President Bush: The Second Four Years
Four More Years (Nov. 6, 2004)
The prospect of four more years of the Bush administration is deeply depressing. Now that he's been elected by a majority, and has seen Republican gains in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, how can he claim anything but a mandate. If the last four years have been a time of increased division in government and the parties, why shouldn't the next four years feature even more of "my way or the highway"?
The triumph of instinct, gut feel and faith over reason, logic and facts is truly frightening for the future. The fundamentalists seem to have co-opted religion, and imposed their version of intolerance, "my god can beat up your god", and "my beliefs are right and yours are wrong".
John Kerry ran a good campaign. He had his limitations and some missteps, but was in all likelihood the best of the available Democrats. And that's where part of the problem was and is - where are the strong democratic leaders of the future?
What's to be done? A few immediate thoughts before any details:
The Democratic party still needs to find out who it is and what it stands for. And then it needs to find a strong leader (no standard-issue politician need apply) to pick up that flag and carry it unwaveringly.
I recommend an immediate four-year program to un-demonize the word "liberal" by making it clear that it stands for tolerance, compassion and concern for fellow humanity and our one earth. I see no reason why intolerant, far-right, self-serving conservatism should be considered a virtue while "liberal" is a pejorative. The very words "liberal" and "conservative" should at least be on equal footing.
There should be an immediate exchange program between families in the blue and red states - folks should live in the other's communities to get to know each other as real people. Right now there seem to be two countries within one that don't understand and even despise one another. There are good people on both sides that should get to know each other.
The good news is that we no longer have to listen to or read politician sound bites and exaggerations. We no longer have to wonder what effect a particular piece of news will have on the election (e. g., an Osama tape, state of the ecomomy). And we can spend our money on useful things again like supporting the needy and the environment rather than paying for political attacks.
The Coalition of the Departing (Nov. 6, 2004)
On the same day, November 4, 2004, that newspapers featured the re-election of President Bush, an article in the New York Times gave details on more of the President's "Coalition of the Willing" leaving Iraq. The article is reproduced below (copyright, New York Times):
Hungary Joins Others in Pulling Troops From Iraq
By JUDY DEMPSEY,
International Herald Tribune
BERLIN, Nov. 3 - Hungary announced Wednesday that it would withdraw its 300 troops from Iraq, becoming the latest country in United States-led coalition to bow to public pressure and prepare to bring its soldiers home.
Speaking at a ceremony for the end of military conscription, the newly appointed prime minister, Ferenc Gyurcsany, said Hungary was obliged to stay until the Iraqi elections scheduled for January, but would withdraw the troops by March.
"To stay longer is an impossibility," said Mr. Gyurcsany (pronounced JOR-chahn-ee).
The United States had persuaded 32 countries to provide 22,000 soldiers as part of the multinational force established to stabilize postwar Iraq. But over the last few months, a number of countries have withdrawn, some citing the cost but others concerned about security, and many governments face increasing public opposition to the war.
Spain's Socialist government withdrew its 1,300 troops after it swept into power last March, reversing the commitment of the prior center-right government of Prime Minister José María Aznar. The Dominican Republic withdrew 302 soldiers, Nicaragua 115 and Honduras 370. The Philippines withdrew its 51 in July, a month early, after insurgents took hostage a Filipino truck driver working for a Saudi company. Norway withdrew 155 military engineers, keeping only 15 staff members to help NATO train and equip the Iraqi security forces.
Two large contributors to the international force - Britain, with 12,000 troops, and Italy, with more than 3,100 - have insisted they will not withdraw. But Poland, the fourth-largest contributor, with 2,400 troops, says it intends to withdraw by the end of next year, and the Netherlands, with 1,400 troops, said this week that the latest rotation of troops would be its last contribution to Iraq.
New Zealand is withdrawing its 60 engineers and Thailand said it wanted to bring home its 450 troops. Singapore has reduced its contingent to 33, from 191; Moldova has trimmed its force to 12, from 42. On Wednesday Bulgaria's Defense Ministry said it would reduce its 483 troops to 430 next month, Reuters reported.
Iraq's interim government had asked Hungary to keep its troops in the country for another year. But Peter Matyuc, a spokesman for the Defense Ministry, said in a statement that the government would ask Parliament on Monday to extend the troops' mandate by only three months.
"By March 31, 2005, we will bring our troops back from Iraq," Mr. Gyurcsany said. "From then on, the existence of a stable democratic and safe Iraq has to be created by different means, above all political means.''
In a letter signed in January 2003, Hungary joined ranks with Poland, the Czech Republic, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Denmark and Britain in endorsing the Bush administration's willingness to use force to disarm Iraq, a move that deepened Europe's divisions over Iraq. A ninth country, Slovakia, signed the letter later. That first letter was followed by another signed by 10 more countries.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld added to the divisions by describing those governments that opposed military intervention - notably France and Germany - as Old Europe and those who supported Washington as New Europe.
Over the course of the Iraq war, news organizations have occasionally published summaries of troop contributions by the Coalition. I had shown two of these previously, as Our own little United Nations in Iraq (8/12/03). When another one appeared (Oct. 10, 2004, in the Boston Globe: below), I decided to collect all three into a table, to see how large (or small) this contribution is, and how it has changed over time:
So what conclusions can one draw from the summary?
First of all, precise numbers seem hard to come by. Coalition partners seem to come and go, and the number of troops vary over time. In the latest table, for example, we can be heartened by support from Moldava and the Kingdom of Tonga.
For all of President Bush's bloviating about "the brave soldiers" of the "Coalition of the Willing", there seem to be few of them from many countries, so of course he'd rather emphasize the approximately 30 partners rather than their contribution summing to only about 15% of the total force. He never got beyond citing Great Britain and Poland by name, with good reason: some countries never joined (Turkey), and some have left (Spain, Philippines). Once one goes beyond the British contribution, all the rest sum to about ten percent of the total; with about 25 partners, that's an average of 0.4% per partner. . According to the article above, that contribution is about to shrink more.
But "freedom is on the march" and "we're winning the war on terror". As always, for the Bush administration, "the truth is what we say it is".
More: Peace and War
Updated 11/22/04
Opinions, Observations, Odds & Ends: Peace and War
American Respect (Sept. 27, 2004)
An organization called americanrespect.com placed a full-page ad in the Sunday, Sept. 26, 2004 New York Times, consisting of a detailed essay on the American role in terrorism and the war in Iraq. It certainly made some demands on the reader by presenting a page full of small-print text, well-written and cogently argued, arguing for a new approach.
Surprisingly, it did not ask for supporting funds, did not give the name(s) or affiliation(s) of the author(s), and did not espouse a political cause. One can guess that the author(s) properly wanted attention focused on the writing rather than the writer(s). Even the web site offers no further information. Still, one wonders who the author(s) might be. With a P.O. address in Swarthmore, it might just be some academics; certainly that would not be at variance with a well-reasoned, well-written text that even includes footnotes.
I often approach this type of full-page ad with caution, since too many are planted by individuals with crackpot notions. This one is far different, and merits careful reading and wide dissemination.
Peace and War continued .....
Updated 9/27/04
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!
:
:
: