Opinions, Observations, Odds & Ends: Peace and War
Hall of Shame, and Hall of Fame (started March 21, 2003; last updated March 26, 2004)
The President finally has his war, as we all knew he would but hoped that he wouldn't. In his own voodoo economics, the financial cost of the war is unaccounted for, but even with a have a huge deficit, the president pushes on to his other idée fixe, a tax cut. As the president proceeds, impervious to logic, reason or persuasion, aided and abetted by his team, it's time to look at the players. Who belongs to a Hall of Shame and a Hall of Fame as this country deteriorates by the month?
Hall of Shame - Republican wing:
The most distinguishing characteristic of this team is arrogance - the arrogance of believing that whatever they think is right, the arrogance of ignoring all evidence to the contrary, the arrogance of believing that they are righteous and informed by their God.
George W. Bush - A profoundly limited man, with little intellect or curiosity, but clever in his own way. Proof that "anyone can become president". Proof that you can "fool most of the people all of the time".
In an Op-Ed column in the July 8, 2003 New York Times, Nicholas D. Kristof gives his impressions:
"Mr. Bush always exudes a sense that the issues are crystal clear and that anyone who disagrees with him is playing political games."
"Mr. Bush is not the dummy his critics perceive. My take is that he's very bright in a street-smarts way: he's witty and has a great memory for faces, and his old girlfriends speak more highly of him thatn many women do of their husbands. But he's also less interested in ideas than perhaps anyone I've ever interviewed, and his intelligence is all practical and not a bit intellectual."
Add to that the revelation that he doesn't even read or scan daily newspapers, but has his news pre-digested by his aides, and one finds a man with views circumscribed by those that think exactly the same way. Bright people know they can learn from opposing thoughts; those of limited intellect want their own reinforced because they "know" they're right.
Dick Cheney - Probably the most dangerous man on his team, because he presents the calm, unruffled, informed image of a kindly uncle. That hides the secretive, deeply conservative, power-hungry persona which favors the big-business money-grabbing crowd over all else.
Condoleezza Rice - Landslide winner of the "Achievement Ratio Award". In our graduate student days, someone had defined an Achievement Ratio as "where you are divided by what you know". Now why would anyone want her to advise him on anything?
John Ashcroft - A right-wing Christian convinced, like his brethren, that anything he believes is right. As Attorney General, does not understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Like all of his type, gives Christians a bad name. During his campaign for the Senate, I supported Mel Carnahan with some donations; now I ask myself whether he would have been less dangerous as a senator than Attorney General.
Donald Rumsfeld - The Bull in the China Shop. If he weren't in such a powerful position, it would be kind of fun to follow his foot-in-mouth disease. Denigrated French-German opposition to the was as "Old Europe", dismissed Britain's military contribution. As the British put it so aptly in their understated way, Rumsfeld doesn't do sensitivity well. Maybe he'll do some damage yet to the administration.
But like all bullies, he can't take it as well as he dishes it out. Complaining bitterly about critiques of the Iraq war plan, he now now no longer wants it to be known as "his" plan, and has given that pleasure to General Franks.
Karl Rove, - Master strategist of Bush's election and for the 2002 election. Saw something in Bush that would appeal to "the American people" and devised the tactics to fool enough people all the time. Unfortunately the Democrats have no one as clever as he is.
Tom DeLay, Representative from Texas - There should be a special place in hell for arrogant bastards like this. How does Texas specialize in guys like DeLay, Dick Armey and Phil Gramm, to say nothing of the President's team?
Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle, deputy defense secretary, and chairman of the Defense Policy Board, respectively - The hawks with the theory behind the unilateral practice of U.S. military might; influential because they provide the intellectual facade.
Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy - another of the administration theorists providing intellectual underpinning for their policies. Specializes in black-and-white views of the world; supportive in breaking the 1972 ABM Treaty with Russia and in the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war. Also helped to ignore a State Department study, which predicted, with uncanny precision, potential problems in the reconstruction of Iraq after the war. Unpaid advisor to Benjamin Netanjahu, staunch critic of the Oslo peace accords, and an advocate for the theory of regime change in Iraq causing a domino effect for democracy in the Middle East.
Hall of Shame - Democratic wing:
Al Gore - What is poor Al Gore doing here? Well, he's the one that made President Bush possible, by running such an inept campaign that he made a very limited man look like a viable candidate. Took a strong, winning hand and played it into a losing one. In sports or politics, you don't ever want to put yourself in a position where a bad bounce or a bad call loses you the game. Al Gore did, all by himself. Who, after all, needed three debates with a lightweight to finally get it right? When I think of Al Gore, I think of "putting the top 1% of prescription drugs into a lockbox".
Apologists will continue to blame Ralph Nader, or point to Gore's winning the popular vote, or being done in by Republican machinations and the conservative Supreme Court. The day Democrats understand why he lost instead of whining will be the day they start on the road back.
John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephart, John Edwards, Democratic candidates for President - All of them signed away Congress's responsibility and right to declare war by voting for the resolution giving President Bush the right to use military force in Iraq. Joe Lieberman was a sponsor of the resolution, and so was a proud participant in the signing photo-op with the President.
Kerry, as is his style, has been complaining some about the adminstration's handling of the march toward war, but it might just lose him supporters on both the left and right. We'll have to see how strongly he supports his own "regime change" in Washington after getting some predictably fiery feedback from Republicans.
Updated 5/2/03: Sure enough, in a "quip flop", Kerry now says the "regime change" was just a quip. And he's had to back off on the claim that his first speech on the Senate floor was a strong defense of Roe vs. Wade.
Updated 5/5/03: Lieberman, in the meantime, is trying to be Bush-lite. Now why would anyone want him if they can have the real thing in W. himself? And why does being strong on defense have to include going to war?
Gephart is proposing his version of Universal Health Care, but in a most contorted way, and still places the burden on business. Clearly he doesn't understand it as an investment rather than a cost because he didn't offer much of a response when Lieberman hammered him as a spender-Democrat.
Hall of Shame - Hall of Fame wing: (4/11/03)
Dale Petroskey, president of the Baseball Hall of Fame - Although nothing is as American as baseball, dissent is considered un-American by Mr. Petroskey. There was to be a 15th anniversary of the baseball film "Bull Durham" at the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. New York. Since this would have meant inviting Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, with their strong anti-war activism, Mr. Petroskey decided to cancel the event. He had been an assistant press secretary in the Reagan White House, so his own political leanings are quite clear.
Hall of Fame - Republican wing: (unfortunately a short list)
Lincoln Chafee, Senator from Rhode Island - A man of conscience who has and will vote against the administration when their proposals are wrong-headed.
James Jeffords, Senator from Vermont - Fed up with the Republicans ignoring him and issues important to him, he switched to Independent, and voted most often with the Democrats.
Hall of Fame - Democratic wing:
Ted Kennedy, Senator from Massachusetts - One of the very few consistently speaking against the war. Tireless worker for the common man, for minimum wage and extension of health care.
Robert C. Byrd, Senator from West Virginia - The grand old man of the senate, one of few who understands and believes what this country stands for. Consistently against the war except as a last resort. Selected speeches (from his web site):
"The Truth Will Emerge" (5/21/03)
Senate Remarks: The Arrogance of Power (3/19/03)
The Dean of the Congress --
The West Virginian of the 20th Century
U. S. Senator Robert C. Byrd
May 21, 2003
"The Truth Will Emerge"
"Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again, - -
The eternal years of God are hers;
But Error, wounded, writhes in pain,
And dies among his worshippers."
Truth has a way of asserting itself despite all attempts to obscure it. Distortion only serves to derail it for a time. No matter to what lengths we humans may go to obfuscate facts or delude our fellows, truth has a way of squeezing out through the cracks, eventually.
But the danger is that at some point it may no longer matter. The danger is that damage is done before the truth is widely realized. The reality is that, sometimes, it is easier to ignore uncomfortable facts and go along with whatever distortion is currently in vogue. We see a lot of this today in politics. I see a lot of it -- more than I would ever have believed -- right on this Senate Floor.
Regarding the situation in Iraq, it appears to this Senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing International law, under false premises. There is ample evidence that the horrific events of September 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda who masterminded the September 11th attacks, to Saddam Hussein who did not. The run up to our invasion of Iraq featured the President and members of his cabinet invoking every frightening image they could conjure, from mushroom clouds, to buried caches of germ warfare, to drones poised to deliver germ laden death in our major cities. We were treated to a heavy dose of overstatement concerning Saddam Hussein's direct threat to our freedoms. The tactic was guaranteed to provoke a sure reaction from a nation still suffering from a combination of post traumatic stress and justifiable anger after the attacks of 911. It was the exploitation of fear. It was a placebo for the anger.
Since the war's end, every subsequent revelation which has seemed to refute the previous dire claims of the Bush Administration has been brushed aside. Instead of addressing the contradictory evidence, the White House deftly changes the subject. No weapons of mass destruction have yet turned up, but we are told that they will in time. Perhaps they yet will. But, our costly and destructive bunker busting attack on Iraq seems to have proven, in the main, precisely the opposite of what we were told was the urgent reason to go in. It seems also to have, for the present, verified the assertions of Hans Blix and the inspection team he led, which President Bush and company so derided. As Blix always said, a lot of time will be needed to find such weapons, if they do, indeed, exist. Meanwhile Bin Laden is still on the loose and Saddam Hussein has come up missing.
The Administration assured the U.S. public and the world, over and over again, that an attack was necessary to protect our people and the world from terrorism. It assiduously worked to alarm the public and blur the faces of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden until they virtually became one.
What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S. Ravaged by years of sanctions, Iraq did not even lift an airplane against us. Iraq's threatening death-dealing fleet of unmanned drones about which we heard so much morphed into one prototype made of plywood and string. Their missiles proved to be outdated and of limited range. Their army was quickly overwhelmed by our technology and our well trained troops.
Presently our loyal military personnel continue their mission of diligently searching for WMD. They have so far turned up only fertilizer, vacuum cleaners, conventional weapons, and the occasional buried swimming pool. They are misused on such a mission and they continue to be at grave risk. But, the Bush team's extensive hype of WMD in Iraq as justification for a preemptive invasion has become more than embarrassing. It has raised serious questions about prevarication and the reckless use of power. Were our troops needlessly put at risk? Were countless Iraqi civilians killed and maimed when war was not really necessary? Was the American public deliberately misled? Was the world?
What makes me cringe even more is the continued claim that we are "liberators." The facts don't seem to support the label we have so euphemistically attached to ourselves. True, we have unseated a brutal, despicable despot, but "liberation" implies the follow up of freedom, self-determination and a better life for the common people. In fact, if the situation in Iraq is the result of "liberation," we may have set the cause of freedom back 200 years.
Despite our high-blown claims of a better life for the Iraqi people, water is scarce, and often foul, electricity is a sometime thing, food is in short supply, hospitals are stacked with the wounded and maimed, historic treasures of the region and of the Iraqi people have been looted, and nuclear material may have been disseminated to heaven knows where, while U.S. troops, on orders, looked on and guarded the oil supply.
Meanwhile, lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and refurbish its oil industry are awarded to Administration cronies, without benefit of competitive bidding, and the U.S. steadfastly resists offers of U.N. assistance to participate. Is there any wonder that the real motives of the U.S. government are the subject of worldwide speculation and mistrust?
And in what may be the most damaging development, the U.S. appears to be pushing off Iraq's clamor for self-government. Jay Garner has been summarily replaced, and it is becoming all too clear that the smiling face of the U.S. as liberator is quickly assuming the scowl of an occupier. The image of the boot on the throat has replaced the beckoning hand of freedom. Chaos and rioting only exacerbate that image, as U.S. soldiers try to sustain order in a land ravaged by poverty and disease. "Regime change" in Iraq has so far meant anarchy, curbed only by an occupying military force and a U.S. administrative presence that is evasive about if and when it intends to depart.
Democracy and Freedom cannot be force fed at the point of an occupier's gun. To think otherwise is folly. One has to stop and ponder. How could we have been so impossibly naive? How could we expect to easily plant a clone of U.S. culture, values, and government in a country so riven with religious, territorial, and tribal rivalries, so suspicious of U.S. motives, and so at odds with the galloping materialism which drives the western-style economies?
As so many warned this Administration before it launched its misguided war on Iraq, there is evidence that our crack down in Iraq is likely to convince 1,000 new Bin Ladens to plan other horrors of the type we have seen in the past several days. Instead of damaging the terrorists, we have given them new fuel for their fury. We did not complete our mission in Afghanistan because we were so eager to attack Iraq. Now it appears that Al Queda is back with a vengeance. We have returned to orange alert in the U.S., and we may well have destabilized the Mideast region, a region we have never fully understood. We have alienated friends around the globe with our dissembling and our haughty insistence on punishing former friends who may not see things quite our way.
The path of diplomacy and reason have gone out the window to be replaced by force, unilateralism, and punishment for transgressions. I read most recently with amazement our harsh castigation of Turkey, our longtime friend and strategic ally. It is astonishing that our government is berating the new Turkish government for conducting its affairs in accordance with its own Constitution and its democratic institutions.
Indeed, we may have sparked a new international arms race as countries move ahead to develop WMD as a last ditch attempt to ward off a possible preemptive strike from a newly belligerent U.S. which claims the right to hit where it wants. In fact, there is little to constrain this President. Congress, in what will go down in history as its most unfortunate act, handed away its power to declare war for the foreseeable future and empowered this President to wage war at will.
As if that were not bad enough, members of Congress are reluctant to ask questions which are begging to be asked. How long will we occupy Iraq? We have already heard disputes on the numbers of troops which will be needed to retain order. What is the truth? How costly will the occupation and rebuilding be? No one has given a straight answer. How will we afford this long-term massive commitment, fight terrorism at home, address a serious crisis in domestic healthcare, afford behemoth military spending and give away billions in tax cuts amidst a deficit which has climbed to over $340 billion for this year alone? If the President's tax cut passes it will be $400 billion. We cower in the shadows while false statements proliferate. We accept soft answers and shaky explanations because to demand the truth is hard, or unpopular, or may be politically costly.
But, I contend that, through it all, the people know. The American people unfortunately are used to political shading, spin, and the usual chicanery they hear from public officials. They patiently tolerate it up to a point. But there is a line. It may seem to be drawn in invisible ink for a time, but eventually it will appear in dark colors, tinged with anger. When it comes to shedding American blood - - when it comes to wreaking havoc on civilians, on innocent men, women, and children, callous dissembling is not acceptable. Nothing is worth that kind of lie - - not oil, not revenge, not reelection, not somebody's grand pipedream of a democratic domino theory.
And mark my words, the calculated intimidation which we see so often of late by the "powers that be" will only keep the loyal opposition quiet for just so long. Because eventually, like it always does, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall.
###
The Dean of the Congress --
The West Virginian of the 20th Century
U. S. Senator Robert C. Byrd
March 19, 2003
Senate Remarks: The Arrogance of Power
I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.
But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.
Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.
We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split. After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.
The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.
There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.
The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.
But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.
The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home? A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.
What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?
Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?
War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.
###
but why limit oneself to only those two? The senator has a lot to say to those who are willing to listen, and speaks in a literate fashion that includes references to history and antiquity. Unfortunately, few of the American people, the administration or even fellow Democrats hear him, and so he seems consigned to play Cassandra and Lear in this farce-drama. But he loves his country more than all the closed-mind flag-wavers. Here then is the site for his 2003 Speeches (7/19/03)
Barney Frank, Representative from Massachusetts - A very sharp mind and acid tongue make him a constant thorn in the side of the administration. Decidedly anti-war for the many good reasons that one should be, he also consistently brought up the cost of the war. Our congressman, and we're proud of him.
Charles Rangel, Representative from New York - Refuses to be muzzled by the false patriotism that demands support for a foolish president and wrong-headed decisions.
Hall of Fame - International wing:
Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder - as the leaders of France and Germany, they held firm against American pressure. Granted, France often plays the role of contrarian, but here it's in a good cause.
The people of Turkey and their representatives - they had too much pride to let themselves be bribed by American tens of billions. Democracy works - the people spoke and their representatives listened.
The people of Spain and their new government (added March 26, 2004) - Although about 90% were against Spain being part of the "Coalition of the Willing", their previous government contributed 1300 soldiers to Iraq. When the train bombings took place, they realized that their government's position had, if anything, made them a target. Again, democracy worked. Of course, many on the pro-war side preferred that democracy would not work so well, and castigated the Spanish people for appeasing the terrorists. But surpisingly,even Poland grumbled, albeit gently, about having been taken in.
Hall of Fame - Public figures:
Richard A. Clarke (added March 26, 2004) - counter-terrorism expert under Presidents Bush and Clinton. He has written a book in which he accuses the present Bush administration of failing to take the threat of Al Qaeda seriously enough, and has said the same in testimony before the 9/11 commission. Before his testimony, he took the unprecedented step of apologizing to the relatives of those who died during the 9/11 attacks, because he felt that he and the government had not done enough to prevent the attacks. "Unprecedented", because our shame-proof politicians have been busily running away from taking any responsibility, preferring to blame anything and anyone other than themselves.
[I chose the word "shame-proof" purposely; "shameless" implies actually feeling some shame but ignoring it. The definition of shame-proof was Bill Clinton lying and misleading both the public and closest confidantes about his involvement with Monica Lewinsky]
The administration, eager to deflect any hint of blame, is busily throwing mud at Clarke: he's just a disgruntled employee, he's doing it to sell his book, he wants a Democrat in the White House.
In his book, Clarke relates a conversation with Bush in which the President told him to look hard for ties to Saddam Hussein. The White House disputed this, but those of us who recall the unrelenting mantra of "Saddam, Saddam" from our foolish president will find Clarke's claim very credible. Clark also describes a conversation with Condoleezza Rice in which he got a very quizzical look when he mentioned Al Qaeda, as if the Bush Sovietologist had not heard of this terrorist group.
It's so nice that Dr. Rice is willing to speak to the commission again, although in private, and not under oath. If that means that it will be OK for her to lie, then it might just as well be in private.
Rand Beers (6/16/03 Boston Globe article) - special assistant to the president for combatting terrorism on the National Security Council. Resigned five days before the war in Iraq began. Some of his comments:
"The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure."
"Counter-terrorism is like a team sport. The game is deadly. There has to be offense and defense. The Bush administration is primarily offense, and not into teamwork."
Having served on the NSC under Presidents Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton and Bush (43), he is now national security advisor to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.
Martin Sullivan and Gary Vikan (4/18/03) - The chairman and a member of the President's Advisory Committee on Cultural Property both resigned to protest the "wanton and preventable destruction" of Iraq's National Museum of Antiquities. Sullivan's resignation letter stated that "While our military forces have displayed extraordinary precision and restraint in securing the Oil Ministry and oil fields - they have been nothing short of impotent in failing to attend to the protection of [Iraq's] cultural heritage". Even though largely symbolic, their resignations are acts of conscience sorely needed at this time.
John Brady Kiesling, political counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Athens (4/27/03 article in Boston Globe Magazine) - resigned with a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell because "As the war became inescapable, so, too, became my catastrophic conviction that I could either represent the president or defend US interest, but I could no longer do both." A rare and admirable resignation of conscience.
Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins - although celebrities, their intelligence, thoughtfulness and previous work for other good causes qualifies them as spokesmen against the war.
Hall of Fame Ante-Chamber - Republican wing: (not quite ready for the Hall of Fame)
John McCain, Senator from Arizona - You may not agree with all or even many of his positions, but you will know where he stands. Besides, he's fought the administration on a number of issues.
Olympia Snowe, Senator from Maine - A moderate Republican who will question and vote against bad bills rather than follow blindly.
Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of the Treasury - fired by the administration, he wrote a book about his experiences, including cabinet meetings. As one who didn't believe in massive tax cuts, he was forced to not only defend but to push them.
Removed 5/2/03: Colin Powell, Secretary of State - Originally included - because of his long and early advocacy of diplomacy and involvement of the rest of the world in the Iraq problem, one is inclined to forgive him his later support for the administration's unilateral approach - but the threatening remarks to Syria and about punishing France move him too close to the administration mainstream.
Updated 3/27/04