From Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post:
‘Moments after the interview, as the president announced that he was replacing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Lowry wrote on his magazine's Web site that "a lot of Republicans are probably yelling right now, 'Why didn't you do it BEFORE the election?'
‘Ingraham said after her show that she is "very confused. Wasn't it just last week that the president said Rumsfeld was doing an 'excellent' job? And hasn't the president consistently said that his war policy is driven by what is happening on the ground in Iraq—not politics or polls?’
*_*_*
What’s the confusion?
Bush consistently says people are doing an ‘excellent’ job or a ‘heckuva’ job or some such—and then sacks them. Hasn’t Ingraham been paying attention?
As to the war policy not being driven by politics or polls—well, what can I say?
This president has repeatedly given himself titles: ‘The Decider’, 'The Uniter' and ‘The Defender’ come to mind.
I have my own title for him: ‘The Liar.’
November 13, 2006
November 12, 2006
Kos Says It’s Payback Time--I Disagree
From Kos [11/7/06]:
"Republicans in the Senate and House -- secure in their perpetual majorities -- instituted a long list of policies that dramatically discriminate against the minority party in both chambers. In the House, the minority is all but invisible.
But here's the key -- every bit of anti-minority party legislation the GOP implemented these last 12 years better be kept intact by the new Democratic leadership. Let them reap what they sowed. They deserve every humiliation they designed for those in the minority status.
*_*_*
Frankly, I don’t care if the Dems keep all the perks the GOP’ers gave themselves. Except one.
I think the Dems would do well to let the Republicans have a hand in the governing of the country. They were, after all, elected by the people to do just that.
Pragmatically, the best way to be seen as being even handed, not vindictive, willing to work and play well with others is to be even handed, to not be vindictive and to work and play well with the Republicans.
And, over and above how it will LOOK is the underlying fact that this IS still a democratic republic, right? So, the people ARE supposed to have a voice in such matters—like voting for the people they want to have govern them? Without that, what the hey are we doing here?
*_*_*
There’s one thing, though, that I hope WILL be addressed—and very few of the pundits [I’ve seen one so far] have mentioned it.
Back in 2003, the Republicans redrew the map to give themselves an unfair advantage when the people go to the polls.
I’m sorry, that’s NOT Democracy. It’s dictatorship. So, I hope one of the early orders of business will be to again draw the map according to the actual census figures—without the thumb on the scales for either party.
Then, let the people truly have a say in how this ‘Democracy’ is supposed to work.
"Republicans in the Senate and House -- secure in their perpetual majorities -- instituted a long list of policies that dramatically discriminate against the minority party in both chambers. In the House, the minority is all but invisible.
But here's the key -- every bit of anti-minority party legislation the GOP implemented these last 12 years better be kept intact by the new Democratic leadership. Let them reap what they sowed. They deserve every humiliation they designed for those in the minority status.
*_*_*
Frankly, I don’t care if the Dems keep all the perks the GOP’ers gave themselves. Except one.
I think the Dems would do well to let the Republicans have a hand in the governing of the country. They were, after all, elected by the people to do just that.
Pragmatically, the best way to be seen as being even handed, not vindictive, willing to work and play well with others is to be even handed, to not be vindictive and to work and play well with the Republicans.
And, over and above how it will LOOK is the underlying fact that this IS still a democratic republic, right? So, the people ARE supposed to have a voice in such matters—like voting for the people they want to have govern them? Without that, what the hey are we doing here?
*_*_*
There’s one thing, though, that I hope WILL be addressed—and very few of the pundits [I’ve seen one so far] have mentioned it.
Back in 2003, the Republicans redrew the map to give themselves an unfair advantage when the people go to the polls.
I’m sorry, that’s NOT Democracy. It’s dictatorship. So, I hope one of the early orders of business will be to again draw the map according to the actual census figures—without the thumb on the scales for either party.
Then, let the people truly have a say in how this ‘Democracy’ is supposed to work.
November 11, 2006
First Things First
I don’t know which of the options outlined below is the right one.
If it had been up to me, I would’ve voted against the war in the first place—but it wasn’t up to me. I didn’t want the job then and I CERTAINLY don’t want it now.
But, the fact is, we need to either get out of Iraq or spend the next few months replacing the plywood trucks there with actual armoured vehicles. Sending in real kevlar vests that won’t break in the middle of a fire fight would be nice. And sending enough troops to actually get the job done so they can all come home would be a really good idea.
Now, THAT’S the way to support our troops.
Sporting yellow ribbons, making up slogans and denouncing political opponents haven’t done the trick.
xxx
Addendum:
This morning, after posting this, I heard a sad commentary:
A man called in to Car Talk on NPR from Baghdad. He had a question about how to maintain his truck.
The soldiers are now, apparently, receiving vehicles that are armoured. That's some progress, at least. But the undercarriages of their trucks aren't strong enough to support the armour and the shocks, springs and ball joints are failing--about once per week.
Of course, if a ball joint fails when you're driving down the road, your wheel falls off. This is very dangerous here at home. Can you imagine being in Baghdad when it happens?
This is how Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney et al have supported our troops.
If it had been up to me, I would’ve voted against the war in the first place—but it wasn’t up to me. I didn’t want the job then and I CERTAINLY don’t want it now.
But, the fact is, we need to either get out of Iraq or spend the next few months replacing the plywood trucks there with actual armoured vehicles. Sending in real kevlar vests that won’t break in the middle of a fire fight would be nice. And sending enough troops to actually get the job done so they can all come home would be a really good idea.
Now, THAT’S the way to support our troops.
Sporting yellow ribbons, making up slogans and denouncing political opponents haven’t done the trick.
xxx
Addendum:
This morning, after posting this, I heard a sad commentary:
A man called in to Car Talk on NPR from Baghdad. He had a question about how to maintain his truck.
The soldiers are now, apparently, receiving vehicles that are armoured. That's some progress, at least. But the undercarriages of their trucks aren't strong enough to support the armour and the shocks, springs and ball joints are failing--about once per week.
Of course, if a ball joint fails when you're driving down the road, your wheel falls off. This is very dangerous here at home. Can you imagine being in Baghdad when it happens?
This is how Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney et al have supported our troops.
November 10, 2006
To Rumsfeld: 'You’re No Churchill'
Andrew Sullivan wrote in his ‘Daily Dish’:
"In brief remarks, Rumsfeld described the Iraq conflict as a 'little understood, unfamiliar war' that is 'complex for people to comprehend.'
"He then compared himself to Churchill. Yep: still clinical. The truth is: it was Rumsfeld who little understood and was unfamiliar with the actual conflict he was tasked with managing. It was not too 'complex for people to comprehend.' It was relatively easy to comprehend. If you invade a post-totalitarian country and disband its military, you better have enough troops to keep order. We didn't. Rumsfeld refused to send enough. When this was made clear to him and to everyone, he still refused. His arrogant belief in a military that didn't need any actual soldiers was completely at odds with the actual task in Iraq. But he preferred to sit back as tens of thousands of Iraqis were murdered and thousands of U.S. troops died rather than to check his own ego.
"So let me put this as simply as I can: Rumsfeld has blood on his hands -- American and Iraqi blood. He also directly ordered and personally monitored the torture of military detainees. He secured legal impunity for his own war crimes, but that doesn't mean the Congress shouldn't investigate more fully what he authorized. He remains one of the most incompetent defense secretaries in history (McNamara looks good in comparison). But he is also a war criminal: a torturer who broke the laws of this country. The catastrophe in Iraq will stain him for ever. His record of torture has indelibly stained the United States."
*_*_*
I can’t, in good conscience, come out in favor of impeaching Bush—as tempting a target as he is. I fear the damage to the country would be far greater than any satisfaction we would glean from the experience. Unless investigations find more crimes than are currently evident, let’s just pull his fangs, let him finish out his last 2 years, and be rid of him.
We CAN, we MUST, hold Rumsfeld accountable for his policies that have left tens of thousands dead and left the United States in a shambles with a rule of torture as it’s legacy.
"In brief remarks, Rumsfeld described the Iraq conflict as a 'little understood, unfamiliar war' that is 'complex for people to comprehend.'
"He then compared himself to Churchill. Yep: still clinical. The truth is: it was Rumsfeld who little understood and was unfamiliar with the actual conflict he was tasked with managing. It was not too 'complex for people to comprehend.' It was relatively easy to comprehend. If you invade a post-totalitarian country and disband its military, you better have enough troops to keep order. We didn't. Rumsfeld refused to send enough. When this was made clear to him and to everyone, he still refused. His arrogant belief in a military that didn't need any actual soldiers was completely at odds with the actual task in Iraq. But he preferred to sit back as tens of thousands of Iraqis were murdered and thousands of U.S. troops died rather than to check his own ego.
"So let me put this as simply as I can: Rumsfeld has blood on his hands -- American and Iraqi blood. He also directly ordered and personally monitored the torture of military detainees. He secured legal impunity for his own war crimes, but that doesn't mean the Congress shouldn't investigate more fully what he authorized. He remains one of the most incompetent defense secretaries in history (McNamara looks good in comparison). But he is also a war criminal: a torturer who broke the laws of this country. The catastrophe in Iraq will stain him for ever. His record of torture has indelibly stained the United States."
*_*_*
I can’t, in good conscience, come out in favor of impeaching Bush—as tempting a target as he is. I fear the damage to the country would be far greater than any satisfaction we would glean from the experience. Unless investigations find more crimes than are currently evident, let’s just pull his fangs, let him finish out his last 2 years, and be rid of him.
We CAN, we MUST, hold Rumsfeld accountable for his policies that have left tens of thousands dead and left the United States in a shambles with a rule of torture as it’s legacy.
November 9, 2006
The Attacks Begin
Yesterday on C-Span, I heard some pretty preposterous statements.
First, a woman came out for ‘protecting marriage.’
**sigh** THAT old saw.
I’m sorry, evidence suggests that marriage has been around at least as long as agriculture, What is that—about 12 thousand years? I don’t think marriage is in any danger. In fact, it’s not under attack. Some folks who’ve been excluded just want to be allowed into the tent.
On the other hand, our way of life is in danger when bigotry and discrimination are allowed to flourish.
Then, a man said: ‘When Democrats get power they reach across the aisle and say they want to get things done. Well, we need to not be taken in.’
Oh. My. God. We know that Republicans have refused to work with the Democrats at all—freezing them out of the decision making processes. I had always perceived that as simple vindictiveness. Now, it sounds as if they actually see that as a Good Thing and look at Democrats who want to extend the olive branch as if they are engaging in trickery.
This man sounded as if he was disappointed that the Democrats might even accept participation by the Republicans. I don't understand that mindset.
So, the Republicans are speaking out AGAINST moving Washington back into a cooperative mode? WHAT do they think Tuesday’s message from the people was? That we want more business as usual? The hubris just doesn’t stop.
First, a woman came out for ‘protecting marriage.’
**sigh** THAT old saw.
I’m sorry, evidence suggests that marriage has been around at least as long as agriculture, What is that—about 12 thousand years? I don’t think marriage is in any danger. In fact, it’s not under attack. Some folks who’ve been excluded just want to be allowed into the tent.
On the other hand, our way of life is in danger when bigotry and discrimination are allowed to flourish.
Then, a man said: ‘When Democrats get power they reach across the aisle and say they want to get things done. Well, we need to not be taken in.’
Oh. My. God. We know that Republicans have refused to work with the Democrats at all—freezing them out of the decision making processes. I had always perceived that as simple vindictiveness. Now, it sounds as if they actually see that as a Good Thing and look at Democrats who want to extend the olive branch as if they are engaging in trickery.
This man sounded as if he was disappointed that the Democrats might even accept participation by the Republicans. I don't understand that mindset.
So, the Republicans are speaking out AGAINST moving Washington back into a cooperative mode? WHAT do they think Tuesday’s message from the people was? That we want more business as usual? The hubris just doesn’t stop.
November 7, 2006
A Time To Speak
A time comes when silence is betrayal. . . . We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. For we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that is so close around us.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
November 4, 2006
Democracy at Work
With all the talk being bandied about concerning impeachment, I was put in mind of something I read years ago:
It was a piece on Nixon’s resignation. I don’t remember who wrote it—so I can’t attribute it—sorry.
*_*_*
It seems this journalist bundled his two young children into the back seat of his car and drove to an area overlooking the White House lawn.
He looked around himself at the peaceful street.
He chatted with his children as he kept an eye on the scene below.
He noted the helicopter as it came into view and settled on the grass.
After a pretty long wait he saw people emerge from the White House and walk to the helicopter. The rotors began to turn, it lifted and set off to take the disgraced President away to the airport to begin his journey home.
And he marveled.
Our government had just changed hands.
It had been done quietly.
Probably, most people were in their homes or places of business watching the events unfold on TV.
There was no disorder.
No people with guns were running in the streets.
There were no screams.
It was a sad day—not a terrifying one.
He turned in his seat to explain to his children what an extraordinary event this was.
Their eyes were closed.
The government had just changed hands and small children didn’t know anything unusual was occurring. They felt secure enough to fall asleep.
And, that was the largest blessing of all.
*_*_*
I may have had the same misgivings in 1974—I don’t remember.
But, given the nature of this administration, I’m not certain an impeachment today would result in the same outcome Nixon’s did.
Today’s administration is worse. It is even more greedy, more power-hungry than Nixon’s was.
Its crimes, to date, are even worse.
If Bush were to go, Cheney would have to go, too. In fact, I have no idea how far down the line of succession we would have to descend to find someone whose hands are clean. And, I’m not sure our country would survive such a cleansing with anything nearing the equanimity as occurred back then.
It was a piece on Nixon’s resignation. I don’t remember who wrote it—so I can’t attribute it—sorry.
*_*_*
It seems this journalist bundled his two young children into the back seat of his car and drove to an area overlooking the White House lawn.
He looked around himself at the peaceful street.
He chatted with his children as he kept an eye on the scene below.
He noted the helicopter as it came into view and settled on the grass.
After a pretty long wait he saw people emerge from the White House and walk to the helicopter. The rotors began to turn, it lifted and set off to take the disgraced President away to the airport to begin his journey home.
And he marveled.
Our government had just changed hands.
It had been done quietly.
Probably, most people were in their homes or places of business watching the events unfold on TV.
There was no disorder.
No people with guns were running in the streets.
There were no screams.
It was a sad day—not a terrifying one.
He turned in his seat to explain to his children what an extraordinary event this was.
Their eyes were closed.
The government had just changed hands and small children didn’t know anything unusual was occurring. They felt secure enough to fall asleep.
And, that was the largest blessing of all.
*_*_*
I may have had the same misgivings in 1974—I don’t remember.
But, given the nature of this administration, I’m not certain an impeachment today would result in the same outcome Nixon’s did.
Today’s administration is worse. It is even more greedy, more power-hungry than Nixon’s was.
Its crimes, to date, are even worse.
If Bush were to go, Cheney would have to go, too. In fact, I have no idea how far down the line of succession we would have to descend to find someone whose hands are clean. And, I’m not sure our country would survive such a cleansing with anything nearing the equanimity as occurred back then.
November 1, 2006
Bush to American People---Believe What I SAY--Not What I DID
Recently, too, the White House announced it's new strategy for the war in Iraq.
Bush isn't going to use the phrase, 'Stay the course.' any more.
That should do it.
Of course, according to Bush, he hasn't BEEN using that phrase.
And he doesn't CARE what those pesky video tapes show! He didn't SAY it--he SAYS he didn't say it--so why won't we just BELIEVE him?
Well, ok, just in case it may have passed his lips a time or two--well, he'll never say it again.
NOW will we get behind his policy in Iraq?
Bush isn't going to use the phrase, 'Stay the course.' any more.
That should do it.
Of course, according to Bush, he hasn't BEEN using that phrase.
And he doesn't CARE what those pesky video tapes show! He didn't SAY it--he SAYS he didn't say it--so why won't we just BELIEVE him?
Well, ok, just in case it may have passed his lips a time or two--well, he'll never say it again.
NOW will we get behind his policy in Iraq?
October 30, 2006
Baby Soul?
Well, actually, I do have something to add to the post below:
*_*_*
The ‘religion’ that I adhere to is not a dogmatic religion, as such. It’s more a belief system that I study.
It recognizes the evolution of the soul through reincarnation. The youngsters on earth at the moment [infant and baby souls] are becoming more and more in the minority as the planet matures and fewer and fewer souls are choosing to start their physical training here. The planet is looking tired—there’s a lot of work to do to rescue it from human intervention—and other, fresher planets are beckoning. But, those who’ve opted to start here are in it, most likely, for the long haul.
Anyhow, see if any of this sounds familiar:
Baby souls are, generally, very very sure of themselves. They see the world in black and white. Shadings of gray don’t come into the mix until they reach the mid to late stages of the young phase of existence.
Babies hold a ‘my way or the highway’ mentality. ‘You’re with us or you’re with the terrorists,’ is a very baby thing to say. Holding the view that patriotism consists of believing exactly what you’re told by the authorities is also a baby characteristic.
Rules are important—though not always followed by babies. They’re especially important for others to follow. Pretty much, though, babies follow their leaders without question. When they’re in a leading role, they expect to be followed unquestioningly, as well. If someone does raise a question they’re met with surprise and even hostility.
Now, don’t jump to conclusions. Baby souls aren’t bad any more than toddlers are bad. They’re simply inexperienced—just as baby personalities are. They need firm, mature hands to guide them and protect them. If they don't receive good guidance they can cause a lot of grief—even if they're not in positions of authority.
It’s extremely rare for baby souls to rise to political heights as Bush has done. Mostly, they prefer to be big fish in a small pond. The mayor or police chief of a small town or a cop walking a beat are more common venues for baby souls who reach for power.
And our jails and prisons house people of every soul age [infant, baby, young, mature and old] but the vast majority are younger rather than older. Again, their inexperience tends to get them into trouble.
Bush was more competitive than most, though. He got the Big Job—
If he is, as I’m guessing, a baby soul—he’s out of his depth. And, again because of his inexperience, he preferred to surround himself with yes-people rather than folks who could thoughtfully guide him in his decision making. As a result, the planet is in a world of trouble.
May we please choose a more mature soul at our next election. Luckily—as I mentioned earlier—babies don’t often aspire to high office.
And, believe me, more mature souls can cause a lot of damage, too. So, just because a candidate can see shades of gray doesn't necessarily mean we'll be out of the woods. It still falls to us to elect someone who can not only see the big picture but will act appropriately. After all, Nixon was [I think] a mature soul.
And Carter is old. He made mistakes when he was president, too—though he’s done great good since. And, arguably, he did much less harm while in office.
*_*_*
The ‘religion’ that I adhere to is not a dogmatic religion, as such. It’s more a belief system that I study.
It recognizes the evolution of the soul through reincarnation. The youngsters on earth at the moment [infant and baby souls] are becoming more and more in the minority as the planet matures and fewer and fewer souls are choosing to start their physical training here. The planet is looking tired—there’s a lot of work to do to rescue it from human intervention—and other, fresher planets are beckoning. But, those who’ve opted to start here are in it, most likely, for the long haul.
Anyhow, see if any of this sounds familiar:
Baby souls are, generally, very very sure of themselves. They see the world in black and white. Shadings of gray don’t come into the mix until they reach the mid to late stages of the young phase of existence.
Babies hold a ‘my way or the highway’ mentality. ‘You’re with us or you’re with the terrorists,’ is a very baby thing to say. Holding the view that patriotism consists of believing exactly what you’re told by the authorities is also a baby characteristic.
Rules are important—though not always followed by babies. They’re especially important for others to follow. Pretty much, though, babies follow their leaders without question. When they’re in a leading role, they expect to be followed unquestioningly, as well. If someone does raise a question they’re met with surprise and even hostility.
Now, don’t jump to conclusions. Baby souls aren’t bad any more than toddlers are bad. They’re simply inexperienced—just as baby personalities are. They need firm, mature hands to guide them and protect them. If they don't receive good guidance they can cause a lot of grief—even if they're not in positions of authority.
It’s extremely rare for baby souls to rise to political heights as Bush has done. Mostly, they prefer to be big fish in a small pond. The mayor or police chief of a small town or a cop walking a beat are more common venues for baby souls who reach for power.
And our jails and prisons house people of every soul age [infant, baby, young, mature and old] but the vast majority are younger rather than older. Again, their inexperience tends to get them into trouble.
Bush was more competitive than most, though. He got the Big Job—
If he is, as I’m guessing, a baby soul—he’s out of his depth. And, again because of his inexperience, he preferred to surround himself with yes-people rather than folks who could thoughtfully guide him in his decision making. As a result, the planet is in a world of trouble.
May we please choose a more mature soul at our next election. Luckily—as I mentioned earlier—babies don’t often aspire to high office.
And, believe me, more mature souls can cause a lot of damage, too. So, just because a candidate can see shades of gray doesn't necessarily mean we'll be out of the woods. It still falls to us to elect someone who can not only see the big picture but will act appropriately. After all, Nixon was [I think] a mature soul.
And Carter is old. He made mistakes when he was president, too—though he’s done great good since. And, arguably, he did much less harm while in office.
October 28, 2006
Is The President On Another Planet?
I certainly can't improve on this--so I'm simply passing it on
*_*_*
Eugene Robinson – Op Ed columnist: Washington Post
For a moment there, I was almost encouraged. George W. Bush, the most resolutely incurious and inflexible of presidents, was reported last week to have been surprised at seeing Iraqi citizens -- who ought to be grateful beneficiaries of the American occupation, I mean "liberation" -- demonstrating in support of Hezbollah and against Israel.
Surprise would be a start, since it would mean the Decider was admitting novel facts to his settled base of knowledge and reacting to them. Alas, it seems the door to the presidential mind is still locked tight. "I don't remember being surprised," he said at his news conference yesterday. "I'm not sure what they mean by that."
I'm guessing "they" might mean that when you try to impose your simplistic, black-and-white template on a kaleidoscopic world, and you end up setting the Middle East on fire, either you're surprised or you're not paying attention. But that's just me.
As for George Bush, what on earth is on his mind?
Even conservatives have begun openly assessing the president's intellect, especially its impermeability to new information. Cable television pundit Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, devoted a segment of his MSNBC show to "George Bush's mental weakness," with a legend at the bottom of the screen that impertinently asked: "IS BUSH AN 'IDIOT'?"
It's tempting to go there, but I'm not sure we'd get very far. While we have the president on the couch, I'm more interested in trying to understand his emotional response -- or lack of response -- to the chaos he has spawned.
According to the Iraqi government, 3,438 civilians were killed in July, making it the bloodiest month since the invasion. The president was asked yesterday whether the failure of the U.S.-backed "unity" government to stem the orgy of sectarian carnage disappoints him, and he said that no, it didn't. How, I wonder, is that possible? Does he believe it would be a sign of weakness to admit that the flowering of democracy in Iraq isn't going exactly as planned? Does he believe saying everything's just fine will make it so? Is he in denial? Or do 3,438 deaths really just roll off his back after he's had his workout and a nice bike ride?
"I hear a lot of talk about civil war" in Iraq, he allowed -- much of it apparently from his own generals, who have been increasingly bold in using the once-forbidden phrase -- but all that talk doesn't seem to penetrate very far. To the president, is all the bad news from Iraq just "talk" without objective reality?
Here's another line from the president's news conference: "What's very interesting about the violence in Lebanon and the violence in Iraq and the violence in Gaza is this: These are all groups of terrorists who are trying to stop the advance of democracy."
Now, whatever you think about George Bush's intellect, he knows full well that the Hamas government in Gaza was democratically elected. He also knows full well that Hezbollah participates in the democratically elected government of Lebanon, or what's left of Lebanon. And so he has to know full well that U.S.-backed Israeli assaults on Gaza and Lebanon -- even if you believe they were justified -- had the impact of crippling, if not crushing, two nascent democracies of the kind the Bush administration wants to cultivate throughout the Middle East.
He also knows that the Iraqi government has real sovereignty over only the Green Zone in Baghdad -- a fortress made secure by the presence of U.S. troops -- and assorted other enclaves where American and British troops enforce the peace. He has heard the leader of that nominal government praise Hezbollah and denounce Israel.
So when the president lauds democracy as the magic elixir that will cure the scourge of terrorism, is he really putting faith in his favorite mantra rather than his lying eyes? Is his view of the world so unchangeable that he dismisses actual events the way he dismisses mere "talk''?
Or is he just trying to hold on until January 2009, when all this will become somebody else's problem?
In his news conference, the Decider did make a couple of nods to objective reality. He admitted in plain language that Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks and possessed no weapons of mass destruction -- in other words, that his rationale for this elective, preemptive war had no substance. And he acknowledged a certain occasional exasperation.
"Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised," the president said. "Sometimes I'm happy. This is -- but war is not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times."
No, they're not.
*_*_*
Eugene Robinson – Op Ed columnist: Washington Post
For a moment there, I was almost encouraged. George W. Bush, the most resolutely incurious and inflexible of presidents, was reported last week to have been surprised at seeing Iraqi citizens -- who ought to be grateful beneficiaries of the American occupation, I mean "liberation" -- demonstrating in support of Hezbollah and against Israel.
Surprise would be a start, since it would mean the Decider was admitting novel facts to his settled base of knowledge and reacting to them. Alas, it seems the door to the presidential mind is still locked tight. "I don't remember being surprised," he said at his news conference yesterday. "I'm not sure what they mean by that."
I'm guessing "they" might mean that when you try to impose your simplistic, black-and-white template on a kaleidoscopic world, and you end up setting the Middle East on fire, either you're surprised or you're not paying attention. But that's just me.
As for George Bush, what on earth is on his mind?
Even conservatives have begun openly assessing the president's intellect, especially its impermeability to new information. Cable television pundit Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, devoted a segment of his MSNBC show to "George Bush's mental weakness," with a legend at the bottom of the screen that impertinently asked: "IS BUSH AN 'IDIOT'?"
It's tempting to go there, but I'm not sure we'd get very far. While we have the president on the couch, I'm more interested in trying to understand his emotional response -- or lack of response -- to the chaos he has spawned.
According to the Iraqi government, 3,438 civilians were killed in July, making it the bloodiest month since the invasion. The president was asked yesterday whether the failure of the U.S.-backed "unity" government to stem the orgy of sectarian carnage disappoints him, and he said that no, it didn't. How, I wonder, is that possible? Does he believe it would be a sign of weakness to admit that the flowering of democracy in Iraq isn't going exactly as planned? Does he believe saying everything's just fine will make it so? Is he in denial? Or do 3,438 deaths really just roll off his back after he's had his workout and a nice bike ride?
"I hear a lot of talk about civil war" in Iraq, he allowed -- much of it apparently from his own generals, who have been increasingly bold in using the once-forbidden phrase -- but all that talk doesn't seem to penetrate very far. To the president, is all the bad news from Iraq just "talk" without objective reality?
Here's another line from the president's news conference: "What's very interesting about the violence in Lebanon and the violence in Iraq and the violence in Gaza is this: These are all groups of terrorists who are trying to stop the advance of democracy."
Now, whatever you think about George Bush's intellect, he knows full well that the Hamas government in Gaza was democratically elected. He also knows full well that Hezbollah participates in the democratically elected government of Lebanon, or what's left of Lebanon. And so he has to know full well that U.S.-backed Israeli assaults on Gaza and Lebanon -- even if you believe they were justified -- had the impact of crippling, if not crushing, two nascent democracies of the kind the Bush administration wants to cultivate throughout the Middle East.
He also knows that the Iraqi government has real sovereignty over only the Green Zone in Baghdad -- a fortress made secure by the presence of U.S. troops -- and assorted other enclaves where American and British troops enforce the peace. He has heard the leader of that nominal government praise Hezbollah and denounce Israel.
So when the president lauds democracy as the magic elixir that will cure the scourge of terrorism, is he really putting faith in his favorite mantra rather than his lying eyes? Is his view of the world so unchangeable that he dismisses actual events the way he dismisses mere "talk''?
Or is he just trying to hold on until January 2009, when all this will become somebody else's problem?
In his news conference, the Decider did make a couple of nods to objective reality. He admitted in plain language that Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks and possessed no weapons of mass destruction -- in other words, that his rationale for this elective, preemptive war had no substance. And he acknowledged a certain occasional exasperation.
"Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised," the president said. "Sometimes I'm happy. This is -- but war is not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times."
No, they're not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
