The mission that was accomplished

I have a new understanding of Bush's speech on May 1, 2003, under the banner, "Mission Accomplished." The mission was "the removal of Saddam" (see below), a short-sighted mission, at best. That's why there was inept planning for securing and rebuilding Iraq. That's why Mr. Bush could feel that the major work was done, although the war continued.

Mr. Bush's speech that day has bothered me for a year and a half because it's hard to avoid the conclusion that it functioned as a double-dog-dare to the insurgency. Also, it must feel like salt in the wounds of our soldiers in Iraq. And it's one of Bush's many flip-flops and horrifyingly simplistic assessments.

Here's how he sounded a year and a half ago, May 1, 2003 (on aircraft carrier): "...my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country" (White House Press Release).

And how much of the reconstruction money have we spent? The Washington Post recently reported that the Administration wants to "redirect" Congressionally allocated reconstruction funds because "increasing violence has forced a sharp shift in its rebuilding effort."

Including previous reallocations, the administration hopes to redirect more than 20 percent of $18.4 billion in reconstruction funds to cope with an escalating insurgency and the glacial pace of rebuilding. With two weeks left in the fiscal year, and 11 months after Congress approved the money, only $1.1 billion of it has been spent, because of attacks, contracting problems and other unforeseen issues, according to figures released by the State Department.("U.S. Plans to Divert Iraq Money")

Bush took some hard knocks over his speech on the aircraft carrier. So here's how he defended it on April 30, 2004, in an "off the cuff" response to a reporter in the Rose Garden:

"We're making progress, you bet," he told reporters." ... "A year ago, I did give the speech from the carrier saying that we had achieved an important objective, that we had accomplished a mission, which was the removal of Saddam Hussein," Bush said. "And as a result, there are no longer torture chambers or rape rooms or mass graves in Iraq. As a result, a friend of terror has been removed and now sits in a jail." ("One Year Later, Bush Defends Iraq Speech," CNN)

Here's it's "achieved an important objective" rather than "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Also our own torture chambers were only just coming to light--torture that the administration had known about for months and that had been sanctioned by the administration. Even now, the administration has yet to satisfactorily distinguish between "terrorist" and "enemy combatant." The people attacking our troops in Iraq--are they terrorists or are they fighting back against a preemptive assault? It makes a difference, both to the Geneva Convention and to our own administrations' new rulings that allow torture of terrorists.

Then on May 1, 2004 the following day, in a prepared radio address, Bush sounded a little different:

"A year ago, I declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq, after coalition forces conducted one of the swiftest, most successful and humane campaigns in military history. I thanked our troops for their courage and for their professionalism. They had confronted a gathering danger to our nation and the world. They had vanquished a brutal dictator who had twice invaded neighboring countries, who had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and who had supported and financed terrorism" (White House Press Release).

Here we have one of Bush's propaganda attempts to link Saddam and terrorism--so that fighting Saddam is equivalent to avenging the attacks on 9/11--a connection that our own Congress has declared unfounded. This is Mr. Bush's effort to justify his actual mission: toppling Saddam. That's what this has been about, not the trumped up WMDs, not fighting the terrorists who attacked this country on 9/11, and certainly not liberating Iraq (a variation on Daddy Bush's rationale for the Gulf War, "liberating Kuwait," which was really about oil, as my college freshman tell me the high school history books now teach).

Toppling Saddam was essential because now we have a military base in the Middle East, one that isn't in Saudi Arabia, which meets the demands of terrorist networks like Al Qaeda (headed by Saudi Osama bin Laden), and more particularly, the Saudi terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, and it's bound to please Bush's Saudi business associates. That mission was accomplished--but at what loss of life and limb?

More on Tony Blair and his party

An editorial in today's New York Times, "How Tony Blair Handled It, discusses how Tony Blair answers the questions his own party raised about his decisions in Iraq. In an earlier blog, I pointed out the ability of the British Labour party to question the leader of their own party and contrasted this with the "hallelujah chorus" of U.S. Republicans. I suggested some reasons Republicans don't behave like Labour, in short that Bush doesn't allow that dissent or questions are patriotic.

The bottom line of the editorial shows the contrast well: Blair "showed respect for his constituents by not glossing over the war and by not scorning those who consider it a terrible mistake."

George W. Bush is no Tony Blair.

An eye on our primary ally in Iraq: Great Britain

One way to illuminate the U.S. debate over Iraq is to approach it from the perspective of our primary ally: Great Britain. Tony Blair faces criticism from his own party, the Labour Party, over the progress of the war in Iraq. This is in sharp contrast to the U.S., where Bush's party presents a solidly supportive facade, even though individual Republicans are deeply troubled over the war in Iraq. Largely this is due to the looming election and the desire to elect Republicans, no matter what it takes. But this is also due to the parameters Bush has set: that dissent over the war is unpatriotic, that discussion of possible mistakes shows a lack of confidence that can only aid the enemy, and that his own camp must affirm all, and question none, of his decisions. Bush's mandate is the old "love it or leave it" with the understanding that this means, "love it (Bush policies) or leave it (your country)." More haunting wisps of the Vietnam era . . . . As a result, you have respected political figures, like Colin Powell, making obviously uncomfortable statements that echo the party line.

In a more productive political climate, people who are largely supportive of a politician can still object to some of the politician's decisions. The Guardian points out today that Tony Blair is under increasing pressure over Iraq from his own party. The Labour party's annual conference is this coming week and local party delegates have forced two motions on the Iraq War into the agenda for a debate on Thursday. One of the motions is "deeply critical of the government's Iraq policy." The article describes the motion in these words:

It calls on ministers "to recognise that the continuing occupation of Iraq is unjustifiably destructive of both lives and resources and calls on the prime minister to name an early date for the withdrawal of British forces".

Party managers will be hoping that this motion fails and that delegates will instead back one calling for British troops to remain in Iraq until after January's planned elections.

British forces must then be withdrawn "as soon as possible but only in accordance with the wishes of the newly elected Iraqi government", it reads.

Britain is our primary ally in Iraq, so we need to listen very carefully to their debates, especially since Bush's party isn't able to function as well as Blair's.

Oh, if only we could claim the moral high ground

I get several letters a week from the Kerry campaign and I don't usually read them. Here's why:

At 5:47 PM -0500 9/24/04, Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry-Edwards 2004 wrote:

Dear Supporter,

We all know the harsh realities of Iraq. Unfortunately, George Bush has no plan to get us out of Iraq. Now George Bush thinks the future of Iraq is brighter than the future of America. He actually said that yesterday, "I saw a poll that said the right track/wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America."

And then she goes into what I can do for the campaign.

Cahill's interpretation of the Bush quote is just another example of the sloppy claims that have littered both sides of the campaing trail. If you look at the Bush quote, you see he didn't say, "the future of Iraq is brighter..."; he reported the results of a poll. She started out strong, made a good point, then lost it with an inept spin.

The point for the Democrats to make here--but they didn't--is that people here at home are unhappy with the track the current president has taken. People at home are more unhappy than the people of Iraq, who are in the midst of a war and whose governmental stability is tenuous, at best. On top of that, the current president is willing to point this out--and he is able to spin it so successfully he comes out sounding good to a lot of people.

Since I have been griping at the Republicans for misrepresenting Kerry, I sure do hate to see the Democrats take up the same overblown style. You can't win anyone over to your side--or even work up "the choir"--if you blow your credibility. It's all about ethos, about presenting yourself as trustworthy so people will listen openly to what you have to say.

Is W. a cowboy? Please.

The myth that has developed around the "cowboy" is a particular interest of mine. So I am very interested in the ranching and swaggering elements of the W. public persona.

In Texas, the cowboy and the oilman are different figures, with opposing values. Larry McMurtry, in Horseman, Pass By, contrasted the world views of the cowboy and the oilman. This novel was filmed in 1963 under the title Hud with Paul Newman playing the oilman—memorable for fast cars, fast women, and lots of alcohol. Hud's stepfather, Homer, the family patriarch, was a rancher who worked cows his whole life. The conflict in the story revolves around Hud's desire to drill the ranch for oil and Homer's refusal to allow it. Homer compares drilling with raping the land. Hud shoots Homer, and we assume he will now "rape" the ranch, as he has already raped the housekeeper.

In Texas mythology, the oilman is a less heroic figure than the cowboy. The cowboy exhibits a self-contained power, while the oilman's power comes from money and its influence. The oilman supplanted the cowboy, so the cowboy's appeal is nostalgic.

Another portrayal of rancher v. oilman is the novel/movie, Giant, which projects the waning power of the rancher, Jordan Benedict, against the waxing power of the oilman, Jett Rink. All the honor in the movie goes to Benedict, who illustrates the heroism of the cowboy figure against the drunken, groping power-hunger of the oilman.

W. is an oilman, not a cowboy. He is Hud, not Homer; he is Jett, not Benedict. Not only does W.'s youth mirror the characterizations of Hud and Jett, but oil is his business background and his most primal political base.

W.'s family fortunes were built on oil, so plundering the land is in his blood—and in his domestic environmental policies—and in his foreign policies, especially Iraq. The continued fighting in Iraq is fueled by the anger of those who feel their country was violated by the American oilman.

Texans have a put-down for men who attempt to appropriate the heroism of the cowboy–"all hat, no cows." I can't be the first to brand W. with that put-down, but I can offer this: he's all swagger, no cows.

Skewed polls

My son Tim pointed out to me today that the political polls are based on data from land lines, and that younger people have cell phones rather than land lines. I checked this out and found that market research indicates that the people "most likely to discontinue wired phone service are 18 to 24 years old, single, residing in an urban area."

This could explain the odd polling results Howard Kurtz writes about today.

And checking around, I find that Jimmy Breslin reported yesterday in his column, "Making Call on Sham of Political Polling," that excluding cell phones would skew poll results.

Now I need to check out Tim's perception that younger people are more likely to vote Democratic. Perhaps things aren't as bad as the polls make them seem.

Silver City - film and website

An article in today's Guardian was the first I'd heard of John Sayles' new film, Silver City. Dan Glaister, in his article "Fictional Candidate Weighs into U.S. Election," describes the movie as "the story of the bumbling wayward son of a political dynasty, unable to think on his feet, let alone string a sentence together, who is anointed as the candidate by the business interests that run the state of Colorado," a character that Sayles modeled on George W. Bush during his campaign for governor of Texas.

And if that's not enough fun, Glaister points us to the website about this fictional candidate.

Two must reads.

"Who ate my hamburger?"

I have trouble imagining really large sums of accumulated wealth, perhaps because I've never managed to accumulate any.

I read something back in August that I keep thinking about. In his August 22 column in the money section of the New York Times, Landon Thomas wrote,

Even some Wall Street Republicans who say they expect to vote for President Bush voice concerns about the deficit as well as the fairness of a tax cut that makes rich people even richer. "My own feeling about the dividend tax cut is that I would not have done it," said Kenneth G. Langone, an enthusiastic Republican and co-founder of Home Depot who owns more than $700 million of the company's stock and runs his own investment bank. "It has meant millions to me, but I would have felt better if you dedicate it to deficit reduction."

First of all, if I were making so much money that I paid millions in taxes, I hope I would have Langone's grace and be generous about paying those taxes. I like to imagine that I would say, "How lucky I am to make so much money that I can pay millions in taxes to help my country."

But beyond appreciating his attitude, I keep mulling over Langone's statement that the dividend tax cut has "meant millions" to him. It's difficult for me to imagine that kind of wealth, and I think that's true for most of us.

After all, most of the wealth in this country is in the hands of a very small percentage of people. John R. Gist, in an article for AARP, cites figures to show that the top 10% (the wealthiest Americans) own over 67% of the total wealth in the U.S., and the top 1% (the ultra-wealthy) own over 34% of the total wealth. That doesn't leave much of the pie for the rest of us. My feeble math makes it look like this: the top 1% gets one-third, the next 9% gets one-third, and the remaining 90% of us share one-third.

It's the ultra-wealthy who have enough accumulated wealth for Bush's dividend and capital gains tax cuts to mean saving millions of dollars. During the 2000 campaign, Bush addressed his audience at an elite fund-raiser as "the haves and the have-mores" and assured them: "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base" (CBS news story). And, I, too, tend to generalize that these ultra-wealthy Americans are mostly Republicans. And while I have nothing to back it up, I feel like Kenneth Langone is unusual in wanting to pay millions of his own money to reduce the deficit--I think that's what makes him newsworthy.

And that reminds me of an old joke: What's the difference between a Democrat and a Republican? A Democrat looks at a half a glass of milk and says, "The glass is half full." A Republican looks at a half a glass of milk and says, "Who ate my hamburger?"

Dishonest legislation: the late-term abortion ban

What a terrible waste of time and tax-payer money. The "partial-birth abortion ban" has been declared unconstitutional, again, to no great surprise. This issue has been used by politicians to distort truth and hoodwink voters for years now.

When Clinton refused to sign the bill on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, he was described as "pro" partial-birth abortion, rather than pro-Constitution. The same hobby horse has been trotted out to use against Kerry. Refusing to promote such a dishonor to U.S. voters doesn't equal "pro-abortion."

Let's refocus attention on the legislators who refuse to write the bill in such a way that it is constitutional. This is a dishonest act that is intended, not to protect anyone, but to produce material for propaganda campaigns.

Let's remember that "pro-choice" is NOT synonymous with "pro-abortion." The pro-choice stance is an anti-legislation movement that is neither pro- nor anti-abortion. The pro-choice stance argues that the abortion question should be left to the individual, not big government (and HMO special-interest groups). This bogus bill is an example of why government can't be trusted to legislate moral choices.

They can dish it out, but they just can't take it

First of all, I'm a little hesitant to even bring this up, because I don't have a big problem with Bush serving in the National Guard rather than Vietnam--as long as he owns up to avoiding combat in Vietnam and to losing interest in the Guard before his time was up. It's the dishonesty and the whining that dishonors his administration.

I'm only two years younger than Bush, and I fully supported, then and now, the choice to avoid Vietnam. At the same time, I had great respect for the soldiers who DID go to Vietnam, and great anger for the politicians in Washington who wasted all those lives for a war they weren't willing to win--or willing to lose. But that's old news. The issue for me is that Bush won't own up to avoiding Vietnam, yet he and his political machine belittle the service of a Vietnam vet. In doing so, he diminishes, not only all other Vietnam veterans, but all veterans, as well as the soldiers currently serving our country.

On the same note, Bush's side-stepping the Swift Boat ad issue would be easier to bear if I could hear an acknowledgement from the Bush camp that young Kerry and the other Vietnam Vets Against the War earned the right to protest the war because they put their lives on the line for this country--when young Bush wasn't willing to do the same. Because whether or not you agree with Kerry and the V.V.A.W., the facts speak to young Kerry's service to his country, through both his military service and his political activism to end the war and bring our troops home.

And now that Bush's service record is back in the news, what do we hear from the Republicans? "It is dirty politics," whines Dan Bartlett, White House communications director. This from Karl Rove's White House. From the party that mocked the Purple Heart at their national convention. They can dish it out, but they just can't take it.

Another reason Bush's service record matters to me is that Bush has sent the National Guard to fight a foreign war, extending their service beyond their discharge dates, yet he joined the National Guard to avoid a foreign war and appears to have lost interest before his discharge date. Rather than continue to spin and side-step, he needs to be honest about this. How else can he be considered genuine when he sends soldiers into battle? It's a matter of character. Of honor.

The presidential race should not be a popularity contest but rather a campaign for the party platform. One should vote for the platform that best reflects one's values and beliefs. That said, the candidate's character matters when it comes down to defending and promoting that platform.

Be well, Lynn

Karl Rove and the Swift Boat smear campaign

Kerry has accused the Bush campaign of links to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. While the U.S. press has exposed minor players, the key player is Karl Rove, who is far too experienced to leave fingerprints that would link him to these smear tactics. But his history is well known, and the U.K. newspaper, The Guardian is less reluctant than U.S. sources to link Rove with the Swift Boat smear campaign.

In today's Guardian, Paul Harris writes ("Why Bush's Man is Fighting Dirty") that "Rove's plan is simple: a mass mobilisation of the Republican base, coupled with a brutal media operation that has gone after Democratic nominee John Kerry's Vietnam record, seeking to portray the decorated veteran as a weak-willed liar." The article also reminds us of Rove's early training with the Nixon crew: "One of [Rove's] first political experiences on a national level was in 1973, when he was accused of holding seminars for college Republicans on dirty tricks techniques."

In last Friday's Guardian, Howard Raines ("It's the IQ, Stupid") was even more direct in linking Rove and the Swift Boat smear campaign: "This year, wealthy Bush supporters close to Rove have funded a front organisation called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to carry out an "independent" attack on Kerry's well-documented record as a decorated battle commander in Vietnam." Raines reminds readers of Rove's mentor, Lee Atwater, and his successful attacks on Michael Dukakis.

In contrast, U.S. media has been much more tentative. This points to another reason to read foreign papers--to see ourselves as others see us AND to see where the U.S. megalo-media outlets fear to tread.

Be well, Lynn

Another "smart" article on Bush's sensible analysis (unfortunately revised)

Another "smart" article appeared today on Bush's smart analysis that we need to make terrorism less acceptable. Today's Washington Post offers David Ignasius' editorial, "Bush's Honest Mistake," which is a "smart" article because I agree with it and it says it better than I can.

As Ignasius tells it, in his "fantasy campaign," after Bush made his statement to the effect that a war on terrorism can't be won but terrorism can be made less acceptable,

• John F. Kerry would have responded: "Bravo, George. That's the most sensible thing you've said yet about terrorism. Now let's debate how we create those conditions so that terrorism becomes an unacceptable weapon." Bush, in turn, would have responded with a thoughtful speech . . .

It would be pretty to think so. I certainly enjoyed the fantasy.

Be well, Lynn

Signs point to Tony Blair's "silent support" for Kerry

The Guardian reports that, despite public neutrality, there are good indications that the British Prime Minister hopes for Kerry's success.

Be well, Lynn

How do you "win" a "war on terrorism"?

How nice it is to read an editorial that expresses my views even better than I can. That's how I felt about today's lead editorial in the New York Times, "Mr. Bush and the Truth about Terror."

I was surprised and favorably impressed by Bush's statement on the "war on terror"(televised on Monday): "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." This statement is the most realistic and intelligent view on terrorism that I have heard from this administration.

Unfortunately, the Kerry campaign jumped on the president's statement, with the result that Bush "dummied down" his message so that it reflected the jingoism that both sides seem eager to promote. Too bad.

How I wish that the Kerry campaign had not jumped on this opportunity to reverse the "flip-flop" charge and use it on Bush, but had instead jumped on this opportunity to move the discussion of our response to terrorism to a new level--how to make terrorism a less acceptable choice to those who disagree with the U.S. Instead we get these silly claims about winning from both of them. Too bad.

Be well, Lynn