I almost titled this blog "The President is a Fool", but then I remembered that pejoratives get in the way of understanding. It's much more productive to deal with facts...and the facts clearly indicate that our current president, George W. Bush, is simply incompetent. Many of us suspected very early that GWB was a dim bulb and easily manipulated, but in the year 2000 we had little idea of how seriously his incompetence could harm the United States. We now are beginning to get a broad understanding of how these many sins of comission and omission will affect this country in the years to come.
The war in Iraq will go down as Bush's most important failure. Successful warriors know that the choice of a battleground has much to do with success or failure. Bush's choice of Iraq, which was surrounded by our enemies and had no consistent culture to rally around, has led to a stalemated conflict where our enemies have all the advantages...time, virtually unlimited manpower, concealment within the indigenous population, and outside technical and financial support. We can't "win" in the traditional sense, but our enemies win because we spend $8 billion per month to continue the fight - $8 billion that we borrow from our children and grandchildren, thus weakening our country's home base for the long term. We should have initiated conflicts only where we could assure victory, thus demoralizing our enemies. Instead, we have fought in a place where our enemies feel successful and they gain support as a result. As Colin Powell said, "You conquer it, you own it." Iraq is a tar baby, and unfortunately, George Bush stepped into it voluntarily.
The Bush administration's fiscal policies are the next most important failure. Our nation's future obligations to its citizens and foreign creditors cannot be met without dramatic changes in our entitlement programs and our management of current accounts like the federal deficit and the foreign trade deficit. The United States is in far worse economic condition than it was six years ago, even though the stock markets have risen. The risk to our nation increases substantially every year that action is not taken. Even though GWB has acknowledged much of what is said above on this topic, he has done nothing. He will be blamed by future generations for their pain.
If the presidency is a "bully pulpit", then the message from GWB has consistently been "come and be stupid with me." There was no call to arms to reduce consumption of, or substitute for, the oil that we depend on our enemies to provide us. Instead, he told us to drill in Anwar, a place where there is a pitifully small amount of oil - as if it could save us from our long term problem with oil supplies. Similarly, on the other side of the energy coin - global warming - he has failed to recognize the threat and mobilize our population and other governments to deal with it seriously. When it comes to the big issues, GWB is nowhere to be found!
I could go on and on about stem cell research, education, corruption (never mentioned by our illustrious president), church and state issues, and the silliness of many of our internal security initiatives. Leadership has been absent, as it was in Katrina.
You have to wonder how a country with so many brilliant and charismatic citizens could elect one of its dullest minds to its highest office. That's democracy, I guess. The good news is that we can recognize our mistake and do much better starting in November!
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Monday, September 25, 2006
Musings of a Protester
Last Friday I did something new - I participated in an organized political protest. The general objective of the protest was to counterbalance the media impact of Dick "VP of Torture and Misinformation" Cheney's visit to Rochester. It turned out that Cheney raised $180,000 for Randy Kuhl's congressional race, and the protest turned out 200 or so people who taunted the fund raiser attendees and chanted a variety of slogans while being carefully watched by a phalanx of burly police officers and who knows who else.
I carried a "Massa for Congress" sign through the streets of Rochester, and I chanted the chants while smiling at the well-heeled prospective beneficiaries of Republican largesse, who will certainly pad their wallets if Kuhl gets re-elected. But somehow I did not fit into the group that surrounded me - me in my khaki's and turtleneck and rain parka. The others looked like protesters from the 60's - wild young people with mohawks, older guys with beards wearing jeans and t-shirts, "Raging Grannies" in old fashioned clothes and make-up, gay and lesbian activists, advocates for the disabled, people protesting the Medicare drug "donut hole". It seems that regular people do not protest, regardless of how vehement they might feel about someone as outrageous as Dick Cheney. I was disappointed.
I met a lady who had retired before I did from the same company. She was very sweet, but she wasn't too clear on why she was there. When I asked her, she said something like "I go to protests." Apparently there are generic protesters who enjoy the energy emitted from groups of marching, chanting people.
There is a creepy feeling associated with being closely observed by police while you exercise your constitutional rights, and I felt it keenly. Also, people with cameras were filming us, and my picture will probably get entered into some kind of "enemies" database. I guess being known as an enemy of Dick Cheney is an honor of some kind...makes me feel like a distant cousin of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I suppose. Somebody's got to say "no" when the government starts torturing people and limiting their civil rights. Last week it was me.
So, I doubt that the motley 199 plus me protesters had much impact - Cheney raised almost $1,000 for each one of us. But it was kind of fun to engage in the kind of protest that once started the American revolution - people in the streets, demanding justice. Hopefully, come November, America will be at least a little teensy bit more peaceful as a result.
I carried a "Massa for Congress" sign through the streets of Rochester, and I chanted the chants while smiling at the well-heeled prospective beneficiaries of Republican largesse, who will certainly pad their wallets if Kuhl gets re-elected. But somehow I did not fit into the group that surrounded me - me in my khaki's and turtleneck and rain parka. The others looked like protesters from the 60's - wild young people with mohawks, older guys with beards wearing jeans and t-shirts, "Raging Grannies" in old fashioned clothes and make-up, gay and lesbian activists, advocates for the disabled, people protesting the Medicare drug "donut hole". It seems that regular people do not protest, regardless of how vehement they might feel about someone as outrageous as Dick Cheney. I was disappointed.
I met a lady who had retired before I did from the same company. She was very sweet, but she wasn't too clear on why she was there. When I asked her, she said something like "I go to protests." Apparently there are generic protesters who enjoy the energy emitted from groups of marching, chanting people.
There is a creepy feeling associated with being closely observed by police while you exercise your constitutional rights, and I felt it keenly. Also, people with cameras were filming us, and my picture will probably get entered into some kind of "enemies" database. I guess being known as an enemy of Dick Cheney is an honor of some kind...makes me feel like a distant cousin of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I suppose. Somebody's got to say "no" when the government starts torturing people and limiting their civil rights. Last week it was me.
So, I doubt that the motley 199 plus me protesters had much impact - Cheney raised almost $1,000 for each one of us. But it was kind of fun to engage in the kind of protest that once started the American revolution - people in the streets, demanding justice. Hopefully, come November, America will be at least a little teensy bit more peaceful as a result.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Optimism About the Election
As I walked the Appalachian Trail this spring in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, I often worried that the excesses of the Bush presidency would continue until he left office in early 2009.
Despite the fallout of the multiple congressional scandals, the Terri Schaivo travesty, Bush's obvious sell-outs to his greedy rich constituents, the stem cell rejections, and the free-fall of his Iraq strategy, there seemed like nothing could stand in the way of Bush and his do-nothing pals in congress. But a new breeze is blowing, and perhaps the November elections will begin a new chapter in our country's governance.
Today marked the revolt of Senate republicans over Bush's proposed trashing of the Geneva Conventions. By a large margin, the Committee sent the full Senate a much-modified version of Bush's bill. It will be very hard for the president to overcome the objections of John Warner, John McCain, Colin Powell, and General Vessey to the bill he put forward. This outright rejection of torture marks a return to the American ideals we thought our government was pursuing all along - until we found out different!
In my own congressional district a Democrat upstart, Eric Massa, is waging a strong campaign against the incumbent Republican, Randy Kuhl. Massa's impeccable military credentials, international experience, and personal integrity make him a formidable opponent for the Kuhl, a small-town political hack who grew up in the corrupt NY state senate. Massa seems to be the kind of guy whose leadership skills will immediately stand out in the House, and he'll be pushing for solutions to the country's big problems. I'm doing all I can to support him, even though I remain an Eisenhower republican.
Our not-straight-shooting vice president, Dick Cheney, soon will be visiting Rochester, NY, to raise some money for Kuhl. I plan to picket the hotel where he'll be selling photo op's for $1,000. This man has done more to harm the United States than anyone in recent history, and he needs to be repudiated at every opportunity.
So maybe the democrats will win the House in November, and we'll be back to divided government. For some reason, the checks and balances of divided government often seem to result in productive compromises. If Bush wants to save his presidential legacy, perhaps the loss of the House will turn out to be his greatest opportunity. Optimism is an American trait, yes?
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Rumsfeld Is Over the Top on Iraq
On August 29th, Donald Rumsfeld told the VFW convention that many Americans are confused about how the war on terror should be fought, and this confusion is leading to a lack of unity in confronting the terror threat. He compared the current adversaries to Hitler, and indicated that some American's “confusion” and lack of unity has similarities to the pre-WWII appeasement of Hitler. He also claimed that the Iraq war is part of the war on terror. This speech only gives added credibility to those who are asking President Bush to replace Rumsfeld, and it enrages veterans like me who question the appropriateness of the Iraq war and laugh bitterly at the mess that Rumsfeld and his cadre of draft-dodgers have made of it.
The idea that our adversaries in the war on radical Islamic terrorists resemble Hitler’s Germany is patently ridiculous, and Rumsfeld should be in the best possible position to know this. Perhaps the superficial comparison of Hitler’s dream for a world-ruling Thousand Year Reich to the terrorists’ assumed goal of creating a large Islamic-ruled land mass is enough for Rumsfeld, but it is not enough for any thinking person. The comparison fails in respect to the terrorists' war-making capacity, which are puny in comparison to Hitler’s. It also fails in respect to the degree of organization and the unity of purpose held by the compared organizations. Hitler had a well-defined system of command and control and top-down goal setting, while the terrorists have various factions attached to specific leaders and others attached to governments – with no common understanding of an end-point goal. Consequently, the war on these terrorists is going to be much different than the war on Hitler.
We already know that the war on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was not a war on terror. Saddam’s only goal was remaining in power, and he knew that becoming directly or even indirectly involved with terrorists was not a good strategy for achieving this goal. Saddam was only a token Muslim and had much to fear from the militant Muslims who are now giving the West so much trouble. By taking him out, Rumsfeld simply created a vacuum where the militants can assemble, recruit, and ally with their fellow Shiites in Iran. Bad judgment! If the Iraq war is, in fact, a part of the war on terror it is because he created and/or facilitated our new adversaries there.
Our continued high-profile presence in Iraq incites Muslims around the world to accept a radical outlook and unacceptably drains our military and financial resources - so much that the terrorists have already won that war to a significant degree. Our secondary goal in Iraq (after the WMD justification failed) was to help establish a democratic government there. Such a government has since been elected, and it’s time to let it go to work. If it fails, as is likely, the Islamic world will see how poorly the Shiite religious majority will actually govern. If it succeeds and does not support terrorism, we will have succeeded. If it succeeds and supports terrorism, we will have a defined adversary rather than a terrorist force inside a phony country. All these scenarios are preferable to our continued high-profile presence there, and we need to phase out in an orderly manner.
Yes, we need to take the threat from radical Islam seriously and combat it vigorously. The fact that radicals like Osama bin Laden hate us, and are a real danger to us, is understood even by Democrats! But this war needs to be as much a war of ideas as a war on the ground, and we need a much more pragmatic group of leaders to fight it. There are strong diplomatic approaches that need to be taken with both Western governments and existing governments in Muslim countries, there are major investments that must be made in intelligence and internal security, and there needs to be a strong worldwide police action against terrorism. Military action does not work against decentralized terrorists, and Rumsfeld again is smoking something other than tobacco if he is silly enough to believe that after his Iraq debacle.
The idea that our adversaries in the war on radical Islamic terrorists resemble Hitler’s Germany is patently ridiculous, and Rumsfeld should be in the best possible position to know this. Perhaps the superficial comparison of Hitler’s dream for a world-ruling Thousand Year Reich to the terrorists’ assumed goal of creating a large Islamic-ruled land mass is enough for Rumsfeld, but it is not enough for any thinking person. The comparison fails in respect to the terrorists' war-making capacity, which are puny in comparison to Hitler’s. It also fails in respect to the degree of organization and the unity of purpose held by the compared organizations. Hitler had a well-defined system of command and control and top-down goal setting, while the terrorists have various factions attached to specific leaders and others attached to governments – with no common understanding of an end-point goal. Consequently, the war on these terrorists is going to be much different than the war on Hitler.
We already know that the war on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was not a war on terror. Saddam’s only goal was remaining in power, and he knew that becoming directly or even indirectly involved with terrorists was not a good strategy for achieving this goal. Saddam was only a token Muslim and had much to fear from the militant Muslims who are now giving the West so much trouble. By taking him out, Rumsfeld simply created a vacuum where the militants can assemble, recruit, and ally with their fellow Shiites in Iran. Bad judgment! If the Iraq war is, in fact, a part of the war on terror it is because he created and/or facilitated our new adversaries there.
Our continued high-profile presence in Iraq incites Muslims around the world to accept a radical outlook and unacceptably drains our military and financial resources - so much that the terrorists have already won that war to a significant degree. Our secondary goal in Iraq (after the WMD justification failed) was to help establish a democratic government there. Such a government has since been elected, and it’s time to let it go to work. If it fails, as is likely, the Islamic world will see how poorly the Shiite religious majority will actually govern. If it succeeds and does not support terrorism, we will have succeeded. If it succeeds and supports terrorism, we will have a defined adversary rather than a terrorist force inside a phony country. All these scenarios are preferable to our continued high-profile presence there, and we need to phase out in an orderly manner.
Yes, we need to take the threat from radical Islam seriously and combat it vigorously. The fact that radicals like Osama bin Laden hate us, and are a real danger to us, is understood even by Democrats! But this war needs to be as much a war of ideas as a war on the ground, and we need a much more pragmatic group of leaders to fight it. There are strong diplomatic approaches that need to be taken with both Western governments and existing governments in Muslim countries, there are major investments that must be made in intelligence and internal security, and there needs to be a strong worldwide police action against terrorism. Military action does not work against decentralized terrorists, and Rumsfeld again is smoking something other than tobacco if he is silly enough to believe that after his Iraq debacle.
Monday, August 21, 2006
It's a "FIASCO" Thing
Our dear president is conspicuously missing from campaign ads for congressional seats held by people of his own party. With George Bush's popularity in the sewer, those congresspeople and senators want nothing to do with him except to see him in fund-raising events populated only with Republican diehards. Hard to blame them...
I'll be one of those Republicans not at a fund raiser; instead, I'll be going to a coffee for an opposing Democrat. I expect to be campaigning hard for anyone who is not a Republican, and I'll do that until my party gets back to its roots of fiscal conservatism, non-intervention, and social and religious moderation. The best way to do that, I suppose, is to clean house of all the folks who went along with Bush and his crew of passionate but stupid sad sacks.
And that is the issue that most Americans have now figured out - that George Bush and his crew have made far too many major mistakes when they have taken action, and they also have failed to get consensus on actions that really needed to be addressed on their watch...when they had every bit of government power under their control. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that they will not continue to make these mistakes if they stay in power, especially since you can't find a diehard Republican who even admits that mistakes have been made.
In our national government, as well as in every other component of our society - business, academia, religion, and local government - it's the people in charge who set the tone, hire the people, achieve or fail to achieve consensus, and take or hide from responsibility for failures as well as successes. In this Bush presidency the tone has been combative in both domestic and foreign affairs, poorly qualified people have all too often made serious errors, there has been little interest in forming a national consensus, and accountability has been glaringly absent. In too many areas of this administration's performance, FIASCO is a word that fits. Given this record there is no choice but to force change as soon as possible.
Some say that a congress controlled at least partially by Democrats will place too much focus on examining the conduct of the current administration. I say that is just what is needed, even if our national government is embarassed in public. The world needs to see that our democracy can honestly evaluate its leaders and "hold them to account" for the decisions they made. When it comes right down to it, George Bush is just an elected employee of the people, a man who is paid to maximize our interests. He is not a king, and he fails to listen to the people at his peril. The curtains have been drawn for far too long. Let the light of day shine!
I'll be one of those Republicans not at a fund raiser; instead, I'll be going to a coffee for an opposing Democrat. I expect to be campaigning hard for anyone who is not a Republican, and I'll do that until my party gets back to its roots of fiscal conservatism, non-intervention, and social and religious moderation. The best way to do that, I suppose, is to clean house of all the folks who went along with Bush and his crew of passionate but stupid sad sacks.
And that is the issue that most Americans have now figured out - that George Bush and his crew have made far too many major mistakes when they have taken action, and they also have failed to get consensus on actions that really needed to be addressed on their watch...when they had every bit of government power under their control. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that they will not continue to make these mistakes if they stay in power, especially since you can't find a diehard Republican who even admits that mistakes have been made.
In our national government, as well as in every other component of our society - business, academia, religion, and local government - it's the people in charge who set the tone, hire the people, achieve or fail to achieve consensus, and take or hide from responsibility for failures as well as successes. In this Bush presidency the tone has been combative in both domestic and foreign affairs, poorly qualified people have all too often made serious errors, there has been little interest in forming a national consensus, and accountability has been glaringly absent. In too many areas of this administration's performance, FIASCO is a word that fits. Given this record there is no choice but to force change as soon as possible.
Some say that a congress controlled at least partially by Democrats will place too much focus on examining the conduct of the current administration. I say that is just what is needed, even if our national government is embarassed in public. The world needs to see that our democracy can honestly evaluate its leaders and "hold them to account" for the decisions they made. When it comes right down to it, George Bush is just an elected employee of the people, a man who is paid to maximize our interests. He is not a king, and he fails to listen to the people at his peril. The curtains have been drawn for far too long. Let the light of day shine!
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Minimum Wage Travesty
Why is it that the Republican party has developed a death wish? As a lifelong Republican, I’m dismayed at the blatant hypocrisy and cynicism of the Republican congress, most recently displayed in their consideration of raising the minimum wage.
The current minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, with overtime calculated on the average hours worked during a two-week period. That works out to $10,300 per year for anyone unlucky enough to work fifty forty-hour weeks at this rate. The minimum wage has not increased during a period where the congress has raised its own salaries by over $41,000 per year. So, maybe it's time to consider an increase for the least employable people who want to work!
Unfortunately, that was not on the Republican congressional leadership's agenda. Nothing was to be done. Yet the unfavorable comparison outlined above threatened the campaigns of those Republicans who will be running for re-election in the fall. So, in a stroke of genius, the Republican house leaders concocted a bill to combine a phased increase in the minimum wage with a significant reduction in the estate tax. The bill was passed, with Republicans voting in favor. But this bill will not go into law, since this combination will not pass the Senate. The outcome was known in advance, so the whole exercise was "political cover" for those who need to face their constituents.
The logic for reducing the estate tax is simply this - it's payback for the well-heeled Republicans who have been financing Republicans for house and senate seats. Some have called it "welfare for Paris Hilton". The fact is that great Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt felt the estate tax was necessary in order to prevent the formation of an "American Royalty", a class of people who live in royal fashion simply due to the success of a forebear. And great Americans like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet believe the estate tax must be maintained. But the greedy rich of today's culture, those Christian self-made men and women who funded George Bush want to pass on every penny they couldn't spend to their progeny. Well, that is just too much! The kids will still get plenty, but somewhere down the line they or their kids may actually have to work. That's the American way according to Teddy Roosevelt, and a majority of the senate agrees with him. So, this house bill is DOA.
The minimum wage must be increased simply because few people are willing to work for that amount. It's well below the poverty line, for heaven's sake! If someone's take-home pay still leaves them with a grim existence and dependence on the government and charities for hand-outs, then what satisfaction is there in work and what motivation to take it on? In my view, Americans want everyone to earn a decent day's pay for a decent day's work. Unfortunately, the Republican congress doesn't agree with me. That's one of the reasons we've been separated for some time and heading for divorce.
It would be one thing for the Republicans, who control both houses of congress, simply to state their reasons for not increasing the minimum wage and get on with other business. But this cynical, non-starter package deal is basically another shady lie that will take its place alongside all the other disgraceful deeds of this congress. History will take notice of how these Republicans hijacked a great party, sold it to the highest bidder, and got tossed out like so much garbage when their stink got too strong for even many of their staunchest initial supporters. The fall elections can't come too quickly!
The current minimum wage is $5.15 per hour, with overtime calculated on the average hours worked during a two-week period. That works out to $10,300 per year for anyone unlucky enough to work fifty forty-hour weeks at this rate. The minimum wage has not increased during a period where the congress has raised its own salaries by over $41,000 per year. So, maybe it's time to consider an increase for the least employable people who want to work!
Unfortunately, that was not on the Republican congressional leadership's agenda. Nothing was to be done. Yet the unfavorable comparison outlined above threatened the campaigns of those Republicans who will be running for re-election in the fall. So, in a stroke of genius, the Republican house leaders concocted a bill to combine a phased increase in the minimum wage with a significant reduction in the estate tax. The bill was passed, with Republicans voting in favor. But this bill will not go into law, since this combination will not pass the Senate. The outcome was known in advance, so the whole exercise was "political cover" for those who need to face their constituents.
The logic for reducing the estate tax is simply this - it's payback for the well-heeled Republicans who have been financing Republicans for house and senate seats. Some have called it "welfare for Paris Hilton". The fact is that great Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt felt the estate tax was necessary in order to prevent the formation of an "American Royalty", a class of people who live in royal fashion simply due to the success of a forebear. And great Americans like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet believe the estate tax must be maintained. But the greedy rich of today's culture, those Christian self-made men and women who funded George Bush want to pass on every penny they couldn't spend to their progeny. Well, that is just too much! The kids will still get plenty, but somewhere down the line they or their kids may actually have to work. That's the American way according to Teddy Roosevelt, and a majority of the senate agrees with him. So, this house bill is DOA.
The minimum wage must be increased simply because few people are willing to work for that amount. It's well below the poverty line, for heaven's sake! If someone's take-home pay still leaves them with a grim existence and dependence on the government and charities for hand-outs, then what satisfaction is there in work and what motivation to take it on? In my view, Americans want everyone to earn a decent day's pay for a decent day's work. Unfortunately, the Republican congress doesn't agree with me. That's one of the reasons we've been separated for some time and heading for divorce.
It would be one thing for the Republicans, who control both houses of congress, simply to state their reasons for not increasing the minimum wage and get on with other business. But this cynical, non-starter package deal is basically another shady lie that will take its place alongside all the other disgraceful deeds of this congress. History will take notice of how these Republicans hijacked a great party, sold it to the highest bidder, and got tossed out like so much garbage when their stink got too strong for even many of their staunchest initial supporters. The fall elections can't come too quickly!
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Another Proxy War - Stop It Now!
I am a veteran, a former paratrooper. It was in the U.S. Army that I learned what war is all about. It is ugly, creating pain for everyone involved - even those who are not hurt, and those who "win". War seldom solves problems, and if it does solve problems it solves them at incredible cost in lives and dollars. Negotiation resulting in firm agreements is far more preferable than war, and effective negotiation is what is needed to end the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict.
It is clear that Hezbollah's goal of eliminating Israel cannot be achieved through negotiation and that Hezbollah is therefore not interested in negotiation. Only through effective diplomacy involving those who finance and supply Hezbollah can a lasting solution be achieved to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The facts are clear regarding Iran using Hezbollah as a proxy in its campaign to destroy Israel, so Iran must be confronted and made to change its behavior regarding Israel. If this is not done now, the danger to world stability will only increase over time as Iran becomes richer and stronger militarily.
In general, the world community must unite to condemn and eliminate military actions by non-governmental proxies. Governments are the only entities that can negotiate in good faith and make agreements that will last. Proxies are "loose cannons", often lead by fanatics who have no interest in negotiation and who are willing to sacrifice innocents in order to achieve their objectives. Countries that openly support military-oriented proxies must be held accountable.
With respect to Israel, the only solution to the long term problem is that Israel's arab neighbors guarantee Israel's territorial boundaries and its security. Those boundaries and the conditions for security are negotiable, and it is in Israel's interest to negotiate in good faith toward resolving these longstanding issues. The world powers need to generate the leverage to move the countries in the middle east toward such a settlement. Given the historical framework and religious antagonisms that make negotiations difficult, getting the parties to agree will be very difficult. But what alternative is there? Without a settlement, ongoing low-level proxy war may well mutate into a regional confrontation with worldwide implications. Let us pray, and work, for a solution that establishes conditions where all the middle east countries can prosper in peace.
It is clear that Hezbollah's goal of eliminating Israel cannot be achieved through negotiation and that Hezbollah is therefore not interested in negotiation. Only through effective diplomacy involving those who finance and supply Hezbollah can a lasting solution be achieved to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The facts are clear regarding Iran using Hezbollah as a proxy in its campaign to destroy Israel, so Iran must be confronted and made to change its behavior regarding Israel. If this is not done now, the danger to world stability will only increase over time as Iran becomes richer and stronger militarily.
In general, the world community must unite to condemn and eliminate military actions by non-governmental proxies. Governments are the only entities that can negotiate in good faith and make agreements that will last. Proxies are "loose cannons", often lead by fanatics who have no interest in negotiation and who are willing to sacrifice innocents in order to achieve their objectives. Countries that openly support military-oriented proxies must be held accountable.
With respect to Israel, the only solution to the long term problem is that Israel's arab neighbors guarantee Israel's territorial boundaries and its security. Those boundaries and the conditions for security are negotiable, and it is in Israel's interest to negotiate in good faith toward resolving these longstanding issues. The world powers need to generate the leverage to move the countries in the middle east toward such a settlement. Given the historical framework and religious antagonisms that make negotiations difficult, getting the parties to agree will be very difficult. But what alternative is there? Without a settlement, ongoing low-level proxy war may well mutate into a regional confrontation with worldwide implications. Let us pray, and work, for a solution that establishes conditions where all the middle east countries can prosper in peace.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Merkel Massage - More Kid Stuff From Bush
Our dear President Bush is back in the limelight again, this time caught on tape giving an improptu shoulder massage to German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the G8 conference. It was nothing, really - just a simple expression of cameraderie from one friend to another. And, in truth, that was all it was. Except that the gesture came at exactly the wrong time and place, if it should ever have come at all. The simple explanation is that George W. Bush just never grew up and therefore continues to live in the kid's world that he never grew out of.
The kid's world: nicknames, constant references to friendships (gotta have 'em), bravado (bring 'em on), "can't be wrong" syndrome, wife who seems a lot like a mommy, and lastly, putting hands on pals. That's the kid's world of George W. Bush, who seems to believe he becomes a grownup when he puts on his tailored suit. Sadly, that's not what happens. GWB just does childlike things in an adult disguise. No secret to those other canny folks on the G8 who want George W. to believe that down deep they all want to live in his treehouse.
Looking back, it's easy to see why our current president was nominated in 2000. The Republican powers like Big Dick Cheney and Karl Rove didn't want any candidate who had sufficient brains and maturity to think for themselves. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani were far too adult for Cheney and Rove - they needed someone who could be manipulated. George W. fit the bill perfectly...simple, gullible, looking for approval from parent figures, poorly educated, not well traveled. He was an easy mark, and his strings have been expertly pulled by Big Dick and Company since day one.
Incidents like the one with Angela Merkel occur because even Big Dick can't keep a public "minder" on GWB. Our President's got to go out and mix with the real grownups, and there's no place for a minder to hide - it would be just too obvious. So, don't be surprised by the Angela Merkel massage. It's just the kid in George W. showing up again, and it's too late for him to grow up now.
The kid's world: nicknames, constant references to friendships (gotta have 'em), bravado (bring 'em on), "can't be wrong" syndrome, wife who seems a lot like a mommy, and lastly, putting hands on pals. That's the kid's world of George W. Bush, who seems to believe he becomes a grownup when he puts on his tailored suit. Sadly, that's not what happens. GWB just does childlike things in an adult disguise. No secret to those other canny folks on the G8 who want George W. to believe that down deep they all want to live in his treehouse.
Looking back, it's easy to see why our current president was nominated in 2000. The Republican powers like Big Dick Cheney and Karl Rove didn't want any candidate who had sufficient brains and maturity to think for themselves. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani were far too adult for Cheney and Rove - they needed someone who could be manipulated. George W. fit the bill perfectly...simple, gullible, looking for approval from parent figures, poorly educated, not well traveled. He was an easy mark, and his strings have been expertly pulled by Big Dick and Company since day one.
Incidents like the one with Angela Merkel occur because even Big Dick can't keep a public "minder" on GWB. Our President's got to go out and mix with the real grownups, and there's no place for a minder to hide - it would be just too obvious. So, don't be surprised by the Angela Merkel massage. It's just the kid in George W. showing up again, and it's too late for him to grow up now.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Leave Iraq - It IS a Civil War - And Can Chaney
Sorry to say, Dick Cheney and his neo-conservative buddies really screwed it up. They saw a victorious U.S. in Iraq, with cheering throngs of Iraqis fervently embracing democracy while the oil wells pumped money into their revitalized economy. Others with much experience in the region saw a nation deprived of the dictator who held it together by force, disintegrating in a paroxysm of sectarian violence as the oil pipelines dried up due to sabotage. Cheney was wrong, and he and his pals have cost the United States over $300 billion in direct costs of the war and far more financial pain due to oil price escalations and interest on that $300 billion for who knows how long...to say nothing about over 2,500 Americans killed and over 15,000 wounded. All for nothing. Iraq has disintegrated into civil war, and Iran stands to be the primary beneficiary. The Republican members of congress are slowing twisting in the wind due to their foolish support of Bush's big gamble.
Time to get out and let the Iraqi government own the problem! It's obvious the "build the Iraqi defense forces and police" strategy will fail due to the rampant sectarianism, the need to settle old scores with Saddam's people, and the endemic corruption. Democracy was only a dream, dreamed by deluded Republican idealists who never considered wearing the uniform of this country. The Iraqis are going to settle this on their own terms, bloody as those terms may be. Perhaps the final "lesson learned" from Bush's escapade will be that the world sees just how ruthless and bloody a civil war between two Muslim sects can be. And maybe other Muslim countries will be so outraged and sickened by the carnage that they are motivated to stop their idiotic terrorism - both internal and external. We can only hope...
Oh, I almost forgot. Shouldn't Bush fire Cheney after the Republicans lose at least one house of Congress in the fall, due largely to Iraq? Small price to pay for the Big Dick! What we really need is a good excuse to put him in jail for a long time. Ken Lay's ENRON was small potatoes compared with Big Dick's Iraq Debacle!
Time to get out and let the Iraqi government own the problem! It's obvious the "build the Iraqi defense forces and police" strategy will fail due to the rampant sectarianism, the need to settle old scores with Saddam's people, and the endemic corruption. Democracy was only a dream, dreamed by deluded Republican idealists who never considered wearing the uniform of this country. The Iraqis are going to settle this on their own terms, bloody as those terms may be. Perhaps the final "lesson learned" from Bush's escapade will be that the world sees just how ruthless and bloody a civil war between two Muslim sects can be. And maybe other Muslim countries will be so outraged and sickened by the carnage that they are motivated to stop their idiotic terrorism - both internal and external. We can only hope...
Oh, I almost forgot. Shouldn't Bush fire Cheney after the Republicans lose at least one house of Congress in the fall, due largely to Iraq? Small price to pay for the Big Dick! What we really need is a good excuse to put him in jail for a long time. Ken Lay's ENRON was small potatoes compared with Big Dick's Iraq Debacle!
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Bush Needs Stem Cells!
Well, it's another day in the life of the Bush presidency. Mr. "No Veto" was willing to go along with out of control spending to the tune of $298 billion this year, but he's not willing to submit to the will of Congress and the people of his own country on the issue of embryonic stem cell research. He will sign a bill encouraging research on adult stem cells (certainly none of his!) as a smokescreen for his brainless cowtowing to the religious right and the Roman Catholic church hierarchy, which must make up the majority of his 30% support at the moment (the remainder being mostly those who aren't smart enough to get into the Army).
It's hard to imagine a president who's been so wrong on the things he was for (Iraq war, No Teacher Left Standing, constitutional amendments on gay marriage and flag burning, busting the budget, intrusive government) and so wrong on the things he was against (talking with Iran and North Korea, embryonic stem cell research, alternative energy, recognition of global warming). The only issue where he's right is immigration reform, but that's going nowhere. George W. Bush will go down in history as one of our least effective presidents, and also one of the most damaging to America's national interests.
Perhaps embryonic stem cell research will result in a therapy to improve intelligence. The trouble is, Bush just isn't smart enough to understand that he might be a prime candidate for the cure.
It's hard to imagine a president who's been so wrong on the things he was for (Iraq war, No Teacher Left Standing, constitutional amendments on gay marriage and flag burning, busting the budget, intrusive government) and so wrong on the things he was against (talking with Iran and North Korea, embryonic stem cell research, alternative energy, recognition of global warming). The only issue where he's right is immigration reform, but that's going nowhere. George W. Bush will go down in history as one of our least effective presidents, and also one of the most damaging to America's national interests.
Perhaps embryonic stem cell research will result in a therapy to improve intelligence. The trouble is, Bush just isn't smart enough to understand that he might be a prime candidate for the cure.
Monday, June 26, 2006
Out the Republicans in November!
I'm a registered Republican and have been all 40-some years of voting. Actually, I'm more of a libertarian in many areas of my political thinking, but I find the organized libertarians too radical for my taste and not a factor in American politics. But I did not vote for George Bush in the last election, and I remember voting for Bill Clinton when he ran for a second term. Bush was abandoned because his reasons for going to war in Iraq were wrong - that was an unforgiveable mistake. Clinton was embraced because he governed more like an Eisenhower Republican than a Democrat - welfare reform, intervention in Serbia, negotiation with the Republican congress. Monica Lewinski was a true tragedy!
This year we have congressional elections, and Bush is safe for two more years. But it's time to eliminate the Republican majority in at least one house of congress. The reason is simple - it's hard to imagine a party with a sitting president and majorities in the House and Senate doing less than the sorry group who are in power now. I give them credit for major sins of both comission and omission - and I don't blame the Democrats for anything, since they have no power.
What are the sins of comission? The first is easy - no accountability on Iraq after the administration's war rationale and public statements were proved false. Second, no control over the budget - they have created deficits beyond belief. Third, focusing on non-substantive litmus test issues like gay marriage, flag burning, and abortion. Fourth, consenting to the administration's secret analysis of American citizens' telephone calls and financial transactions without supervision of the courts...one step closer to a police state. Fifth, Tom DeLay.
What are the sins of omission? The first is easy - the Republican congress failed to get ahead of the curve on alternative energy sources other than the politically correct and Corporate-connected ethanol, thereby delaying our responses to high oil prices and global warming. Second, taking no responsibility for the 12 million illegal aliens in the United States despite their being in power during the time most of these people crossed the border - to paraphrase Colin Powell, "you let'em in, you own them." Third, failing to focus on education reform, the only solution to containing poverty and providing meaningful jobs for Americans. Clinton would have made a national issue of reforming education, just as he did reforming welfare.
So, when the air turns chill and the leaves are gold, that's the signal to forget about all the pork that your Republican legislator brought home. Some, including me, would say the Democrats don't have their act together and give little indication they would do better. No matter - this is all about accountability and the Republicans had the power. They didn't do the job and they should pay the price. We have no way of knowing what "would have been" had the Democrats been in charge, but it's safe to say things couldn't be any worse. Show the Republicans the door!
This year we have congressional elections, and Bush is safe for two more years. But it's time to eliminate the Republican majority in at least one house of congress. The reason is simple - it's hard to imagine a party with a sitting president and majorities in the House and Senate doing less than the sorry group who are in power now. I give them credit for major sins of both comission and omission - and I don't blame the Democrats for anything, since they have no power.
What are the sins of comission? The first is easy - no accountability on Iraq after the administration's war rationale and public statements were proved false. Second, no control over the budget - they have created deficits beyond belief. Third, focusing on non-substantive litmus test issues like gay marriage, flag burning, and abortion. Fourth, consenting to the administration's secret analysis of American citizens' telephone calls and financial transactions without supervision of the courts...one step closer to a police state. Fifth, Tom DeLay.
What are the sins of omission? The first is easy - the Republican congress failed to get ahead of the curve on alternative energy sources other than the politically correct and Corporate-connected ethanol, thereby delaying our responses to high oil prices and global warming. Second, taking no responsibility for the 12 million illegal aliens in the United States despite their being in power during the time most of these people crossed the border - to paraphrase Colin Powell, "you let'em in, you own them." Third, failing to focus on education reform, the only solution to containing poverty and providing meaningful jobs for Americans. Clinton would have made a national issue of reforming education, just as he did reforming welfare.
So, when the air turns chill and the leaves are gold, that's the signal to forget about all the pork that your Republican legislator brought home. Some, including me, would say the Democrats don't have their act together and give little indication they would do better. No matter - this is all about accountability and the Republicans had the power. They didn't do the job and they should pay the price. We have no way of knowing what "would have been" had the Democrats been in charge, but it's safe to say things couldn't be any worse. Show the Republicans the door!
Sunday, June 25, 2006
On the Appalachian Trail
I've been vacationing on the Appalachian Trail. In early and mid-May I hiked 210 miles of eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey, continuing the trek that has now covered 1,340 miles from the trailhead in north Georgia. It was 12 days of pain, but that is what a lot of the AT is about. The offsets are the joy of overcoming the difficult trail and the fun of meeting quite a few equally crazy and often interesting people. Of course, in eastern Pennsylvania one will often meet a timber rattlesnake like the one above.
I stepped on the rock that the snake is "looking at", heard him begin rattling loudly, and stepped back when I looked down and saw him coiling defensively. Once out of range I took his picture. Just another day on the AT...I met another rattler four hours later.
Actually, the most surprising aspect of this 14 day hike was the difficulty of the trail. There is no doubt in my mind why AT hikers call Pennsylvania "Rocksylvania". The eastern Pennsylvania trail is 150 miles of high ridge walking, and the ridges are primarily broken rock that is very difficult to walk on - you need to watch your footfall on almost every step. The rocks where this snake was hiding were routine large broken rocks, smoothed and often re-broken by eons of hot and cold weather. Needless to say, your boots take a real beating in Rocksylvania!
Geologists say that the Appalachians were once higher than the Himalayas, but they are the oldest mountains in the world and have been worn down. It's clear that many rocks have broken off the tops and fallen down into the valleys and onto the mountainsides, just to aggravate the hikers. So there are quite a few places that look something like the picture above. It's great to not have to walk across Bake Oven Knob again!
The AT is truly a national treasure, a wilderness trail over 2,150 miles long. Hiking the trail gives a person new understanding of how big the world really is, of how much uninhabited space there is in the eastern U.S. (an amazingly large amount!), and how many really nice and special people can be found on the trail and in the towns along the way. If you have some determination, some strength, some courage, and about 5-6 months of time to walk, you can hike the entire trail. So think about giving it a try, whether you are male or female and 20 or 75 years old - you might very well be able to do it!
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Republicans Drown in Oil Crisis
If there ever was a case of poetic justice, it's the Republican quandary of having to deal with the second major gas price spike in the past year. $3.00 gasoline is trouble, especially if you are the guys who laid much of the groundwork for the problem. Yes, it's the Republicans! How, you say?
Remember Jimmy Carter? He said we had a national emergency when we bought 50% of our oil from foreign sources, since those who have the oil might hold our country hostage. Now we buy over 60% from overseas and are even more vulnerable. Has President Bush explained our vulnerability and presented a plan to deal with it? NOT, at least for the past six years. Now he's forced to explain how new technologies will come to our aid by 2020. 2020? You got to be kidding me! I guess he saw no benefit to using his bully pulpit to talk down SUV's when his pals were getting rich off the gas they were guzzling...but even the slower intellects understand that his inaction has increased our exposure to oil blackmail and price spikes.
Guilt by association! President Bush is an oil man, his friends are oil men, he comes from a big oil state. We pay $3.00, his friends get rich, the oil companies post record profits. He says it's just the law of supply and demand, nothing he can control. Control he can not, but influence he can, as the wise Yoda would say. He could have warned about supply and taken strong positions like drilling in sensitive areas for contingency purposes only. He could have warned about demand and insisted on sensible conservation measures and alternative sources of energy. Why is nuclear power suddenly a good thing in 2006, when we should have had the reactors built already if there had been any leadership! Blame a lot of it on a guy who stands by his pals.
GWB denied thinking about oil before he invaded Iraq, but he almost certainly did. He thought about all the oil his pals would get out of Iraq after we won the war. Didn't happen. Instead, the lack of WMD's convinced a lot of people that the war was about getting more oil, but that has not worked out. Instead, we're getting less oil and we have fewer friends among those who do have it. This is not good.
The bottom line is that voters are going to remember the president and the Republican congress that sold out to the oil industry and failed to "lead". Leadership is about anticipating problems and working on solutions "before" the sky falls. People are interested in leaders who stand up for solutions in advance...any random lazy guy can maintain the status quo. If oil stays up, those Republicans will go down (drown, that is) in November. It could be a real gusher!
Remember Jimmy Carter? He said we had a national emergency when we bought 50% of our oil from foreign sources, since those who have the oil might hold our country hostage. Now we buy over 60% from overseas and are even more vulnerable. Has President Bush explained our vulnerability and presented a plan to deal with it? NOT, at least for the past six years. Now he's forced to explain how new technologies will come to our aid by 2020. 2020? You got to be kidding me! I guess he saw no benefit to using his bully pulpit to talk down SUV's when his pals were getting rich off the gas they were guzzling...but even the slower intellects understand that his inaction has increased our exposure to oil blackmail and price spikes.
Guilt by association! President Bush is an oil man, his friends are oil men, he comes from a big oil state. We pay $3.00, his friends get rich, the oil companies post record profits. He says it's just the law of supply and demand, nothing he can control. Control he can not, but influence he can, as the wise Yoda would say. He could have warned about supply and taken strong positions like drilling in sensitive areas for contingency purposes only. He could have warned about demand and insisted on sensible conservation measures and alternative sources of energy. Why is nuclear power suddenly a good thing in 2006, when we should have had the reactors built already if there had been any leadership! Blame a lot of it on a guy who stands by his pals.
GWB denied thinking about oil before he invaded Iraq, but he almost certainly did. He thought about all the oil his pals would get out of Iraq after we won the war. Didn't happen. Instead, the lack of WMD's convinced a lot of people that the war was about getting more oil, but that has not worked out. Instead, we're getting less oil and we have fewer friends among those who do have it. This is not good.
The bottom line is that voters are going to remember the president and the Republican congress that sold out to the oil industry and failed to "lead". Leadership is about anticipating problems and working on solutions "before" the sky falls. People are interested in leaders who stand up for solutions in advance...any random lazy guy can maintain the status quo. If oil stays up, those Republicans will go down (drown, that is) in November. It could be a real gusher!
Monday, April 17, 2006
Rumsfeld Should Be "Called to Account"
The Republican conservatives, those who insist on the free market and a limited government with a strong defense orientation, need to hold Donald Rumsfeld accountable for the giant foul-up of the Iraq war.
A free market assumes that there is effective competition for goods and services - "deliverables". When the committed deliverables are not delivered, the competitor is penalized by being excluded from the market. Donald Rumsfeld, as the architect of the failed Iraq war, should pay this price. By keeping him on, President Bush is continuing to communicate the message that none of his staff will be held to account if they do a bad job.
In war, victory is the only acceptable outcome. The Republican's aggressive use of the military as a foreign policy tool is effective only if the use results in the desired effects. When the military does not achieve the desired objective its credibility as a tool is diminished. At this point it is safe to say that the U.S. military has not come close to pacifying Iraq or establishing a climate where democracy can take root. Rather, the terrorists have proven that they can strike at will when they are supported by a large segment of the population and they don't play by the rules of conventional warfare. "Victory" will not be achieved in Iraq, and Donald Rumsfeld must be held accountable for a plan that did not come close to achieving its objectives and, in the process, has diminished the value of the military as a foreign policy tool.
This administration will earn a historical footnote as one of the least effective and accountable governments in U.S. history. No vetoes despite out-of-control spending. Key staff members lying or stealing. Gangsters like Tom DeLay accomodated. No progress on major legislative matters including entitlements, tax law, and energy independence. A costly war justified by doctored intelligence and conducted by Rumsfeld in a manner that ensured failure. Assaults on personal freedom justified by a religious code - which is the accusation made by this administration against regimes like the Taliban, only on the other foot.
Americans need to show the aggressive "religous right" Republicans the door in November. Both houses of congress need to move to the Democrat side, if for no other reason as to hold the Republican Party accountable for taking the country nowhere during the last six years. But first, President Bush should at least fire Donald Rumsfeld for creating the most visible and costly failure of his presidency. Does this Texas cowboy have any backbone at all?
A free market assumes that there is effective competition for goods and services - "deliverables". When the committed deliverables are not delivered, the competitor is penalized by being excluded from the market. Donald Rumsfeld, as the architect of the failed Iraq war, should pay this price. By keeping him on, President Bush is continuing to communicate the message that none of his staff will be held to account if they do a bad job.
In war, victory is the only acceptable outcome. The Republican's aggressive use of the military as a foreign policy tool is effective only if the use results in the desired effects. When the military does not achieve the desired objective its credibility as a tool is diminished. At this point it is safe to say that the U.S. military has not come close to pacifying Iraq or establishing a climate where democracy can take root. Rather, the terrorists have proven that they can strike at will when they are supported by a large segment of the population and they don't play by the rules of conventional warfare. "Victory" will not be achieved in Iraq, and Donald Rumsfeld must be held accountable for a plan that did not come close to achieving its objectives and, in the process, has diminished the value of the military as a foreign policy tool.
This administration will earn a historical footnote as one of the least effective and accountable governments in U.S. history. No vetoes despite out-of-control spending. Key staff members lying or stealing. Gangsters like Tom DeLay accomodated. No progress on major legislative matters including entitlements, tax law, and energy independence. A costly war justified by doctored intelligence and conducted by Rumsfeld in a manner that ensured failure. Assaults on personal freedom justified by a religious code - which is the accusation made by this administration against regimes like the Taliban, only on the other foot.
Americans need to show the aggressive "religous right" Republicans the door in November. Both houses of congress need to move to the Democrat side, if for no other reason as to hold the Republican Party accountable for taking the country nowhere during the last six years. But first, President Bush should at least fire Donald Rumsfeld for creating the most visible and costly failure of his presidency. Does this Texas cowboy have any backbone at all?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
