Some Thoughts II

1 – “Winning in Iraq”

According to an Associated Press report, “President Bush, campaigning aggressively ahead of the high-stakes Nov. 7 elections, said Saturday Democrats should not be trusted to control Congress because they have no idea how to win in Iraq.”

The AP article continued, quoting Bush, "’It's a hard fight,’ the president said of Iraq. ‘And we've got a lot of brave citizens of ours in the midst of the fight. But we have a plan for victory.’"

Really, Mr. President, you “have a plan for victory in Iraq.” Well, then I wish you’d share it with us, because it certainly isn’t apparent to me, nor I suggest to millions of other Americans, nor I’d further suggest to the millions of Iraqis who have to live day-to-day in the life-threatening chaos your bungled war has created for them. Perhaps it’s “Stay the course,” which I now understand you’re disavowing because most of us seem to have figured out it was nothing but an empty political slogan.

The AP article further quoted Bush as telling the audience, "’Five years after September the 11th, too many Democrats still do not get it,’ Bush said. ‘The best way to protect the homeland is to find the enemy and defeat them overseas.’"

Ah yes, as you always do, you fall back on your favorite Big Lie, that the Iraq war “is central to the war on terrorism.” What’s happening in Iraq is a civil war that has almost nothing to do with al Qaeda. What’s happening in Iraq is about revenge, it is the folks who were once “out” under Sadam now getting back at those who were “in.” What’s happening now in Iraq is about who is going to control Iraq’s wealth (the oil fields) in the future. If anything, the war in Iraq is a distraction from the real war on terrorism, not central to it.

#2 – Protecting Our Freedoms

The reports persist on the liberal blogs of a pattern of censorship by the U.S. military of Internet sites accessed by troops stationed in Iraq. Surprise, surprise! Conservatives blogs that support Bush get through just fine, while blogs that are critical apparently get this not-so-subtle warning flashed on the screen: “ALL SITES YOU VISIT ARE LOGGED AND FILED.”

Controlling what our people can access on the Interent… Let’s see, like Iran does, like China does, like North Korea does. All stalwarts of democracy.

So, tell me again which freedoms our troops are fighting to protect in Iraq. Apparently it’s not freedom of inquiry or freedom of thought.

Elect more Republicans

The oft-quoted management aphorism goes: “If you always do what you’ve always done, you will always get what you’ve always got.”

So lets say, as we’ve done for roughly the last decade, we keep electing Republicans. What will we get?

- Probably a much bigger federal budget deficit.

- Most likely more chipping away at our Constitutional freedoms.

- Doubtless more war --- is there any question they’re desperate to invade Iran?

- Be sure to say good-bye to any gay friends you might have, since they will most certainly want to make homosexuality a criminal offense.

- Of course, wish any Hispanics you know well as they are being rounded up because they just might be illegals.

- And forget your wife’s / mother’s / female partner’s / sister’s medical records being in any way private, since the government will want to make sure they have never had a procedure that could have been an abortion.

- Oh, and let’s not forget $4 a gallon gasoline.

Literary allusions

It seems that in an interview with the Bucks County Courier Times, Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, who is apparently in a tight race to hold onto his seat, has seen a parallel between the war in Iraq with J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings." According to the paper, Santorum said that the United States has avoided terrorist attacks at home over the past five years because the Eye of Mordor has been focused on Iraq instead.

Two thoughts…

First, as seems to be the Republican habit these days, Santorum has perverted the meaning of Tolkein’s masterpiece to suit his own ends. The folks who drew the Eye of Mordor’s attention was a voluntary coalition of nations --- Rohan and Gondor --- that had already been attacked by Mordor. The Iraqis, who he apparently thinks are the ones drawing the Eye of Mordor (presumably the attention of terrorists like al Qaeda) away from Frodo and Sam (who he equates with the U.S.) did not volunteer to be our surrogates in the so-called fight against terrorism. Indeed, it was not the terrorists (Mordor) who first attacked Iraq, it was us.

Second, Santorum might want to be careful with literary analogies, as that sword can cut both ways. For example, in the Star Wars films, a deceiving politician --- Senator Palpatine --- works with allies in the intergalactic banking and trade guilds to foment a war on the Republic under the guise of which he gets himself “elected” Supreme Chancellor. Then, using the alleged war threat, he suspends the Senate and the freedoms the Republic has enjoyed for centuries and installs himself as Emperor. Sound at all familiar?

Clinton’s “fault”

First the Republicans tried to rewrite history to blame Bill Clinton for not getting Osama bin Laden. Now it seems that it was also somehow his fault that North Korea appears to have exploded a nuclear device.

Two thoughts:

- First, if these are Clinton’s “fault,” then how come he can’t also get the credit for the longest sustained period of economic growth in this nation’s history, which also happened on his watch?

- Second, I’d suggest to the Republicans that they be careful with this kind of finger pointing, as that can be a two edged sword. Since bin Laden is apparently still at large and since North Korea did supposedly explode a nuclear device, the obvious question is: What has the current administration done in the nearly six years it has been in office to address these so-called threats? If these were clearly such threats way back when Clinton was in office, why have they been ignored all this time?

Some thoughts…

#1 - “Ghastly!”

ABC’s Charlie Gibson recently interviewed George H.W. Bush. During the interview the former president commented that he thought the prospect of the Democrats gaining control of one or both houses of Congress in this fall’s election would be “ghastly.”

Really? How much more “ghastly” could it be than what the Republicans in 10 years of congressional power have wrought?

- A federal budget deficit that’s out of control.
- Being bogged down in two wars that, if we are not losing them, we certainly are not winning them.
- An economy that’s only “good” for the rich, but seems to have passed by the rest of us.
- Oil prices skyrocketing.
- Pervasive divisiveness and incivility --- “swift boating,” gay bashing, finger-pointing, Limbaugh / Coulter / O’Reilly / Hannity.
- And arrogantly passing flagrantly unconstitutional legislation (the so-called Detainee’s Act).

Well, if we do re-elect Republican majorities in both house, God help us because we’ll find out just how mush more “ghastly” it can get.

#2 – “Gays shouldn’t serve in Congress?”

Chris Matthews on MSNBC last week interviewed John Laesch, the Democrat who’s running against Dennis Hastert. Several of the questions Matthews had asked revolved around how Hastert was handing the Mark Foley scandal. So, in that context, Matthews dropped in the ambush question: “Some have suggested that gays should not be allowed to serve in Congress. How do you respond to that?’

Laesch gave a reasonable and classically Democratic answer, which was to the effect that all Americans should he free to serve in Congress.

What I wish is that Laesch, and other Democrats for that matter, had done a Bill Clinton on Matthews and blasted him for the totally out of line question that it was! It was blatantly prejudicial. And it suggested a completely fallacious cause and effect relationship. Unfortunately, by providing an answer, Laesch, like too many other Democrats, just validated that it was a legitimate question in the first place.

#3 – Christian teens turned off

According to the New York Times, it seems that recently there was a conference of Christian leaders concerned because teenagers are leaving the church in droves --- supposedly a poll has shown that only five percent of teens identify themselves as fundamentalist Christians.

Of course, the conference blamed all the usually suspects --- the easy availability of drugs and sex, MTV, Hollywood, rock entertainers, secularism.

I’d suggest for their consideration that there may be some other possible causes for why teens being turned off to hard core Christianity. Perhaps it’s because they have seen through the unashamed hypocrisy of:

- A President that professes to be a Christian, and yet espouses torture and war (George Bush).
- A prominent Christian leader suggesting on national television that another country’s leader should be assassinated (Pat Robertson).
- A reportedly good Baptist Church-attending business leader who greedily pillaged his corporate coffers to line his own pockets, but cost thousands of his employees their pensions (Ken Lay).
- Using Jesus’ name to demonize gays.
- Mixing politics and religion (if you don’t dutifully support Republicans, you can’t be a real Christian).

Facts trumping spin

As any seasoned public relations practitioner knows, often to their consternation, the facts have a nasty habit of catching up with spin.

Here’s the headline from an article in today’s online edition of The New York Times: “Rice, in Baghdad, Insists That Iraqis Are ‘Making Progress’”

The article went on to say that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice insisted “that there were new signs of progress in Iraq and that the Bush administration had never sugarcoated its news about the American occupation.”

The article went on to say: “’What the American people see on their television screens is the struggle,’ she said. ‘It is harder to show the political process that is going on at local levels, at provincial levels and indeed at the national level.’ Iraqis, she said, are ‘making progress.’”

But the unpleasant realities --- the facts --- of life in Iraq and Baghdad seemed to catch up with her. According to the Times:

- The military transport plane that brought her to Baghdad was forced to circle the city for about 40 minutes because of either mortar fire or rockets at the airport.

- During her meeting with President Jalal Talabani, the lights went out, a reminder of the city’s erratic — and sometimes nonexistent — electrical service.

- In the few days before her visit at least 21 American soldiers were killed in Iraq.

- And whenever she appeared in public she wore a flak jacket and was flanked by bodyguards carrying machine guns.

So that’s “making progress.”

More Hypocricy Reins II

It seems that at almost the very moment I was drafting my Hyprocisy Reins II post earlier, the Repbulican members of Congress were booing Rep. Nancy Pelosi as she tried to get the Congressional leadership to address an ethical issue.

So much for Republican "...civility and respect."

Empty Political Slogans

Bush and the GOP like to talk about "staying the course" until we "win" in Iraq. But what does that mean?

- What does "stay the course" really mean? Does it mean simply continuing with the same strategies? And what have they resulted in other than more American soldiers being killed since "mission accomplished" than died in actual combat in Iraq?

- What does "win" in Iraq mean? Does it mean a cessation of sectarian killing that rather seems to be escalating? Does it mean an operating goernment that can deliver basic services on a fairly reliable basis, which is certainly still not the case today? Does it mean a stable and functioning democracy, which seems less and less likely as each day passes?

- Or are "stay the course" and "winning" in Iraq nothing more than political slogans that have no substance. Given the Bush / GOP track record for empty sloganeering --- "no child left behind" comes to mind as an example of a slogan that had no substance --- I'd suggest that they are indeed empty slogans.