Ungovernable

It is the essence of a constitutional democracy that all viewpoints are invited and considered. Representing hundreds of millions of individuals, it is expected, indeed required, that those persons elected to represent, consider not only their insular interests, but the interests of the population as a whole. Compromise, in this context, is a virtue and a requirement of a successful democracy, not a sign of weakness. Somewhere along the way, this concept not only lost it's central role but became anathema to the role government is to play in our lives. Indeed, in many Congressional districts, the word itself has become tantamount to a four-letter word to be hurled with the same vile contempt that many (often in these same districts) use to describe those ascribing to a progressive political view. Indeed, in many of these districts and the States in which they are situated, even the mention of a willingness to listen and consider an opposing view has garnered threats of political retaliation that all but guarantees months of abuse ultimately culminating in an electoral loss to someone more "pure" in his/her thinking.

Such is the world we now live in, brought to you by those who created the Tea Party and by their followers. So long as this extremist world view continues to dominate our political landscape (and there is no sign that this political terrorism will cease anytime soon) there is simply no chance that the principles underlying the Constitution...a vigorous democracy where all viewpoints are invited in order to arrive at a governing decision that provides for the well-being of the entire population...can and will be realized.

Bin Laden Getting the Last Laugh?

Say what you will about Bill Clinton's presidency, he managed to leave us with a budget surplus so flush that it was expected that by 2009 we would have no debt whatsoever. Since then, and more particularly as a result of George Bush' election and the attacks of September 11, 2001, that surplus has not only been squandered, but we have been driven to a multiple-trillion dollar deficit that has left us virtually unable to pay to run the government without help from the Chinese and Saudis. It is a popular notion, driven by Tea Party extremists (and their lackies in the more mainstream Republican party) that our current economic and political morass is the result of unrestrained spending by Barack Obama. Nothing could be further from the truth. Putting aside recriminations about Bush' negligence in committing us to an unnecessary war in Iraq, that venture, waged in purported response to the attacks of September 11th, started us on this inexorable march toward economic and political ruin that now consumes the nation. Viewing the surplus as a blank check, the Bush administration poured trillions of dollars into the Iraq war leaving virtually nothing left of the Clinton surplus. Compounding the erosion of our national savings, Bush, riding an early wave of popularity resulting from his "mission accomplished" proclamation, cut off revenues that would have offset the economic erosion he unleashed by enacting severe tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals and the largest corporations and then, of course, doing away with whatever modicum of regulation of the financial markets remained.

The current conflagration, unleashed by Tea Party Republicans, promises to dominate the discussion for months to come. It's roots, however, can clearly be traced to Bin Laden's vision of a smoldering World Trade Center. Congratulations to the Tea Party and it's followers. Even in death, you continue to give life to Bin Laden's goal of bringing the west, and in particular, the United States, to economic ruin. Osama Bin Laden would proud.

Osama Bin Laden is dead

This is becoming rather unseemly, don't you think? It's one thing for the President to announce that a Special Ops mission successfully - and finally - located Bin Laden and killed him. It's a whole other matter to be dancing in the streets, wildly celebrating a death no matter how vile the decedent. Not even the guardsmen protecting the Wicked Witch of the West continued to celebrate after handing Dorothy the witch's broom. Are we not better than this? Should we not to be measured as a society by how we respond to the killing of another human being? Is not the out-pouring taking place throughout the country precisely the type of public rejoicing often seen in the Arab world in response to a successful attack on western or Israeli interests that we are so quick to condemn? On some levels, I suppose, the nation's exuberance may be the result of a perceived unburdening of the chains thrust about our collective souls as a result of the events of September 11, but even were that the case, that exuberance has to be tempered with some degree of understanding that gaining revenge for a despicable act does not give license to relieving us of our moral imperatives.

Obama's Long-Form Birth Certificate Released - NYTimes.com

Why on God's green earth would Barack Obama accede to the utter stupidity surrounding his birth by releasing his birth certificate? Does he really believe that anyone who is stupid enough to buy into the conspiracy theories surrounding his birth would be satisfied by his releasing this information? The only thing that the release of this document has done is make Donald Trump actually look important. Instead of keeping Trump and the lunatic fringe at arm's length and simply paint them as detached from reality and not interested in the Country's well-being and the difficult issues we are facing. the release of the document actually legitimizes the discussion. To see the Times' coverage of the release click on the link that follows. Obama's Long-Form Birth Certificate Released - NYTimes.com.

This is a real head scratcher. Nothing gained but much lost.

Today's Commentary

The Middle East

While the uprisings which have swept across the region suggest a yearning by the populace for a real voice in their governance I can't help but wonder who or what is at the root of the discontent. One of the major failings of the war in Iraq was its having created an open invitation to Islamists to spread fundamentalism from Pakistan to Iran; that by removing Hussain we remove es the most viable obstacle to the spread of fundamentalist Islam through the region That invitation continues to be accepted wear speak.

Certainly a yearning for true democracy in the affected countries can only be a good thing for the region and our national interests. If, however, the movement which has swept across the region, swept Mubarek out office and threatens Assad in Syria and Abdullah in Jordan is simply a cover for a radical Muslim agenda then we are looking at a major shift of power that threatens our interests and, of course, threatens the very existence of Israel. Indeed even those espousing democratic ideals have already expressed their intention to dismantle whatever peace has been negotiated by the current government.

Case in point is the current engagement in Lybia. While ground forces have not been committed we and the rest of NATO have committed to suppressing Gaddafi's forces for supposed humanitarian reasons and while that cause may be well-intentioned the real and most direct beneficiaries are the so-called "rebels" who have been offering organized resistance to government forces. The problem, of course, threatens is that no one seems to know precisely who the revelation are or what their ultimate intentions are. Given that the bulk of the fighting has taken place in the region which produced the largest number of foreign fighters at work in Iraq it is likely that these rebels are fervently anti-US and anti-west.

It is a delicate balance facing Obama but through supposedly good intentions we may be very well be aiding the very cause which continues to threaten our interests.

Japan

As the Japanese people continue to struggle to recover from the earthquake and its aftermath, the response of this country to the disaster cannot go without comment. No, I'm not talking about the usual out-pouring of support, the donations to the often-suspect Red Cross, the albums cut so proceeds can be donated...Rather, I'm the the fact that so many people, famous or not, have seen fit to use this evolving disaster as the butt of their jokes. Whether its the idiot valley girl from UCLA who thought this the perfect time to unload her racist anger toward the Asian population and, in particular, the Japanese population in Los Angeles to Gilbert Gottfried to other twitter celebrities who have crawled out of the wood-work, like someone named, "50 Cent" to a Haley Barbour staffer to a writer for "Family Guy". What is it about dead Japanese bodies that spurs one to comic commentary or racist rant? None of these morons was alive in 1941 and, I dare say, knows anything about the Japanese role in World War II so what is it? I don't recall jokes about the disaster in Thailand and certainly not an unkind word was said about the Haitians who suffered through a disaster which continues to consume their lives. Certainly we can do better. Certainly we can aspire to a higher standard than that espoused by bottom feeders like Rush Limbaugh who takes joy in mocking the pain of others.

Thank You, Rush

Over the past several months, since President Obama's election, every time email arrived from MoveOn, PFAW or the Obama organization itself, asking for contributions to keep up the fight, I passively read and then deleted them without response. After months and months of increasing tension, worry and angst over the outcome of the 2008 election, I, and I suspect many people, were exhausted. Our goals had been met, the President, while seemingly everywhere and applying a full-court press to policy, seemed to have momentum and widespread support as he confronted the political and economic morass he had inherited. Things seemed so under control that there was simply no need to keep contributing. After all, with batteries re-charged there would be plenty of time to give anew as the mid-term elections and 2012 presidential elections approached.

Somewhere along the way, things changed and changed drastically. The last few months have revealed the very worst of what we are as a nation and what we can be. Having lost control of the discussion, seeing themselves marginalized and their base dwindling, hate-filled demagogues like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, the "birther" movement, have decided that this is the time to make their stand and, to that end, have unleashed their minions on what otherwise should have been an intelligent, thoughtful discussion of health care and how to ensure no one is left unprotected. One can only imagine the self-satisfaction these "Americans" draw from watching a wheelchair-bound woman being shouted down and threatened for simply stating aloud that she is afraid of losing her insurance. One can only envision the shrug of shoulders when one of their "birther" minions kills a guard at the Holocaust museum to garner attention for his and their hatred of Barack Obama and all that he represents.

So while we are besieged with reports that Obama's speech to school-children telling them to work hard, stay in school and listen to their elders -- certainly all radical ideas -- will not be carried in schools throughout the country because extremist demagogues have complained of its socialist content, I can only respond with hardy congratulations and a big thank you to Rush, Sean, Sarah, Betsy and the "birther" boys. Thank you for reawakening the grass roots organization which pushed you to the brink of extinction. The next push will hopefully be the last. Enjoy the ride.

Way to Go, George…Way to Go

Not a single shot has or ever will be fired, yet we have finally and unwittingly already lost a war with Iran that we have been waging since 1979. Throughout that time, the foreign policies of Messers Reagan, Bush and Clinton have been one of containment, at least maintaining a sort of status quo with the Iranians that has seen our relations with its government ebb and flow with the ascension and decline of both moderate and radical mullahs in Tehran and Qum. The one constant that marked each administration’s approach to Iran was a wary diplomacy that understood the need to maintain a dialog with Tehran without losing sight of the undercurrent of hatred and resentment amongst Iran’s more radical mullahs toward the West that drove much of that country’s foreign policy. At its worst, the relationship (since the end of the hostage crisis in 1980) was an ostensible standoff. Never…until now…was that policy dominated by one country or the other.

As I have suggested on numerous occasions, the blueprint for the destruction which has been wrought by the Bush administration is found in the September 2000 Project for a New Century white paper, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century” which was co-authored by a number of persons who were or are members of the Bush team including Rumsfeld and Cheney surrogates, Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby. It is in that paper that the triumvirate of Iraq, Iran and North Korea are grouped together and identified as the object of our scorn and later branded by Bush as the “axis of evil” in his 2002 State of the Union address. It is in that paper that the framework for the war which was launched in March 2003 was laid out in some detail, positing the need for the United States to establish forward military positions in the Persian Gulf in order to help foster a western-style democracy and to protect U.S. (oil) interests in the region. Positing that the United States could not permit a few small “rogue” powers with arsenals of ballistic and nuclear weapons to threaten our security, its authors wrote, “We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq…to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself. The blessings of the American peace, purchased at fearful cost and a century of effort, should not be so trivially squandered.”

Well, the implementation of the PNAC strategy has succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of its authors. I would suggest, however, that those wildest dreams are waking nightmares not only for the strategy’s neocon authors, but for this nation and its allies. Indeed, what we are witnessing is the unfolding of the most poorly conceived and dangerous foreign policy in my lifetime…one that has not only failed to secure the peace for the United States and its allies, but succeeded in reducing the United States to a bit player in the drama that is unfolding in the Persian Gulf and across Asia.

With war drums beating in the background, flushed with memories of quick victory in Kuwait and Iraq in 1992 and in Afghanistan in 2001, Mr. Bush, time and again, took to the podium to describe Iran as a member of the evil triumvirate, to describe the threat posed by Iran to American interests and to make clear that he and his government would never deal with Iran so long as it supported and fomented terrorism in the Gulf region, the Middle East and throughout the world. Unwittingly or otherwise, these speeches served to galvanize the Iranian electorate (who historically are very heterogeneous and not overly enthusiastic about the teachings of their radical mullahs) and made possible the election of the very conservative, very radical and quintessentially anti-American, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Unfortunately no one in the Bush administration seems to have recognized the threat that this little man posed to Western interests. Indeed, it is still not clear whether anyone in this administration fully understands how this megalomaniac has turned the tables and usurped control over western and Persian policy in the region and policy through much of Asia and the world. In a word (or two), Mr. Ahmadinejad has and continues to play Mr. Bush like an old, finely tuned Gibson twelve string.

Understanding the western and Asian (particularly Chinese) dependence upon oil, Ahmadinejad has pressed his insistence upon developing Iran’s nuclear capability, playing the United States and Western Europe against Russia and China, with the expectation that a consensus could and would not be reached concerning sanctions that might interfere with Iran’s nuclear aspirations. When things began to look bleak for Iran (that is, that the Russians and Chinese began to indicate their willingness to support some sanctions and controls of and toward Iran), Iran unleashed Hezbollah to begin its assault on Northern Israel. Though, I suspect, neither Iran nor Hezbollah fully expected the violence and duration of the Israeli response (itself acting as a surrogate for the United States in the region), the point was nevertheless made: if you push or threaten us with sanctions and possible military action, Mr. Ahmadinejad says, we can very easily instigate violence any where and at any time of our choosing. The tactic worked. There was little talk of sanctions while the world’s attention was drawn to Lebanon during the summer of 2006 and little talk of sanctions since.

Moreover, with the Bush administration having been repudiated by the American electorate and unable to fashion a strategy for extricating ourselves from the quagmire it created in Iraq, the administration is now anxiously awaiting the report of James Baker’s, “Iraq Study Group” which will strongly recommend that the United States seek the assistance of Iran and Syria in trying to bring the sectarian violence under control in order to allow us to begin to withdraw our forces from the country.

What a mess Mr. Bush has made of our policies and standing. After years of criticism and condescension, how dangerous…how degrading…how embarrassing for this nation to now try to repair its relations with Iran by asking it to help us put out a conflagration that we started but cannot stop. Would it certainly have been better for all concerned to have continued the dialog (albeit an arms length one) with Iran that had been started by the three presidents who had preceded Mr. Bush in the White House so as to not lose the policy stand-off that has prevailed since Mr. Reagan took office in January 1981?

Instead, because of this nearly catastrophic policy to isolate rather than contain Iran, we now find ourselves in the extraordinary position of asking our avowed enemy (at least in the eyes of the PNAC neocons) to help us get out of Iraq. The consequences of our going, hat in hand, to Mr. Ahmadinejad under these circumstances, will be far-reaching, to say the least and unquestionably not in concert with our security interests at home and abroad. With question, the issue of Iran’s nuclear aspirations will be put on hold for the foreseeable future giving Iran the time it needs to complete its nuclear (weapons?) program. given that Mr. Ahmadinejad will certainly be an even more significant player on the world stage if and when the issue of Iran’s nuclear program is next before the United Nations, the likelihood of the UN or anyone else agreeing upon and enforcing a strategy for limiting Iran’s aspirations is likely nil.

Moreover, as I’ve written in the past, the United States’ ill-conceived strategy for removing Hussein and inserting a Western style democracy has not only failed but resulted in the election of a Shiite-led government that has concluded that its best chance for success lies with establishing relations --- nay, an alliance --- with the Shiite-based governments in Iran and Syria. Rather than an ally in the so-called, “war on terror”, we have likely given voice to a government that has and will find more in common with other Shiite-based led governments. Indeed, to avoid appearing as though they’re involvement in the region is dependent upon US policy and the recommendations of the Baker report, Iran has invited both the Maliki and Assad governments to meet with him in Tehran this weekend to “discuss” how to bring the sectarian violence to an end. Given that both Iran and Syria have both supported and fomented that violence through the insertion of weapons and foreign-born fighters into Iraq, bringing the violence to an end, though not a simple task, is likely to meet with far more success than the United States “stay-the-course” strategy of recent years. Further still, Syria and Iraq, this morning, announced a resumption of diplomatic ties that had been severed more than twenty years ago.

These formalized ties, as I’ve argued, will create a swath of anti-West/anti-American/anti-Israeli governments from the West Bank to Afghanistan making the PNAC strategy for global domination by nation building a reality. What our place will be in this burgeoning reality remains to be seen. It will, under any circumstance, be a messy and complicated reality that Mr. Bush will leave behind when his reign comes to an end in 2008 making the choice of his successor a messy and complicated one…and a critical one.

We Must Be Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

Watching Don Rumsfeld deliver his reproachment to the American people last week in the White House, I was reminded of Dot Black’s testimony before John Grisham’s fictional Tennessee jury in “The Rainmaker”. Reading a letter from the insurance company which was denying her claim on behalf of her dying son, the company’s claims adjuster scolded Mrs. Black for her simply not understanding the reasons for the repeated denial with the reproachful, “You must be stupid, stupid, stupid”.

In case any of you missed Rumsfeld’s performance, you can still catch it on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NTEDfAHo2U. In a rather disjointed, short-but-rambling comment, the Secretary essentially blamed the American public for his dismissal/resignation because the public lacked the intelligence to understand exactly what it is that we’re doing in Iraq:

These six years…its been quite a time….The great respect I have for your leadership, Mr. President in this little understood, unfamiliar war, the first war of the twenty first century. Uh, it is not well known, it is not well understood, it is complex for people to comprehend and I know with certainty that over time the contributions you’ve made will be recorded by history.”

Complex for us to understand? Explain it to us, Don, please help us to understand. Explain to us which part we don’t understand and haven’t understood. If you’re referring to your decision to fight the war with too few troops to actually secure the peace, you’re absolutely right. We don’t get it. If you’re talking about so over-extending our military as to render us incapable of even responding adequately to domestic crises, you’re right again. We don’t get that either. If, instead, you’re referring to your failure to provide the troops with adequate armor from the outset with its antecedent wasting of our best and brightest, right again, Don…we don’t understand that one, either nor did we understand your scolding of an enlisted man when he had the audacity to ask about the lack of body armor. Didn’t get that one though it did make for good theater. I know…it must be your decision back in 2003 to cut the pay of the service men and women serving in Iraq and to cut benefits due to the families of those troops…things like health benefits and death benefits at the very moment that your troops were being shredded day in and day out by IDEs and sniper fire. Right again, Don. We never understood that one, either.

This woeful litany of public ignorance is too long for our purposes here. Suffice it to say, Don, you are right. We don’t get any of it…way too complex.

Putting aside the fact that we shouldn’t have been in Iraq in the first instance, once committed to going forward am I to understand that it is we, the People, who do not now understand that the entire strategy for prosecuting this outrage was ill-conceived and so poorly executed as to raise the question of criminal conduct on the part of you, Mr. Rumsfeld and the President for whom you expressed such great respect last week.

In truth, Mr. Secretary, the only thing that we did fail to understand in time is that your incompetence, your arrogance and your hubris would take such a human, political and economic toll.

Indeed, Mr. Rumsfeld, you must be stupid, stupid, stupid.

Good riddance.