The widespread dissatisfaction and the retirement of incumbents across the country in quarters thought safe by the GOP signal a more profound disapproval of the manner in which this country has been governed. The rule by a single party had become an antidemocratic and arrogant leviathan that brooked no dissent or opposition and refused to even listen respectfully to opposing ideas, even from within the GOP caucus. The public has waited in vain for answers to the legitimate questions about how and why the country was led into the Iraq invasion. The present Congress had no desire to exercise its Constitutional role of oversight. The perks of rule led those in power to believe that the public trust was instead the public trough. Legislation was guided by the interests of lobbyists willing to shovel truckloads of cash to elected representatives through their campaign accounts and then directly, ignoring completely all ethical rules. At the same time, the public was being stripped of its civil rights based upon jingoistic slogans and fear mongering about the “war on terror.”
The awakening of the public represents a repudiation of the manner in which it is being governed, not a proclamation on any single issue. There is no monolithic response to the many important issues that the country faces. That is precisely the problem with the GOP Neocon ideology and the imperial Presidency. The people of this country believe in discourse and dissent. They believe that opposing views can inform a more reasoned and effective result. The GOP refused to listen to or temper their ideology with opposing viewpoints. With control of Congress and the White House, they believed that they had no need to consider opposing views. They even threatened to eliminate filibuster with the “nuclear option” if the democrats tried to block a GOP initiative. The filibuster was developed as a stopgap tool of the minority to prevent oppression by a majority party. Many of the resulting measures were ill conceived and overreaching. The Congressional leadership was so arrogant that they directed staffers to insert provisions in final legislation that the Conference Committees had not approved, knowing that their control of Congress would back the move if the deception were eventually uncovered. And even measures that were reasonable took on a negative cast because of the way in which they were enacted.
The greatest lesson that the Democrats can take away from this election is how NOT to govern. While maintaining a sense of direction, a coherent strategy and a connection with the public on important issues, the Democrats need to listen carefully and respectfully to ideas and concerns raised by GOP representatives. If the ideas make sense, incorporate them. If they do not, respectfully decline. But never be afraid to listen to ideas that differ from your own, and never be afraid to learn something new. The governance that the American public wants and needs is one of collaboration and leadership, not arrogance and bullying tactics.
An additional move that the Democratic controlled Congress should take is to repeal the measures that stripped the American people of their Constitutional rights of liberty and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The country will only be truly safer when we dispel the ghost of the phony and indefinable “War on Terror” and focus on real threats to safety. Experts from all political stripes tell us that the country is no safer from a potential terrorist attack than before 9/11 occurred. One has to believe that if we had spent $300 Billion on improving the staffing, technical and coordination capabilities of US and international criminal enforcement agencies, that our situation would be far better. Instead, we have mortgaged the future of our children to create a fiasco that has led to civil war in Iraq and a greater risk to world peace than existed prior to 9/11. Calming the public hysteria and “group think” fostered by Bush and the Neocons will be difficult, but it is vitally important if the real threat of terrorist activity is to be addressed.
We forget that the activity of the 9/11 hijackers was known to police, CIA and FBI agencies prior to the attack. They simply lacked the procedures and the mentality to share that information with each other. One certainty is that rational measures specifically targets to address those shortcomings would not have cost the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the Iraq fiasco. There is no way to turn back the clock or to bring back those lost souls. But with the help of God and an awakened public, we may be able to change direction and limit further damage and unnecessary loss of life.
Pundits and analysts have attempted to portray the election results as a repudiation of the President’s handling of the War in Iraq. Bush attempted to dissemble in his news conference and to spin the results as an expression by the public that results were not sufficient and fast enough, but the public wants the US to stay in Iraq “until we achieve victory.” To be sure, the handling of Iraq was a factor in the election that has brought change to leadership in Washington. House Speaker elect Nancy Pelosi suggested that the first step President Bush could take to establish dialogue on Iraq would be to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in whom the Public and the military have lost confidence. Wednesday Morning following the Tuesday election, Rumsfeld was gone.
However, the impact of the election runs deeper than Iraq. The widespread dissatisfaction and the retirement of incumbents across the country in quarters thought safe by the GOP signal a more profound disapproval of the manner in which this country has been governed. The rule by a single party had become an antidemocratic and arrogant leviathan that brooked no dissent or opposition and refused to even listen respectfully to opposing ideas, even from within the GOP caucus. The public has waited in vain for answers to the legitimate questions about how and why the country was led into the Iraq invasion. The present Congress had no desire to exercise its Constitutional role of oversight. The perks of rule led those in power to believe that the public trust was instead the public trough. Legislation was guided by the interests of lobbyists willing to shovel truckloads of cash to elected representatives through their campaign accounts and then directly, ignoring completely all ethical rules. At the same time, the public was being stripped of its civil rights based upon jingoistic slogans and fear mongering about the “war on terror.”
The awakening of the public represents a repudiation of the manner in which it is being governed, not a proclamation on any single issue. There is no monolithic response to the many important issues that the country faces. That is precisely the problem with the GOP Neocon ideology and the imperial Presidency. The people of this country believe in discourse and dissent. They believe that opposing views can inform a more reasoned and effective result. The GOP refused to listen to or temper their ideology with opposing viewpoints. With control of Congress and the White House, they believed that they had no need to consider opposing views. They even threatened to eliminate filibuster with the “nuclear option” if the democrats tried to block a GOP initiative. The filibuster was developed as a stopgap tool of the minority to prevent oppression by a majority party. Many of the resulting measures were ill conceived and overreaching. The Congressional leadership was so arrogant that they directed staffers to insert provisions in final legislation that the Conference Committees had not approved, knowing that their control of Congress would back the move if the deception were eventually uncovered. And even measures that were reasonable took on a negative cast because of the way in which they were enacted.
The greatest lesson that the Democrats can take away from this election is how NOT to govern. While maintaining a sense of direction, a coherent strategy and a connection with the public on important issues, the Democrats need to listen carefully and respectfully to ideas and concerns raised by GOP representatives. If the ideas make sense, incorporate them. If they do not, respectfully decline. But never be afraid to listen to ideas that differ from your own, and never be afraid to learn something new. The governance that the American public wants and needs is one of collaboration and leadership, not arrogance and bullying tactics.
An additional move that the Democratic controlled Congress should take is to repeal the measures that stripped the American people of their Constitutional rights of liberty and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The country will only be truly safer when we dispel the ghost of the phony and indefinable “War on Terror” and focus on real threats to safety. Experts from all political stripes tell us that the country is no safer from a potential terrorist attack than before 9/11 occurred. One has to believe that if we had spent $300 Billion on improving the staffing, technical and coordination capabilities of US and international criminal enforcement agencies, that our situation would be far better. Instead, we have mortgaged the future of our children to create a fiasco that has led to civil war in Iraq and a greater risk to world peace than existed prior to 9/11. Calming the public hysteria and “group think” fostered by Bush and the Neocons will be difficult, but it is vitally important if the real threat of terrorist activity is to be addressed.
We forget that the activity of the 9/11 hijackers was known to police, CIA and FBI agencies prior to the attack. They simply lacked the procedures and the mentality to share that information with each other. One certainty is that rational measures specifically targets to address those shortcomings would not have cost the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in the Iraq fiasco. There is no way to turn back the clock or to bring back those lost souls. But with the help of God and an awakened public, we may be able to change direction and limit further damage and unnecessary loss of life.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Guest - The Guardian UK - Bush Danger to World Peace
Because the American Media tends not to report views from abroad, and because the article is primarily empirical survey based, I thought I would share it. [Without my own commentary]
______________________________
British Believe Bush Is More Dangerous Than Kim Jong-il
By Julian Glover
The Guardian UK
Friday 03 November 2006
US allies think Washington threat to world peace. Only bin Laden feared more in United Kingdom.
America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours and allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published today that reveals just how far the country's reputation has fallen among former supporters since the invasion of Iraq.
Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.
The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country.
It exposes high levels of distrust. In Britain, 69% of those questioned say they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only 7% thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security.
The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy.
Even in Israel, which has long looked to America to guarantee national security, support for the US has slipped.
Only one in four Israeli voters say that Mr Bush has made the world safer, outweighed by the number who think he has added to the risk of international conflict, 36% to 25%. A further 30% say that at best he has made no difference.
Voters in three of the four countries surveyed also overwhelmingly reject the decision to invade Iraq, with only Israeli voters in favour, 59% to 34% against. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar survey before the US presidential election in 2004.
In Britain 71% of voters now say the invasion was unjustified, a view shared by 89% of Mexicans and 73% of Canadians. Canada is a Nato member whose troops are in action in Afghanistan. Neither do voters think America has helped advance democracy in developing countries, one of the justifications for deposing Saddam Hussein. Only 11% of Britons and 28% of Israelis think that has happened.
As a result, Mr Bush is ranked with some of his bitterest enemies as a cause of global anxiety. He is outranked by Osama bin Laden in all four countries, but runs the al-Qaida leader close in the eyes of UK voters: 87% think the al-Qaida leader is a great or moderate danger to peace, compared with 75% who think this of Mr Bush.
The US leader and close ally of Tony Blair is seen in Britain as a more dangerous man than the president of Iran (62% think he is a danger), the North Korean leader (69%) and the leader of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah (65%).
Only 10% of British voters think that Mr Bush poses no danger at all. Israeli voters remain much more trusting of him, with 23% thinking he represents a serious danger and 61% thinking he does not.
Contrary to the usual expectation, older voters in Britain are slightly more hostile to the Iraq war than younger ones. Voters under 35 are also more trusting of Mr Bush, with hostility strongest among people aged 35-65.
· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from October 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010)
______________________________
British Believe Bush Is More Dangerous Than Kim Jong-il
By Julian Glover
The Guardian UK
Friday 03 November 2006
US allies think Washington threat to world peace. Only bin Laden feared more in United Kingdom.
America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours and allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published today that reveals just how far the country's reputation has fallen among former supporters since the invasion of Iraq.
Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.
The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country.
It exposes high levels of distrust. In Britain, 69% of those questioned say they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only 7% thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security.
The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy.
Even in Israel, which has long looked to America to guarantee national security, support for the US has slipped.
Only one in four Israeli voters say that Mr Bush has made the world safer, outweighed by the number who think he has added to the risk of international conflict, 36% to 25%. A further 30% say that at best he has made no difference.
Voters in three of the four countries surveyed also overwhelmingly reject the decision to invade Iraq, with only Israeli voters in favour, 59% to 34% against. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar survey before the US presidential election in 2004.
In Britain 71% of voters now say the invasion was unjustified, a view shared by 89% of Mexicans and 73% of Canadians. Canada is a Nato member whose troops are in action in Afghanistan. Neither do voters think America has helped advance democracy in developing countries, one of the justifications for deposing Saddam Hussein. Only 11% of Britons and 28% of Israelis think that has happened.
As a result, Mr Bush is ranked with some of his bitterest enemies as a cause of global anxiety. He is outranked by Osama bin Laden in all four countries, but runs the al-Qaida leader close in the eyes of UK voters: 87% think the al-Qaida leader is a great or moderate danger to peace, compared with 75% who think this of Mr Bush.
The US leader and close ally of Tony Blair is seen in Britain as a more dangerous man than the president of Iran (62% think he is a danger), the North Korean leader (69%) and the leader of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah (65%).
Only 10% of British voters think that Mr Bush poses no danger at all. Israeli voters remain much more trusting of him, with 23% thinking he represents a serious danger and 61% thinking he does not.
Contrary to the usual expectation, older voters in Britain are slightly more hostile to the Iraq war than younger ones. Voters under 35 are also more trusting of Mr Bush, with hostility strongest among people aged 35-65.
· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from October 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010)
A Bush “Retro” Approach to Immigration Control
The Bush Administration and the GOP seem to have hit upon a novel “Retro” strategy for curbing immigration and suppressing the influx of migrants into the United States. The approach of vigilant border patrols supported by armed vigilante “Minutemen” militias does not seem to have yielded results. Talking about sanctioning employers for hiring illegal immigrants and undocumented workers, but not actually prosecuting them, has failed. This new approach is based upon a reverse psychology theory. By making the US unattractive enough, these immigrants will not even desire to come here, and the immigration problem will be remedied.
One visible step is to build a 700 mile wall along the border, like the Chinese did to repel the invading Huns, or like the Germans did to establish a barrier between East and West Germany. The Berlin wall was much smaller than the proposed US barrier, but we like to do things in a big way. Israel also has constructed a barrier wall to seal off Palestinian inhabited sectors from areas claimed by Israel. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that at least part of that wall was illegal, but such technicalities have apparently not deterred the Israeli government from proceeding with the overall strategy. Such walls are important and imposing symbols of government control and restrictions of movement. They denote a closed off society that is unwelcoming of diverse ethnic and religious adherents and is intolerant of dissent. Any person seeking to come to this country would have to think twice whether this is the type of environment and lifestyle they truly seek.
The next step in the new strategy is to strip away from the citizenry and inhabitants certain rights that were previously viewed in the US, and throughout the world, as basic tenets of a “free nation.” Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, such as domestic wiretapping without court approval, was previously thought to be a Constitutional protection. However, the Bush Administration has dispensed with it. Another fundament of liberty was considered to be the right to be free from arrest or imprisonment without at least the right to challenge the basis for the detention. This principle of habeas corpus predates the Constitution and is embodied in the Magna Carta. The Bush Administration has adopted a number of measures which have stripped away this liberty as well. US citizens theoretically still have the right of habeas corpus that is denied non-citizens, but the procedures adopted do not even require that a detainee be permitted to prove US citizenship or obtain access to a lawyer. All the government has to do is arrest a person and hold them indefinitely without charging them. In such cases, any rights to counsel, to challenge detention or to confront accusers are denied. Anyone trying to immigrate to the US because of an oppressive regime that permits “disappearances” of persons by government agents and indefinite detention without communication with family or coming to America.
In addition, someone imprisoned by the American government, with or without justification, may be subjected to “aggressive interrogation” under the policies of the Bush Administration. The International community, the Geneva Conventions and human rights organizations all deem such treatment to be illegal “torture.” The Bush Administration believes the semantic difference is important, although someone being “water boarded” may not grasp the subtlety and nuance. The Bush objective is to make the risks of false imprisonment in the US like any other authoritarian or totalitarian country. These risks are not just speculative, as there are multiple case histories of abduction, “extraordinary rendition” and torture in "client" or accomplice states where torture is common practice or in secret US prisons abroad. Add to this the experiences disclosed regarding US prison facilities in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, and the message is pretty clear.
As an embellishing touch, the Bush Administration and the Department of Homeland Security have created a permeating and palpable climate of fear and distrust that casts a shadow over the entire country. There is almost no place in the country where one can avoid being confronted by some message or procedure that restricts behavior or brings to one’s consciousness the admonition that some purported risk of “terrorism” is in play. The constant drumbeat of government generated media announcements supports this campaign. The inconveniences, the delays and the confusion created by airport security personnel and procedures could make the most patient person crabby. But a person can be arrested for merely making a statement that is critical of the process or experience. Historically, this was an environment indicative of a “police state.” The Bush Administration would never be so candid as to label the procedures that accurately or with such a negative connotation. Marketing or spin does not, however, diminish the pervasiveness and impact of the environment and the dynamic.
The GOP has supported this campaign by fostering attitudes of racial and religious hostility and bigotry. The term “illegal immigrants” has become “code” for Mexican and Latino immigrants. Conservative campaigns and rhetoric talk about the “invasion” by such illegal immigrants and the “burden” that they place on social systems. No such concerns are expressed about Whites who cross the US/Canadian border and stay in this country illegally. The GOP and the White House has declared the conflict against Muslims, who in their view are explicitly or implicitly presumed to all be suspected “terrorists,” to be a “struggle for the future of civilization.” Coming from the President and the governing authority, such statements are advocacy for bigotry and religious intolerance. Blind adherents to the GOP “party line” are likely to ignore all the hard evidence in the world that Islam is as old as Christianity and no threat to civilization or to US citizens. As with Christianity and any other religion, there are extremists who attempt to use religion as a rallying point for a distorted vision or doctrine to excuse or justify violence. They do not, however, represent the mainstream tenets of the religion. In any event, these rhetorical attacks advance a divisive and suspicious atmosphere that is hostile to people not of White ethnic or Judeo-Christian backgrounds.
The sum of these measures appears designed to project an image of America as a place that is not welcoming and not tolerant of immigrants. Our activities are continually monitored, free speech is limited in public places, one can be spied upon and arrested without notice or the ability to challenge such treatment and detention can mean indefinite imprisonment and possible torture. These characteristics may or may not be as daunting as the experience the prospective immigrant has experienced in their country of origin, but they tend to make the US a much less attractive place to migrate to in order to improve the quality of one’s life. By projecting such images, the “Retro” strategy is to deter foreigners from attempting to enter the US or to stay long if they do come here.
Perhaps national elections will serve as a referendum on whether Americans consider this “Retro” America, and what our society is becoming, a remedy that is worse than the problem to be addressed. If they do feel the cure worse than the disease, the challenge will be to retrieve the America most citizens have believed in and the environment that was once respected and admired by the rest of the world, and considered a beacon of freedom, liberty and democracy.
One visible step is to build a 700 mile wall along the border, like the Chinese did to repel the invading Huns, or like the Germans did to establish a barrier between East and West Germany. The Berlin wall was much smaller than the proposed US barrier, but we like to do things in a big way. Israel also has constructed a barrier wall to seal off Palestinian inhabited sectors from areas claimed by Israel. The Israeli Supreme Court ruled that at least part of that wall was illegal, but such technicalities have apparently not deterred the Israeli government from proceeding with the overall strategy. Such walls are important and imposing symbols of government control and restrictions of movement. They denote a closed off society that is unwelcoming of diverse ethnic and religious adherents and is intolerant of dissent. Any person seeking to come to this country would have to think twice whether this is the type of environment and lifestyle they truly seek.
The next step in the new strategy is to strip away from the citizenry and inhabitants certain rights that were previously viewed in the US, and throughout the world, as basic tenets of a “free nation.” Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, such as domestic wiretapping without court approval, was previously thought to be a Constitutional protection. However, the Bush Administration has dispensed with it. Another fundament of liberty was considered to be the right to be free from arrest or imprisonment without at least the right to challenge the basis for the detention. This principle of habeas corpus predates the Constitution and is embodied in the Magna Carta. The Bush Administration has adopted a number of measures which have stripped away this liberty as well. US citizens theoretically still have the right of habeas corpus that is denied non-citizens, but the procedures adopted do not even require that a detainee be permitted to prove US citizenship or obtain access to a lawyer. All the government has to do is arrest a person and hold them indefinitely without charging them. In such cases, any rights to counsel, to challenge detention or to confront accusers are denied. Anyone trying to immigrate to the US because of an oppressive regime that permits “disappearances” of persons by government agents and indefinite detention without communication with family or coming to America.
In addition, someone imprisoned by the American government, with or without justification, may be subjected to “aggressive interrogation” under the policies of the Bush Administration. The International community, the Geneva Conventions and human rights organizations all deem such treatment to be illegal “torture.” The Bush Administration believes the semantic difference is important, although someone being “water boarded” may not grasp the subtlety and nuance. The Bush objective is to make the risks of false imprisonment in the US like any other authoritarian or totalitarian country. These risks are not just speculative, as there are multiple case histories of abduction, “extraordinary rendition” and torture in "client" or accomplice states where torture is common practice or in secret US prisons abroad. Add to this the experiences disclosed regarding US prison facilities in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, and the message is pretty clear.
As an embellishing touch, the Bush Administration and the Department of Homeland Security have created a permeating and palpable climate of fear and distrust that casts a shadow over the entire country. There is almost no place in the country where one can avoid being confronted by some message or procedure that restricts behavior or brings to one’s consciousness the admonition that some purported risk of “terrorism” is in play. The constant drumbeat of government generated media announcements supports this campaign. The inconveniences, the delays and the confusion created by airport security personnel and procedures could make the most patient person crabby. But a person can be arrested for merely making a statement that is critical of the process or experience. Historically, this was an environment indicative of a “police state.” The Bush Administration would never be so candid as to label the procedures that accurately or with such a negative connotation. Marketing or spin does not, however, diminish the pervasiveness and impact of the environment and the dynamic.
The GOP has supported this campaign by fostering attitudes of racial and religious hostility and bigotry. The term “illegal immigrants” has become “code” for Mexican and Latino immigrants. Conservative campaigns and rhetoric talk about the “invasion” by such illegal immigrants and the “burden” that they place on social systems. No such concerns are expressed about Whites who cross the US/Canadian border and stay in this country illegally. The GOP and the White House has declared the conflict against Muslims, who in their view are explicitly or implicitly presumed to all be suspected “terrorists,” to be a “struggle for the future of civilization.” Coming from the President and the governing authority, such statements are advocacy for bigotry and religious intolerance. Blind adherents to the GOP “party line” are likely to ignore all the hard evidence in the world that Islam is as old as Christianity and no threat to civilization or to US citizens. As with Christianity and any other religion, there are extremists who attempt to use religion as a rallying point for a distorted vision or doctrine to excuse or justify violence. They do not, however, represent the mainstream tenets of the religion. In any event, these rhetorical attacks advance a divisive and suspicious atmosphere that is hostile to people not of White ethnic or Judeo-Christian backgrounds.
The sum of these measures appears designed to project an image of America as a place that is not welcoming and not tolerant of immigrants. Our activities are continually monitored, free speech is limited in public places, one can be spied upon and arrested without notice or the ability to challenge such treatment and detention can mean indefinite imprisonment and possible torture. These characteristics may or may not be as daunting as the experience the prospective immigrant has experienced in their country of origin, but they tend to make the US a much less attractive place to migrate to in order to improve the quality of one’s life. By projecting such images, the “Retro” strategy is to deter foreigners from attempting to enter the US or to stay long if they do come here.
Perhaps national elections will serve as a referendum on whether Americans consider this “Retro” America, and what our society is becoming, a remedy that is worse than the problem to be addressed. If they do feel the cure worse than the disease, the challenge will be to retrieve the America most citizens have believed in and the environment that was once respected and admired by the rest of the world, and considered a beacon of freedom, liberty and democracy.
Honest Patriotism from the Cavalry [Horse’s Mouth]
At some point, perhaps, the public may tire or see through the cynical manipulation of public opinion based upon claims that public objection to the Iraq invasion and occupation is an act of disloyalty to the US military troops serving in Iraq. The Bush Administration also contends that it is necessary to sacrifice the lives of still more soldiers in order to honor those already killed or injured. Consider then the following clear pronouncement from those who have served in the military and who deserve far more credibility than a President who not only avoided active military service, but failed even to fulfill the limited responsibilities of military reserve duty:
Wednesday 01 November 2006 – The Nation
"As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for US troops to come home."
This statement - the Appeal for Redress - has been signed by over 600 active-duty soldiers who have had enough of seeing their brothers and sisters sacrificed to the disastrous war in Iraq. In this month alone, 101 American soldiers have been killed, more than in any month since January, 2005 and the fourth highest monthly total since the war began in March, 2003.
[Sergeant Jonathan] Hutto, who served off the Iraq coast from September 2005 until March, told the Washington Post, "I hear discussions every day among my shipmates about the war in Iraq and how it doesn't make any sense at this point. There is no victory in sight."
The objections raised by these active service members and war veterans are not based upon a lack of nerve or commitment to serve in the military. These people bow to no one in their devotion to country. They voice rational conclusions based upon their personal experiences and knowledge. They cite the deception under which the invasion was initiated and failure to find any weapons of mass destruction. They also criticize the Bush Administration false linkage between Iraq and the Al Qaeda sponsored attack on 9/11. Seeing no credible justification for the “mission” in Iraq, no clear articulation of feasible objectives and no sensible plan for bringing resolution to the situation in Iraq, these patriots have all concluded that continuing to place in harms way and to lose more American troops in Iraq is wrong. They respectfully demand that the troops in Iraq be brought home. In their view, true “support” for the troops would be applying pressure on the Bush Administration to develop and implement a plan to bring the troops home.
The Bush Administration’s shameless misrepresentations and cynical attacks on the character and patriotism of Americans, including combat veterans, who exercise their right to dissent is the truly unpatriotic act. It is a sad development that honored and decorated veterans must band together and make such public statements to defend their honor and to correct the lies and distortions by President Bush and his entourage. The public statement by these service members is an embarrassment to the Administration. Even more embarrassing is the fact that the actions of our “leaders” made such a pronouncement necessary to correct the false propaganda broadcast by the Bush Administration.
Wednesday 01 November 2006 – The Nation
"As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for US troops to come home."
This statement - the Appeal for Redress - has been signed by over 600 active-duty soldiers who have had enough of seeing their brothers and sisters sacrificed to the disastrous war in Iraq. In this month alone, 101 American soldiers have been killed, more than in any month since January, 2005 and the fourth highest monthly total since the war began in March, 2003.
[Sergeant Jonathan] Hutto, who served off the Iraq coast from September 2005 until March, told the Washington Post, "I hear discussions every day among my shipmates about the war in Iraq and how it doesn't make any sense at this point. There is no victory in sight."
The objections raised by these active service members and war veterans are not based upon a lack of nerve or commitment to serve in the military. These people bow to no one in their devotion to country. They voice rational conclusions based upon their personal experiences and knowledge. They cite the deception under which the invasion was initiated and failure to find any weapons of mass destruction. They also criticize the Bush Administration false linkage between Iraq and the Al Qaeda sponsored attack on 9/11. Seeing no credible justification for the “mission” in Iraq, no clear articulation of feasible objectives and no sensible plan for bringing resolution to the situation in Iraq, these patriots have all concluded that continuing to place in harms way and to lose more American troops in Iraq is wrong. They respectfully demand that the troops in Iraq be brought home. In their view, true “support” for the troops would be applying pressure on the Bush Administration to develop and implement a plan to bring the troops home.
The Bush Administration’s shameless misrepresentations and cynical attacks on the character and patriotism of Americans, including combat veterans, who exercise their right to dissent is the truly unpatriotic act. It is a sad development that honored and decorated veterans must band together and make such public statements to defend their honor and to correct the lies and distortions by President Bush and his entourage. The public statement by these service members is an embarrassment to the Administration. Even more embarrassing is the fact that the actions of our “leaders” made such a pronouncement necessary to correct the false propaganda broadcast by the Bush Administration.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
The Age of Empire
Many have attempted to dismiss George W. Bush and his Administration as merely incompetent or a bunch of idiots. I would tend to disagree to the extent that bumbling may suggest that the Administration is not also dangerous. Our President is not the brightest bulb on the tree, and he does not pride himself as such. He sees himself as a “man of action.” Too much cerebral energy and reflection is often the enemy of action. And it would be fair to assume that Vice President Cheney prefers that the Chief Executive not be extremely bright, as that makes manipulation more difficult. It is enough that George W. Bush sees himself as the leader of the greatest nation on earth and that God has ordained him to spread the American way of life across the planet. Armed with this “knowledge,” he has implemented a foreign policy based upon confrontation rather than cooperation and diplomacy. Other sovereign states are either his pawns or his enemies. Reaching back to the Jacksonian theory of democracy and foreign relations, Bush believes that any other country that is not “democratic” is a threat to the United States. Any country that refuses to bend to the will of his Administration or that is run by a regime that rejects US claims of arbitrary rights and the license to interfere in that country’s affairs is deemed a threat or even labeled a “rogue” state.
The revived policy of Manifest Destiny that the Bush Administration espouses is not a recent development. George H.W. Bush followed it, but with a bit more finesse than his son, perhaps because of his years with the CIA and an understanding that international relations require some subtlety. The Clinton Administration senior foreign policy advisors harbored the notion that the US had the right to intervene in the affairs of other sovereign nations if there appeared to be a serious threat to US control of global economic markets. Clinton preferred diplomacy, perhaps because he is more adept with language, and followed the Roosevelt advice of “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” The Bush Administration, in contrast, has gone about the globe threatening anyone who raises opposition to its agenda and plans. But conquest and control has been a consistent objective of this country's leadership.
To make sense of the Bush Doctrine, it is important to look at the strategy more than the implementation. The execution of the strategy has been, and is likely to go down in the annals of history as, one of the greatest displays of ineptitude and mismanagement this country has ever seen. But back to the strategy. In order to accomplish a conquest, the central goal is the capture and control of vital resources. Those resources could be in the form of: a)land that has special value because of its volume, climate or strategic location; b)the populace that has special value because of shear numbers, special skills [such as military proficiency] or sophistication and education that would foster productivity by the conquered asset; or c) important natural resources that are valuable because of the universal demand for them and their linkage to global economic markets.
When analyzed in this context, it is easy to understand the desire of the Bush Administration to invade Iraq, topple the Saddam Hussein regime and establish a client state. Iraq is strategically located in the Middle East, and as a gateway between Arabian oil fields and Eastern Europe. The people of Iraq were considered some of the best educated and capable people of the region prior to the imposition of sanctions that strangled the lifeblood of the country and caused the highly trained professionals to flee. It goes without saying that Iraq possesses huge deposits and reserves of petroleum, [approximately 25% of the world reserves] a quantity that could manipulate or destabilize world markets if controlled and developed. The notion that Bush invaded Iraq because of some perceived threat to US citizens or national security has not only been debunked, it was absurd in the first place. The Downing Street Memos confirm that Bush and Blair discussed sending drone planes over Iraq with UN markings in order to provoke an attack, thereby providing justification for military intervention with UN support. Other documented reports from Cabinet level meetings show that Bush entered the White House with the agenda of regime change in Iraq.
When looked at from the vantage point of targets for conquest, the choice to invade Iraq seems the obvious one. The purported excuse for the attack, some form of "anticipatory self-defense," only serves to distract attention and confuse the real issues. One has to put aside considerations of international law, ethics and compassion for innocent civilians to pursue the Bush Doctrine. But Karl Rove has been so masterful in manipulating the public through a campaign of fear and hysteria, the country seems to have simply forgotten about moral principles and national integrity. The loss of innocent lives has not seemed to trouble the Bush Administration too much, whether the deaths took place abroad or in the Gulf Coast of teh United States. It also does not seem to matter to the White House if the deceased were US soldiers and citizens or Iraqis. The Bush Administration has always regarded international law as a tool to pressure other governments to follow Washington directives, and a mere inconvenience when it would appear to impede that plans of the Administration. [e.g., Geneva Conventions, Tokyo Protocol, NPT, and the list goes on]
That the Bush Doctrine can be articulated and explained does not make it legal. Neither does it suggest that the majority of American people support it. The approval ratings for Bush are stuck at around 33% and are unlikely to improve. If more people actually understood the strategy and Bush Doctrine, it is possible that those approval ratings could go even lower. It is ironic that a single political party controls the White House and Congress and yet the leadership is so out of touch with the majority of American people. The belief that the American people would approve of torture of prisoners, rape and murder of civilians, use of white phosphorous [napalm equivalent or worse] on civilians, kidnapping and indefinite detention of people without any right to contest the basis for their imprisonment seems to push the envelope. Even if the public had been inclined to endorse an immoral, illegal and foolhardy adventure such as invading another country and deposing its ruler [keep in mind that the US has done so before], one could hardly expect continued support when the job has been done so poorly.
The revived policy of Manifest Destiny that the Bush Administration espouses is not a recent development. George H.W. Bush followed it, but with a bit more finesse than his son, perhaps because of his years with the CIA and an understanding that international relations require some subtlety. The Clinton Administration senior foreign policy advisors harbored the notion that the US had the right to intervene in the affairs of other sovereign nations if there appeared to be a serious threat to US control of global economic markets. Clinton preferred diplomacy, perhaps because he is more adept with language, and followed the Roosevelt advice of “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” The Bush Administration, in contrast, has gone about the globe threatening anyone who raises opposition to its agenda and plans. But conquest and control has been a consistent objective of this country's leadership.
To make sense of the Bush Doctrine, it is important to look at the strategy more than the implementation. The execution of the strategy has been, and is likely to go down in the annals of history as, one of the greatest displays of ineptitude and mismanagement this country has ever seen. But back to the strategy. In order to accomplish a conquest, the central goal is the capture and control of vital resources. Those resources could be in the form of: a)land that has special value because of its volume, climate or strategic location; b)the populace that has special value because of shear numbers, special skills [such as military proficiency] or sophistication and education that would foster productivity by the conquered asset; or c) important natural resources that are valuable because of the universal demand for them and their linkage to global economic markets.
When analyzed in this context, it is easy to understand the desire of the Bush Administration to invade Iraq, topple the Saddam Hussein regime and establish a client state. Iraq is strategically located in the Middle East, and as a gateway between Arabian oil fields and Eastern Europe. The people of Iraq were considered some of the best educated and capable people of the region prior to the imposition of sanctions that strangled the lifeblood of the country and caused the highly trained professionals to flee. It goes without saying that Iraq possesses huge deposits and reserves of petroleum, [approximately 25% of the world reserves] a quantity that could manipulate or destabilize world markets if controlled and developed. The notion that Bush invaded Iraq because of some perceived threat to US citizens or national security has not only been debunked, it was absurd in the first place. The Downing Street Memos confirm that Bush and Blair discussed sending drone planes over Iraq with UN markings in order to provoke an attack, thereby providing justification for military intervention with UN support. Other documented reports from Cabinet level meetings show that Bush entered the White House with the agenda of regime change in Iraq.
When looked at from the vantage point of targets for conquest, the choice to invade Iraq seems the obvious one. The purported excuse for the attack, some form of "anticipatory self-defense," only serves to distract attention and confuse the real issues. One has to put aside considerations of international law, ethics and compassion for innocent civilians to pursue the Bush Doctrine. But Karl Rove has been so masterful in manipulating the public through a campaign of fear and hysteria, the country seems to have simply forgotten about moral principles and national integrity. The loss of innocent lives has not seemed to trouble the Bush Administration too much, whether the deaths took place abroad or in the Gulf Coast of teh United States. It also does not seem to matter to the White House if the deceased were US soldiers and citizens or Iraqis. The Bush Administration has always regarded international law as a tool to pressure other governments to follow Washington directives, and a mere inconvenience when it would appear to impede that plans of the Administration. [e.g., Geneva Conventions, Tokyo Protocol, NPT, and the list goes on]
That the Bush Doctrine can be articulated and explained does not make it legal. Neither does it suggest that the majority of American people support it. The approval ratings for Bush are stuck at around 33% and are unlikely to improve. If more people actually understood the strategy and Bush Doctrine, it is possible that those approval ratings could go even lower. It is ironic that a single political party controls the White House and Congress and yet the leadership is so out of touch with the majority of American people. The belief that the American people would approve of torture of prisoners, rape and murder of civilians, use of white phosphorous [napalm equivalent or worse] on civilians, kidnapping and indefinite detention of people without any right to contest the basis for their imprisonment seems to push the envelope. Even if the public had been inclined to endorse an immoral, illegal and foolhardy adventure such as invading another country and deposing its ruler [keep in mind that the US has done so before], one could hardly expect continued support when the job has been done so poorly.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Democracy and Free & Fair Elections
On Sunday [October 8, 2006], the New York Times reported that tens of thousands of Georgia voters recently received letters telling them they must show a photo ID to vote on Election Day despite repeated court rulings striking down Georgia's restrictive voter ID requirement.
The media is quickly prepared to dismiss the conspiracy theorists who suggest that concerted and planned measures to subvert the democratic and fair election process. The research and testing of the Diebold electronic voting machines showing the very real potential for manipulation of vote tabulations and “fixing” election results have received little consistent and in depth reportage. Substantial evidence of the ease with which security of the voting machines could be breached and compromised has been presented and verified by independent analysts. The voting tabulation could be manipulated to cause the machine to record votes cast for one candidate to be placed in another candidate’s column. Moreover, programming sophistication has been shown to enable the machine to impose these “adjustments” only when voting results are within certain parameters, thus rendering the manipulation more difficult to discover. Concerns that the majority party currently in control might stoop to unethical or illegal voting fraud measures to maintain that hold on to power are ignored or dismissed as paranoia.
But are these concerns so far fetched? When the Secretary of State in two critical election jurisdictions also served as the Campaign Chair of the Republican Party, and thereafter took deliberate and persistent actions to thwart investigations into alleged irregularities in election procedures, does manipulation seem out of the question? Katherine Harris took every measure that she could, including one or more that were enjoined by the Florida judiciary, to obstruct the full examination and counting of ballots. Kenneth Blackwell adopted measures and issued orders to restrict the investigation of voting irregularities. Complaints about the failure to provide adequate voting machines in heavily populated precincts that were traditionally Democratic went unresolved and largely unexamined by Blackwell’s office. Subsequently, both Harris and Blackwell have been rewarded by substantial GOP financial support backing their candidacy for higher elective office.
Stalin declared that those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything. The federal legislation enacted by the GOP controlled Congress is resulting in the rapid expansion of electronic voting machines across the country. Many of these devices have no paper backup to provide for audit and verification that the tabulations reported electronically actually reflect the votes cast on Election Day. The development of technology may or may not keep pace with the development of methods to pervert the technology for unethical and illegal purposes. One very interesting suggestion was raised during the 2004 election. That suggestion was that international observers be employed to help assure that the election was conducted in a fair and legal manner. This is the same process that the US frequently urges when elections are conducted in developing countries or countries where the US Government has concerns about which regime will obtain control as a result of the election. However, the suggestion that similar independent international observation of the US election process and the potential that an objective report of the facts bearing upon whether the election was free and fair was treated almost as an insult and a preposterous idea. The only thing that is perhaps more absurd is the way in which the American public stands by quietly as the democratic institutions are continually and substantially eroded. The GOP stated objective is a “permanent majority” that controls the White House, Congress and the Judiciary.
Perhaps the question deserves being raised again. Is it possible that there could be a concerted effort to suppress voters or to manipulate voting results? Nawwww, never happen! This is America.
The media is quickly prepared to dismiss the conspiracy theorists who suggest that concerted and planned measures to subvert the democratic and fair election process. The research and testing of the Diebold electronic voting machines showing the very real potential for manipulation of vote tabulations and “fixing” election results have received little consistent and in depth reportage. Substantial evidence of the ease with which security of the voting machines could be breached and compromised has been presented and verified by independent analysts. The voting tabulation could be manipulated to cause the machine to record votes cast for one candidate to be placed in another candidate’s column. Moreover, programming sophistication has been shown to enable the machine to impose these “adjustments” only when voting results are within certain parameters, thus rendering the manipulation more difficult to discover. Concerns that the majority party currently in control might stoop to unethical or illegal voting fraud measures to maintain that hold on to power are ignored or dismissed as paranoia.
But are these concerns so far fetched? When the Secretary of State in two critical election jurisdictions also served as the Campaign Chair of the Republican Party, and thereafter took deliberate and persistent actions to thwart investigations into alleged irregularities in election procedures, does manipulation seem out of the question? Katherine Harris took every measure that she could, including one or more that were enjoined by the Florida judiciary, to obstruct the full examination and counting of ballots. Kenneth Blackwell adopted measures and issued orders to restrict the investigation of voting irregularities. Complaints about the failure to provide adequate voting machines in heavily populated precincts that were traditionally Democratic went unresolved and largely unexamined by Blackwell’s office. Subsequently, both Harris and Blackwell have been rewarded by substantial GOP financial support backing their candidacy for higher elective office.
Stalin declared that those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything. The federal legislation enacted by the GOP controlled Congress is resulting in the rapid expansion of electronic voting machines across the country. Many of these devices have no paper backup to provide for audit and verification that the tabulations reported electronically actually reflect the votes cast on Election Day. The development of technology may or may not keep pace with the development of methods to pervert the technology for unethical and illegal purposes. One very interesting suggestion was raised during the 2004 election. That suggestion was that international observers be employed to help assure that the election was conducted in a fair and legal manner. This is the same process that the US frequently urges when elections are conducted in developing countries or countries where the US Government has concerns about which regime will obtain control as a result of the election. However, the suggestion that similar independent international observation of the US election process and the potential that an objective report of the facts bearing upon whether the election was free and fair was treated almost as an insult and a preposterous idea. The only thing that is perhaps more absurd is the way in which the American public stands by quietly as the democratic institutions are continually and substantially eroded. The GOP stated objective is a “permanent majority” that controls the White House, Congress and the Judiciary.
Perhaps the question deserves being raised again. Is it possible that there could be a concerted effort to suppress voters or to manipulate voting results? Nawwww, never happen! This is America.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Diagnosis Democracy - Critical Internal Systemic Failure
The handling of American policy, foreign and domestic, poses serious risks to the vitality of democracy in this country. However, the potentially greater danger to a functional democracy is when the basic institutions that are supposed to balance the equation fail to act responsibly. The Constitutional counterbalance to an overly aggressive or out of control executive branch should come from Congressional and judicial oversight and action. The counterbalance to secrecy and violations of law and ethics by the government should come from professional and thorough investigative reporting. If the public is reasonably informed, survival of democracy ultimately depends upon the citizenry taking action to remove from power those elected representatives that break faith with their sworn public trust.
A great deal of ink has been spilled on the incestuous and complicit GOP Congress led by the same party as the President. Ethics, regard for the welfare of the public and even principles of common sense have taken a back seat to the accretion and consolidation of power. When we consider that the “investigation” of the potential cover up by Speaker Hastert is being conducted by the same committee that wanted to change the House Ethics Rules so that Tom Delay would not have to step down, despite a federal indictment, it seems obvious that the current Congress is too far gone to be effectively retrieved or “fixed” unless and until the GOP majority is broken. When and if that happens, there will at least be the possibility of holding accountable those who have breached public trust and sold out their constituents and the country. Accountability does not necessarily require mass witch hunts, congressional investigations and recriminations. More importantly, the change of majority would create a true check and balance, the risk of being taken to task for one’s actions. It would thereby require members of Congress to act with greater fidelity to the job description they were sent to Washington to accomplish.
An institutional failure of equal or greater magnitude has been the unwillingness or inability of the media to develop and maintain a focus and a level of professionalism that would justify their special protections under the Constitution. For years, investigative reporting has been in suspended animation. The media, whether because of its corporate ownership, its lack of professionalism or its lack of courage, failed to expose available facts and inform the public of misconduct and breaches of trust by the White House and Congress. When stories did surface, typically months or years after the percipient facts were available, they were given the kind of attention that a puppy gives to a stick that is thrown. The story would get a few moments of cursory attention and then the media would chase off after some other distraction. The attention that the media focused on the White House upon release of the Bob Woodward book [“State of Denial”] was quickly wiped from the media spotlight when the Foley – Hastert scandal broke, involving Congressional Pages and failure of Congressional leadership to discipline its members.
It is true that the degree and the number of issues in which the staggering incompetence and venality of the Bush Administration and the Frist-Hastert [Delay] Congress have betrayed the American people makes keeping up with all of the stories of misconduct difficult. But no one said the job was supposed to be an easy one. And there clearly should be sufficient media outlets and journalists to permit multitasking. Every reporter need not attempt to cover the same story. The prevailing attitude stems from laziness and unprofessionalism. Moreover, it could be persuasively argued that a strong, vigilant and vital press might have discouraged such blatant corruption and discouraged the proliferation of misconduct that prevails. But a critical function lacking in the media today is the professional ability to discern real news from distraction and propaganda.
One easy example is the reporting on the Bush and Cheney stump speeches being delivered on the campaign trail. Both toss out meaningless jingoistic rhetoric about “cut and run” and “soft on terrorism” and national security. These blatant attempts to reintroduce the hysteria of fear are transparent. However, the media seems incapable of the courage to step back and disengage from being used as a propaganda tool. The editors should follow a simple rule. If the speech is not delivered to the public and fails to contain any new substantive information, it does not deserve daily public airing. Unless Bush and Cheney include specific information that supports their name calling and demagoguery, the media should simply treat the speech or appearance as a footnote and a campaign stop on the President's or Vice President’s itinerary. In the case of the recent Bush and Cheney campaign speeches to closed partisan audiences, the "content" is no more than the typical pandering, sloganeering and baseless rhetorical attacks. The media should spend their time and energy developing and publishing stories that are fact based and which involve important issues and events that affect the public.
The same standard should hold true for press coverage of Democratic representative speeches. In general, however, speeches by Democrats that do involve specific reference to factual matters and documented malfeasance by the GOP Congress or the White House have seen little daylight in the press. Balance is needed, professionalism and a greater attention span is needed. The notion that an item is not necessarily news because Bush or Cheney opens his mouth need attention. Instead of reportage that is miles wide and a millimeter deep, we need more in-depth reporting and analysis of a narrower range of issues that are more central to the functioning of our democracy. Do we really need to hear more of Bush or Cheney accusing Democrats of treason because of their dissent? What is needed is specific information about why, after five years of rhetoric and control of the government by the same party, the American people are less safe or certainly no safer than they were on 9/11. We need factual reporting about specific successes and failures of the Administration in the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The media needs to give us the facts, we can generate the spin ourselves.
We the People deserve better; and we can achieve better government. But we need at least minimal functioning or the fundamental institutions that make up our democratic form of government. If the current rate of deterioration and destruction of those institutions continues, the vital signs will fade and the loss will be irretrievable.
.........
footnote: If you think that PBS is giving you "balanced" news reporting, think again. See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100806Y.shtml
A great deal of ink has been spilled on the incestuous and complicit GOP Congress led by the same party as the President. Ethics, regard for the welfare of the public and even principles of common sense have taken a back seat to the accretion and consolidation of power. When we consider that the “investigation” of the potential cover up by Speaker Hastert is being conducted by the same committee that wanted to change the House Ethics Rules so that Tom Delay would not have to step down, despite a federal indictment, it seems obvious that the current Congress is too far gone to be effectively retrieved or “fixed” unless and until the GOP majority is broken. When and if that happens, there will at least be the possibility of holding accountable those who have breached public trust and sold out their constituents and the country. Accountability does not necessarily require mass witch hunts, congressional investigations and recriminations. More importantly, the change of majority would create a true check and balance, the risk of being taken to task for one’s actions. It would thereby require members of Congress to act with greater fidelity to the job description they were sent to Washington to accomplish.
An institutional failure of equal or greater magnitude has been the unwillingness or inability of the media to develop and maintain a focus and a level of professionalism that would justify their special protections under the Constitution. For years, investigative reporting has been in suspended animation. The media, whether because of its corporate ownership, its lack of professionalism or its lack of courage, failed to expose available facts and inform the public of misconduct and breaches of trust by the White House and Congress. When stories did surface, typically months or years after the percipient facts were available, they were given the kind of attention that a puppy gives to a stick that is thrown. The story would get a few moments of cursory attention and then the media would chase off after some other distraction. The attention that the media focused on the White House upon release of the Bob Woodward book [“State of Denial”] was quickly wiped from the media spotlight when the Foley – Hastert scandal broke, involving Congressional Pages and failure of Congressional leadership to discipline its members.
It is true that the degree and the number of issues in which the staggering incompetence and venality of the Bush Administration and the Frist-Hastert [Delay] Congress have betrayed the American people makes keeping up with all of the stories of misconduct difficult. But no one said the job was supposed to be an easy one. And there clearly should be sufficient media outlets and journalists to permit multitasking. Every reporter need not attempt to cover the same story. The prevailing attitude stems from laziness and unprofessionalism. Moreover, it could be persuasively argued that a strong, vigilant and vital press might have discouraged such blatant corruption and discouraged the proliferation of misconduct that prevails. But a critical function lacking in the media today is the professional ability to discern real news from distraction and propaganda.
One easy example is the reporting on the Bush and Cheney stump speeches being delivered on the campaign trail. Both toss out meaningless jingoistic rhetoric about “cut and run” and “soft on terrorism” and national security. These blatant attempts to reintroduce the hysteria of fear are transparent. However, the media seems incapable of the courage to step back and disengage from being used as a propaganda tool. The editors should follow a simple rule. If the speech is not delivered to the public and fails to contain any new substantive information, it does not deserve daily public airing. Unless Bush and Cheney include specific information that supports their name calling and demagoguery, the media should simply treat the speech or appearance as a footnote and a campaign stop on the President's or Vice President’s itinerary. In the case of the recent Bush and Cheney campaign speeches to closed partisan audiences, the "content" is no more than the typical pandering, sloganeering and baseless rhetorical attacks. The media should spend their time and energy developing and publishing stories that are fact based and which involve important issues and events that affect the public.
The same standard should hold true for press coverage of Democratic representative speeches. In general, however, speeches by Democrats that do involve specific reference to factual matters and documented malfeasance by the GOP Congress or the White House have seen little daylight in the press. Balance is needed, professionalism and a greater attention span is needed. The notion that an item is not necessarily news because Bush or Cheney opens his mouth need attention. Instead of reportage that is miles wide and a millimeter deep, we need more in-depth reporting and analysis of a narrower range of issues that are more central to the functioning of our democracy. Do we really need to hear more of Bush or Cheney accusing Democrats of treason because of their dissent? What is needed is specific information about why, after five years of rhetoric and control of the government by the same party, the American people are less safe or certainly no safer than they were on 9/11. We need factual reporting about specific successes and failures of the Administration in the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The media needs to give us the facts, we can generate the spin ourselves.
We the People deserve better; and we can achieve better government. But we need at least minimal functioning or the fundamental institutions that make up our democratic form of government. If the current rate of deterioration and destruction of those institutions continues, the vital signs will fade and the loss will be irretrievable.
.........
footnote: If you think that PBS is giving you "balanced" news reporting, think again. See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100806Y.shtml
Monday, October 02, 2006
Of Foxes and Chickens
The reader will hopefully forgive the barnyard analogies from a writer with solid Midwestern beginnings. But the recent events in Washington bring to mind obvious problems that arise when the party responsible for supervision and the public trust to safeguard the vulnerable is also a ruthless predator who regards those to be protected more as prey than as wards. Midwesterners call that putting the “fox in charge of protecting the chickens.”
Mark Foley, R-Fla, resigned from Congress on Friday following media disclosure of sexually explicit e-mails he sent to a 16 year old former Page. The messages were inappropriate and contained sexual content that probably renders the actions of sending them to a minor over the internet illegal. Subsequent reporting indicates that there were other incidents in which similar communications and advances or overtures were made to other Pages by Foley. Apparently, the matter will now be investigated by the FBI more than a year after the occurrence was first reported. Congressional Pages are positions in which students are given the opportunity to experience how Congress does business, as they carry messages and do basic administrative or “gofer” tasks for the Members. To include being sexually propositioned by Members of Congress as part of that internship or curriculum would be a real stretch. Members of Congress are expected to treat Pages, who look up to them as potential role models, with respect. There is an office in the Capitol with a Congressional member specifically assigned to administer the Page program and to assure that these young people are supervised and not mistreated. In the case of Foley, the Congressman was a sexual predator instead of a mentor, teacher or role model.
But the analogy goes to another level. The Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, was alerted to the situation and the problem of reported misconduct by Foley more than a year ago. We do not know how much more Hastert knew of Foley’s peccadilloes, but even the single publicly reported incident should have been sufficient notice to take serious action. Instead, Hastert’s office says they merely told Foley to “stay away” from that particular Page. The Speaker now professes outrage that a member of Congress has “breached a public trust,” but says nothing of the breach of trust he himself failed to uphold by taking action against Foley as soon as he became aware of the misconduct. Again, fox in charge of foxes roaming about in the henhouse.
Newt Gingrich came up with a purported excuse that would be laughable, were the offense not so serious. He claims that if Hastert had taken action when he first heard of the complaint by the parents of the 16 year old, Hastert might have been accused of “gay bashing.” We are talking about a mature adult in a position of power making improper sexual advances toward a 16 year old minor that was under his authority or influence. Whether same sex or heterosexual, the offense was equally abhorrent. Political affiliation too should have been totally irrelevant. Gingrich’s attempt to trivialize it indicates the level of moral bankruptcy to which Congressional behavioral standards have sunk.
That the matter could have been dealt with, even without as much public embarrassment, serves to demonstrate how jaded and corrupt Washington has become. Let’s look at a scenario. Speaker of the House and Majority Leader Hastert, after getting word of the parental complaint regarding the 16 year old former Page, walks into Foley’s office and closes the door. Hastert says to fellow Republican Congressman Foley:
That is how private and backroom deals are made in Congress. It is fair to assume that Hastert would have received Foley’s resignation “for personal and family reasons” within that week. Any subsequent actions by the 16 year old Page would have been directed to Foley as a private citizen. And some measure of discipline would have been maintained with respect to the behavior of Congressional members respecting Pages. But instead, the prevailing "standard" of discipline seems to be doing whatever you feel like, as long as you don’t get caught. Delay, Cunningham, Frist and a host of others provide us examples of how well Congress polices itself regarding ethical and moral conduct. Is it any wonder then why this Congress would pass legislation approving use of torture, authorizing searches and seizure of property and communications in violations of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and erecting a “Berlin Wall” over 1/3 the length of the border with Mexico? These are the “foxes” that we have placed in charge of our nation's business, the security and well being of us “chickens.” If you get an invitation to dinner from this Congress, you might first want to ask which of your neighbors is likely to be on the menu.
Mark Foley, R-Fla, resigned from Congress on Friday following media disclosure of sexually explicit e-mails he sent to a 16 year old former Page. The messages were inappropriate and contained sexual content that probably renders the actions of sending them to a minor over the internet illegal. Subsequent reporting indicates that there were other incidents in which similar communications and advances or overtures were made to other Pages by Foley. Apparently, the matter will now be investigated by the FBI more than a year after the occurrence was first reported. Congressional Pages are positions in which students are given the opportunity to experience how Congress does business, as they carry messages and do basic administrative or “gofer” tasks for the Members. To include being sexually propositioned by Members of Congress as part of that internship or curriculum would be a real stretch. Members of Congress are expected to treat Pages, who look up to them as potential role models, with respect. There is an office in the Capitol with a Congressional member specifically assigned to administer the Page program and to assure that these young people are supervised and not mistreated. In the case of Foley, the Congressman was a sexual predator instead of a mentor, teacher or role model.
But the analogy goes to another level. The Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, was alerted to the situation and the problem of reported misconduct by Foley more than a year ago. We do not know how much more Hastert knew of Foley’s peccadilloes, but even the single publicly reported incident should have been sufficient notice to take serious action. Instead, Hastert’s office says they merely told Foley to “stay away” from that particular Page. The Speaker now professes outrage that a member of Congress has “breached a public trust,” but says nothing of the breach of trust he himself failed to uphold by taking action against Foley as soon as he became aware of the misconduct. Again, fox in charge of foxes roaming about in the henhouse.
Newt Gingrich came up with a purported excuse that would be laughable, were the offense not so serious. He claims that if Hastert had taken action when he first heard of the complaint by the parents of the 16 year old, Hastert might have been accused of “gay bashing.” We are talking about a mature adult in a position of power making improper sexual advances toward a 16 year old minor that was under his authority or influence. Whether same sex or heterosexual, the offense was equally abhorrent. Political affiliation too should have been totally irrelevant. Gingrich’s attempt to trivialize it indicates the level of moral bankruptcy to which Congressional behavioral standards have sunk.
That the matter could have been dealt with, even without as much public embarrassment, serves to demonstrate how jaded and corrupt Washington has become. Let’s look at a scenario. Speaker of the House and Majority Leader Hastert, after getting word of the parental complaint regarding the 16 year old former Page, walks into Foley’s office and closes the door. Hastert says to fellow Republican Congressman Foley:
“It has been brought to my attention that there are allegations against you of sexual improprieties involving a former Page who is 16 years old. I am not accusing you of anything, nor am I judging you. I am not even asking you to explain to me what did or did not happen. What I am asking you to consider is whether, upon full investigation of this incident and any related conduct, and publication of the findings of that investigation, you would feel comfortable continuing to represent your district in Congress. You have one week to give me your answer to my question”
That is how private and backroom deals are made in Congress. It is fair to assume that Hastert would have received Foley’s resignation “for personal and family reasons” within that week. Any subsequent actions by the 16 year old Page would have been directed to Foley as a private citizen. And some measure of discipline would have been maintained with respect to the behavior of Congressional members respecting Pages. But instead, the prevailing "standard" of discipline seems to be doing whatever you feel like, as long as you don’t get caught. Delay, Cunningham, Frist and a host of others provide us examples of how well Congress polices itself regarding ethical and moral conduct. Is it any wonder then why this Congress would pass legislation approving use of torture, authorizing searches and seizure of property and communications in violations of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and erecting a “Berlin Wall” over 1/3 the length of the border with Mexico? These are the “foxes” that we have placed in charge of our nation's business, the security and well being of us “chickens.” If you get an invitation to dinner from this Congress, you might first want to ask which of your neighbors is likely to be on the menu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)