Peace and War

Opinions, Observations, Odds & Ends: Peace and War 

Third Anniversary of "My Pet Goat" (Sept. 11, 2004)

Thanks to the Memory Hole site ( www.thememoryhole.org ), one can see the "My Pet Goat" video of our president sitting in the class room, second after excruciating second, after being given the news of the attacks on the World Trade Center. What a dissonant counterpoint to the actual disaster taking place. 

There's another site with a high-quality single image, as well as commentary, aptly named www.mypetgoat.com. 

And yet, during this bitterly contested election season, there are people who feel safer with this man as president, and others who still can't make up their minds. They deserve whom they've got, but unfortunately the rest of us get him too! 

"Mr. Bush and the Truth About Terror" (Sept. 2, 2004)

An excerpt from the New York Times editorial titled "Mr. Bush and the Truth About Terror":

: 

: 

"The chances of a serious dialogue about terror took a blow, of course, when Mr. Bush retracted his completely sensible statement about terrorism after the Kerry-Edwards campaign attacked it. So far this has been an election season of monumental simple-mindedness, in which the candidates start each day by telling us this is the most important election in the history of the planet, then devote the rest of their waking hours to meaningless sniping." 

: 

:

The Bush statement was saying that he didn't think that one could "win" a war against terror. Of course this made so much sense that it had to be retracted. The Kerry-Edwards campaign then went into high-demagogue mode by claiming that of course one could win. 

As much as I despise Bush for wrecking this country, it's hard to love Kerry. I wonder if he could even be re-elected Senator in Massachusetts, given his vote for the Iraq war resolution, and his statement not long ago that he would still do the same, even knowing what he knows now. So down to the end, I will be for "anyone but Bush", and that man happens to be Kerry. Sigh. 

So when the political mud-wrestling gets intolerable, I take another look at the by now well-known "This Land" video. It's a delightful equal-opportunity skewering of both candidates with all their pretensions and limitations. 

"... harm to our country and our people ..." (Aug. 6, 2004)

No observations from me for a while, not because nothing was happening, but because all the dreadful news seemed to be speaking well for itself. For some relief from the weariness of watching the Bush administration mess up while the voters don't get it, at least there's the Michael Moore film and Bill Maher's program. 

But today there's something that is just to good to pass up! From the Washington Post column on President Bush's latest gaffe:

English, a Battleground State 

By Al Kamen 

Friday, August 6, 2004; Page A17 

President Bush's battles with the English language are sometimes like a gift that keeps on giving, if not an antidote, then perhaps a palliative to these rather grim times. 

He was in superb form yesterday, offering what may have been his best Bushism ever in a speech at a White House signing ceremony for a $417 billion defense bill. 

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we," he said. "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." 

This stunning announcement of administration resolve lifted nary an eyebrow among the assembled Pentagon military and civilian chieftains and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.). Bush then got back on message, saying, "We must never stop thinking about how best to defend our country." 

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush's misstatement "just shows even the most straightforward and plain-spoken people misspeak." 

"But the American people know this president speaks with clarity and conviction, and the terrorists know by his actions he means it," McClellan said. 

Whatever "it" is. Could this force Michael Moore to redo the ending to that movie?

To my delighted surprise, I found a video of the speech on the White House website. Sure enough, that's exactly what he said, and then he continued right on. There were no gasps from the audience, nor was there any attempt by Bush to correct himself. His reading of the speech reminded me of a secretary in a physics department typing a thesis without understanding the content. 

While the offending statement is a slip of the tongue, there is more than a trace of truth in it for those of us who detest what the Bush administration has done to this country. When one considers soldiers killed and maimed, Iraq as a training ground for terrorists, the alienation of our strongest allies, the excesses of the Patriot act, the environmental rollbacks, the huge deficit, jobs lost in the sputtering economy, the polarization and division in our political system, and the systematic misrepresentation and lies from the administration, then there's certainly the appearance of their "thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people".

... "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities" ... (Jan. 24, 2004)

... is apparently what the weapons of mass destruction, one of the prime justifications for the war on Iraq, have morphed into. Or so our foolish president said with a straight face during his State of the Union address. Given that this phrase doesn't roll smoothly off the tongue, and that Bush even has trouble with straight-forward phrases, one has to wonder how many times he had to repeat that during his practice sessions. It doesn't look too great as an acronym either (WoMD-RPA's - would that be pronounced Womdy-rippa's?) 

For all the attention that Howard Dean has gotten because of his "unpresidential" rebel yell in Iowa, the so-called presidential Bush demeanor scares me far more. And I'd prefer the Dean "smirk" to the Bush squint any day. 

In fact, my antipathy toward our foolish president is so great that I absolutely could not even consider watching the State of the Union address. To have this self-righteous hypocrite pat himself and his cronies on the back while wrecking our country was far too much to bear. 

Shortly after the State of the Union address, Dr. David Kay, who has been leading the U.S. effort to find WoMD's, has been testifying that none have been found. To which the WoMD faithful hopefully add "not yet", even though, with a staff of hundreds and a budget of many millions, all that has been found in all this time is about two mobile labs. 

As leader of the faithful hopeful, Dick Cheney in particular is still selling the threat of Iraqi WoMD's, even if the rest of the administration is inching backward ever so slightly. As always with this administration, despite studies, facts, clear evidence, or simple logic, the truth is what they say it is.

Wolfowitz Rewards our Pals from Micronesia (Dec. 11, 2003)

Just when one thought it wasn't feasible any more, the Bush administration scales new Everests of arrogance. A memo dated Dec. 5, 2003, by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, posted on the Internet, gave terms by which primary contracts for Iraq reconstruction would awarded; theWolfowitz Memo is provided here (requires Adobe Acrobat). 

The last page of the memo consists of a list of countries which are allowed to be primary contractors. The reason given in the Findings, item 4. was that

"It is necessary for the essential security interests f the United States to limit competition for the prime contracts of these procurements to companies from the United States, Iraq, Coalition partners and force contributing nations. Thus, it is clearly in the public interest to limit prime contracts to companies from these countries."

In a simple, direct, retaliatory application of "if you're not for us, you're against us", certain major nations such as Germany, France, Russia and Canada were omitted. On the other hand, Micronesia, Palau, Albania and Rwanda were included, along with other unlikely candidates. Of course Wolfowitz also should also have listed the great state of Halliburton, certainly bigger than some of the preceding countries. 

The rejected major nations promptly took offense. What a bunch of sore losers! As Pentagon spokesmen explained, this directive doesn't prevent anyone from of those countries from being subcontractors. May we look forward to a scenario where Micronesia lets subcontracts to Russia? 

What was also conveniently ignored in the memo was that some of the rejected nations, certainly Germany and Canada, are contributing troops in Afghanistan. 

Now one might think that Wolfowitz may had overstepped his bounds, leaving his boss and his bosses boss to perform some fancy verbal footsteps. For example, our foolish President was trying to persuade some of those very countries to toward debt forgiveness for Iraq, and didn't know that the memo had been posted just shortly before. Not that anything was considered to be wrong with the principle of the memo - Bush's press secretary defended it, and next day our foolish president himself justified it. 

Now the President's emissary is going on a tour to personally convince France, Germany and Russia that they want to forgive Iraq's heavy indebtedness. And there's the utter arrogance - insult someone deeply, and then ask them for a favor. An individual would know to tell him where to put his request - where the sun don't shine - but diplomacy probably doesn't work that way. 

Not that there should be any surprise in all this. It's the same crowd, after all, operating by black-and-white, winner-take-all, if-you're-not-with-us-you're-against-us principles, that's giving us: unilateralism in dealing with other countries and the U.N.; Medicare and Energy bills rammed through Congress; redistricting in Texas and Pennsylvania that gives gerrymandering a good name; etc.

Mission Accomplished? (Nov. 4, 2003)

Depends on what the meaning of "mission" and "accomplished" is ..... 

The ongoing bombings and attacks in Iraq, including one on a Red Cross building at the start of Ramadan, led to to interesting responses from President Bush. Excerpts from a Washington Post article quoting our foolish president show that the words "successful" and "progress" are also being redefined:

Bush Says Attacks Are Reflection of U.S. Gains 

By Dana Milbank and Thomas E. Ricks 

Washington Post Staff Writers 

Tuesday, October 28, 2003; Page A01 

President Bush yesterday put the best face on a new surge of violence in Iraq as his top defense aides huddled to discuss additional ways of thwarting the anti-American rebellion there before it becomes more widespread. 

The president, speaking after attacks on police stations and a Red Cross facility in Iraq killed at least 35 people, said such attacks should be seen as a sign of progress because they show the desperation of those who oppose the U.S.-led occupation. 

"The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react,"[emphasis mine] Bush said as he sat in the Oval Office with L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq. He added: "The more progress we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis become, the more electricity is available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become, because they can't stand the thought of a free society."

In those terms, maybe those being attacked, killed and injured would prefer a little less progress and success. It sure is a lot easier on the guys in the suits, looking presidential. 

[There doesn't seem to be any photo of our foolish president in the flight suit together with the banner, so the one above will have to do. On the other hand, I kind of like the halo effect of that shield on the tower in the background.] 

Things didn't get any better. The Monday news told of a Chinook helicopter being shot down with 16 killed and 20 wounded. That brought us a Rumsfeldianism, as quoted by the New York Times:

"It's clearly a tragic day for America. In a long, hard war, we're going to have tragic days. But they're necessary [emphasis mine]. They're part of a war that's difficult and complicated."

Hmmm...., Maybe "unavoidable", but "necessary"?

White House Webmail: Message sent; Irrelevant Canned Reply (Oct. 3, 2003)

Ever curious to find out how the relatively new White House Webmail worked, I sent a helpful note to President Bush on how to fund the $87 billion for Iraq. The basic scheme that I recommended was to rescind that amount from the tax cut, with the beneficiaries, the wealthiest, being asked to patriotically do their share. Full text of Email message: 

Dear President Bush, 

Your recent request for $87 billion for the reconstruction of I raq and our continued military presence has, predictably, encountered some stiff resistance in Congress and among the American people. I'd like to offer a simple recommendation for easing the difficulties in the approval of this funding. 

It's hard for the American people to accept that so much money is going to Iraq when there are such great needs within our own country. It's even harder to accept when this becomes a burden for the next generation, our children, in the form of an already massive deficit increasing yet more. 

Our assertive unilateralism in Iraq pretty much rules out any significant contribution to the reconstruction of Iraq by allies with the resources to do so; the Coalition of the Willing has so far been unable or unwilling to contribute more than token troops. 

My simple recommendation is that the $87 billion for Iraq be funded by rescinding that amount from the recent tax cut. Friends and foes of the tax cut agree that most of it will be going to the wealthier Americans. I would think that these same wealthy Americans could be persuaded, especially by the authority of the President, that it would be a highly patriotic act to support the great nation that has given them the opportunity to amass their wealth. When those on the ground in Iraq serve their country by giving up significant time with their families, with some making the ultimate sacrifice of giving their lives, then it would seem that those with financial riches should willingly and eagerly do their share. 

What could be more straight-forward: give some to get some. And not only would this make it easier to fund the $87 billion, but it would certainly also disarm a lot of your critics. 

Sincerely, 

Peter Schmidt

The Webmail site gives you only pre-programmed choices of subjects and supporting/differing comments, and since I considered it helpful advice, I sent it as a "supporting comment" under the subject "Foreign Policy, Iraq". 

You're required to provide an email and regular mailing address as part of the message. The site also inserts "Dear President Bush", and closes with "Sincerely" and your name, so one doesn't need to enter it as part of the note. After submission, a message shows up on your email asking for confirmation. 

Now the chances that the content of a message will have more impact than just being counted as one more tick in a field of a poll is infinitesimal, especially in this unresponsive administration. And given that President Bush doesn't even read newspapers, but gets his news pre-selected and pre-digested by his advisors (as reported in the New York Times a few days ago), it is even less likely that a citizen's message will have any impact. Still, it'll be interesting to see whether the response is totally canned (by subject, sub-subject and supporting/differing), or in any way responsive to the actual content of the message. More when I get an answer. 

The result of the experiment is in - the answer is that the White House Reply (requires Adobe Acrobat) is indeed totally canned, with no reference at all to the contents of the original message. What a surprise!!! 

We now resume our regularly scheduled (and justified) criticism of the Bush administration. 

Update - October 10: A third neutral option (other than "supporting/differing comment") is now available, so I sent the same message again. The corresponding White House Reply looks a little more personal but is also totally non-specific. 

In contrast, when I sent a recent Email to our Representative Barney Frank, I got a letter back from responding directly to my concerns and enclosing some relevant materials.

Your Tax Dollars for Iraq, lining whose Pockets? (Sept 30, 2003)

One of those rarely asked questions about the reconstruction in Iraq is exactly where all those billions are going. Most people understand the high cost of all the military presence. Some are aware of the no-bid secret contracts awarded to Halliburton and Bechtel; of course the secrecy assures that few know the amount of these contracts. Fewer know that a lot of services for the military have been outsourced to civilian companies, such as guess who (see just above)? The connections of the Bush-Cheney administration to those companies, especially Cheney's, are of course pure coincidence, aren't they? 

The shameless request by the Bush administration for a further $87 billion has at last prompted some outrage in Congress, but I still don't hear too much about who will be receiving and spending our tax money. But apparently this pot of gold is a little more accessible, because now well-connected consulting firms are springing up to help other businesses get their cut. In a column in today's (Sept. 30, 2003) New York Times, Paul Krugman writes:

Meanwhile, several companies with close personal ties to top administration officials have begun brazenly offering their services as facilitators for companies seeking Iraqi business. The former law firm of Douglas Feith, the Pentagon under secretary who oversees Iraq reconstruction, has hung out its shingle. So has another company headed by Joe Allbaugh, who ran the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000 and ran FEMA until a few months ago. And a third entrant is run by Ahmad Chalabi's nephew.

The Joe Allbaugh company cited above, New Bridge Strategies, is the subject of a New York Times front-page article, which follows:

Washington Insiders' New Firm Consults on Contracts in Iraq 

By DOUGLAS JEHL 

WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — A group of businessmen linked by their close ties to President Bush, his family and his administration have set up a consulting firm to advise companies that want to do business in Iraq, including those seeking pieces of taxpayer-financed reconstruction projects. 

The firm, New Bridge Strategies, is headed by Joe M. Allbaugh, Mr. Bush's campaign manager in 2000 and the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency until March. Other directors include Edward M. Rogers Jr., vice chairman, and Lanny Griffith, lobbyists who were assistants to the first President George Bush and now have close ties to the White House. 

At a time when the administration seeks Congressional approval for $20.3 billion to rebuild Iraq, part of an $87 billion package for military and other spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, the company's Web site, www.newbridgestrategies.com, says, "The opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented nature and scope that no other existing firm has the necessary skills and experience to be effective both in Washington, D.C., and on the ground in Iraq." 

The site calls attention to the links between the company's directors and the two Bush administrations by noting, for example, that Mr. Allbaugh, the chairman, was "chief of staff to then-Gov. Bush of Texas and was the national campaign manager for the Bush-Cheney 2000 presidential campaign." 

: 

: 

: 

The full NYTimes article is worth reading.

These folks sure seem well-connected, don't they? As a public service, in case you'd like help getting your place at the public trough, here then is the web site for New Bridge Strategies 

The other site mentioned in the article, the Coalition Provisional Authority, has a link to "Commercial Interests", which leads to a new page titled

Iraq Reconstruction Task Force 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Your Link to Information on Rebuilding Iraq

As a further public service, here then is the link to the Iraq Reconstruction Task Force. 

Yet another link leads to U.S. Government Iraq Reconstruction Contracts. This one is particularly interesting because it includes a link to a list of contracts awarded, although not the amount. Some Iraqi enterprises show up, as subcontractors to, you guessed it, Bechtel. 

What noticeable here is that although there's terrorism and a lack of security in Iraq, and electricity and water don't work, but we sure have set up a well-organized structure for our "commercial interests".

Bush wants $87 billion more for Iraq (Sept 11, 2003)

On the anniversary of 9/11 and Bush's War on Terror - what a miserable record:

• • Osama bin Laden still at large, alive, well, mocking us in video and audio tapes;

  • So where's Saddam?

  • And where are Saddam's WoMDs?

  • Bombings, sabotage and attacks on our troops and other targets (U.N. building, mosques) not only continue but grow. Iraq is now a recruiting, breeding and testing ground for a new generation of terrorists. We also have passed the dreadful milestone of more soldiers killed after the end of the major phase of the war (President Bush, May 1, 2003) than before.

  • Civil chaos in Iraq: no Iraqi leadership, water and electricity services not restored, hospitals looted.

  • Taliban resurgent in Afghanistan.

  • Major allies alienated and in opposition to our policies. The administration now arrogantly expects them to contribute money and troops, but all under American leadership. Given our record since the fighting phase of the war, what leadership might that be?

  • But Halliburton is making tons of money on its huge secretly-awarded contract. That's our money (John Q. Taxpayer and me) of course.

  • And let's not forget our INS, with its exceptional contribution to the Annals of Incompetence, approving visas for several of the 9/11 terrorists months after their suicide attack.

With that record of failure, our President now wants $87 billion more for Iraq. He tells us that we're winning the War on Terror. On whose score card? Under what scoring? Because we

• • have a color-code alert system?

  • rounded up more than a thousand "terrorism suspects" after 9/11, locked many up for months, kept them from legal representation and families - an operation that violated civil liberties and netted what, one terrorism suspect? Our newly-despised allies in "Old Europe", the "chocolate-makers", have done far better than that.

  • continue to hold about six hundred prisoners from Afghanistan at Guantanamo, without representation, in legal limbo, without a plan for prosecution or setting anyone free?

  • seek to monitor our own citizenry and invade their privacy, including credit card records and books borrowed from libraries or bought? It's all based on the scoundrelous "if you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

Looking at the record, it's just another example of an administration message that black is white, just like

• • Tax cuts generate jobs (in the face of increasing job cuts and unemployment);

  • Global warming is not a problem (ignoring the administration's own report);

  • Saddam was responsible for Sept. 11 (ignoring that there were no Iraqis on the planes, but lots of Saudis, but then they're our oil supplier buddies);

  • The restoration of Iraq will pay for itself, with its own oil.

I used to call President Clinton shameproof, but that characterization clearly extends to President Bush - each in his own area. I guess that's a job requirement for a high position in politics. On the other hand, if a naive and uncritical American public believes this nonsense, then who's to argue with the results? 

With the Bush request for the $87 billion coming to Congress for debate and action, it was time to send a message to our representatives: 

Email to Kennedy, Kerry and Frank (9/9/03). 

President Bush has just asked Congress to approve $87 billion more to spend in Iraq, of course under the rubric of fighting terrorism. As he said so often when pushing his foolish tax cut: "it's your money", and so I would like to have a say in it. 

It is my strong opinion that this amount should NOT be approved without a very serious look at alternatives and concessions. For example, rather than asking only us citizens to sacrifice by putting the burden on our children with an increase in the already massive deficit, let the President make his own own contribution to sacrifice by rescinding the same $87 billion from his foolish tax cut. 

Rather than acceding again to Bush administration's unilateralism, where we pay the entire cost of the Iraq war and reconstruction in money and casualties, let us look for a sharing of cost, troops and responsibilities with other capable nations like, yes, France, Germany and Russia. A real sharing of responsibilities, where these nations contribute their leadership and planning, can only help us because the administration's plan has been somewhere between naive and non-existent. It's high time to end their "lone ranger" approach. 

In any case, under no circumstances should any further funding for Iraq be approved without a very clear, detailed and realistic plan by the administration for the reconstruction of Iraq, including the transition to an Iraqi government. 

The time for blank checks for the President is over. Those who approved the resolution to let the President use military force in Iraq, although they should have known better at the time, should have at least have learned from that experience. It's time for Congress to have a real voice in guiding the nation, and, as a constituent, I expect that you will continue to do your part. 

Sincerely, 

Peter E. Schmidt 

Sept. 15 update: There may be a little hope that the administration's arrogance has finally overreached. More and more people are asking how we can plan to spend $87 billion in a chaotic, far-away place instead of attending to our own needs. The administration's main players are busily trying to justify and explain, even while they offer no specific timetable and project that even more money may be needed. Maybe, just maybe, our politicians' spines could be stiffened by some popular resistance.

Peace and War continued .....