We Are the Change

Double or Nothing

Bush’s new strategy of sending more troops into Iraq is being referred to as the "double down" strategy. “Double down” is the wrong metaphor. The “double down” is a bet in blackjack, made from a position of strength when the odds are in favor of the bettor. In Iraq, we are not in a situation where the odds are in our favor. The more appropriate gambling term would be “double or nothing”. “Double or nothing” is a desperation bet made from a position of weakness in the hope to rescue a losing streak. The only problem with these gambling metaphors is that Bush isn’t playing with worthless chips; he is playing with the lives of our sons and daughters and the U.S. treasury. He personally has nothing on the table.
How can more troops in Iraq make a difference? U.S. troops have never lost a battle in Iraq. The problem that Bush doesn’t understand or refuses to face is that we are not losing militarily (the troop’s job); we are losing politically (Bush’s job). The reason we are losing politically is that Bush refuses to face the realities of the situation and concede that some unpleasant consequences are going to result from his ill-advised invasion. Bush refuses to admit that Iran and to a lesser extent Syria are going to emerge as the real winners in this mess. Bush refuses to even talk to Iran and Syria. Even James Baker (his father’s Sec of State) has pointed out that the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at us and declared that they would bury us and yet we talked to them. Bush’s childish refusal to talk with anyone who disagrees with him is what is standing in the way of a resolution of the Iraq mess.
To use another gambling metaphor, Iran and Syria are holding strong hands and if we want to bring the Iraq mess to a resolution, we are going to have to play cards with them.

Our Narcissistic President

Bush has a long history with little or no accomplishments. He attended top schools as a legacy student (as the son of a rich and powerful father, his admittance and passing were assured). Every business venture he controlled was an abysmal failure and his daddy’s people were always there to bail him out. Now, as president, he has again produced a hideous failure and again his daddy’s people (James Baker et al) are there trying to bail him out with the Iraq Study Group and its path out of the Iraqi quagmire.

American voters chose to ignore the long history of failure that highlighted George Bush’s resume before he became president and some now seem surprised that the leopard has not changed his spots.  Perhaps even more remarkable than Bush’s failures has been his refusal to take responsibility for his failures. George Bush is a man who doesn't read, doesn't elicit conflicting opinions, gets rid of those who offer them, lacks curiosity and shows all 9 diagnostic criteria of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Look at any of his comments that aren’t prewritten and you will see the numerous and repeated references to “I”, “me” and “my”. It’s all about him.

We live in an age of marketing and image manipulation thus Bush the draft dodging deserter in his flight suit strutting around on an aircraft carrier is portrayed as a top gun hero, while someone like John Kerry, who actually is a decorated combat hero, is seen as a coward. By the sophisticated use of propaganda, failure can become success, stupid can become smart and the coward can become the hero.

His history suggests that Bush, as narcissistic people always do, thinks he is smarter and more enlightened than everyone else and will continue to proceed down his own course which means he will not accept the ISG recommendations (this prediction is made ahead of time 12/10/06). Sadly, it will take decades for America to clean up the mess Bush has made in the world.

Hypocrites

Why are so many hypocrites attracted to the Republican Party? Yes, there are plenty of hypocrites in the Democratic Party, but the Republican Party is just brimming over with people preaching against their very own lifestyle.
Here is my theory: People wrestling with what they see as personal defects are attracted to groups that they think may help them deal or in some cases hide from their problems.
That may be why we see so many pedophiles and closeted gays in the clergy and the Republican Party. The hypocrites may be attracted to the Republican Party because of it's moralizing on so many issues. Of course there are closeted gays in the Democratic Party but you are less likely to find them hiding there since Democrats are not fixated on an anti-gay agenda. If you are gay and trying to hide it, what better place is there to hide than in the Republican Party with their anti-gay agenda? If you are a pedophile and trying to hide it, what better place is there to hide than in the clergy? These people are living a lie and that is the very definition of hypocrisy. Of course this does not apply to all Republicans but most Republicans seem to be blind to the wolves among them.
Take for example, Ann Coulter, a 40 something that has never been married nor had children and travels with an entourage of leather clad men. She/he/it is a principal Republican spokesperson for family values, weird. She/he/it is held up on conservative talk shows as the embodiment of Christian family values yet her obvious hate speech and contrary lifestyle doesn’t raise a question with these people. Why?

What If

What if Bush had governed after September 11 as he campaigned in 2000, as a "uniter, not a divider”. What if Bush had forged a centre-right consensus that included moderate Democrats. What if Bush had listened to the voices of skeptical realism on invading Iraq? What if Bush had made appointments to Federal agencies based on competence instead of ideological loyalty?
Remember how 9/11 brought us all together. Many Democrats had doubts about the legitimacy of Bush’s appointment as President, but we put that aside. Remember the headlines after 9/11 in the Paris newspaper that said, “We Are All Americans”. The world was united behind us including moderate Muslims – all they were looking for was a reasoned and balanced leadership. We were all willing to put aside our differences to unite our country against a common enemy. What did President Bush do with this unprecedented unity? He could have used this “once in a lifetime opportunity” to bring our country and the world together, to make real progress on many seemingly intractable problems. Instead he cynically exploited 9/11 to divide our country by moving to the extreme right and then declaring that if we don’t support his extreme policies that we are un-American. He has told us dozens of times that if we don’t support him we are supporting the terrorists. How insulting, how partisan, how divisive! He used these divisions to energize his base and increase his political power and in doing so he damaged our country far more than any terrorist could.
What did this partisan exploitation of 9/11 get the GOP? They had complete control of the government for a few years – did they accomplish anything? Can the Republicans out there point with pride to anything they accomplished? Unprecedented deficits, largest expansion of the government in history, damaging our Constitution, weakening the Bill of Rights, losing the moral high ground in the world, adopting torture, increasing terrorist recruitment, letting North Korea have nukes, strengthening Iran’s hand, turning Iraq into an unstable breeding ground for terrorists and bleeding away young American lives and our treasury in the process. Please, if you are a Republican, tell me which of these accomplishments you are most proud of.
One thing is for sure, George Bush will go down in history as the worst president ever. What if?

Bush Created the North Korean Situation

In the early nineties, North Korea (DPRK) was in possession of spent plutonium fuel rods (from old Soviet reactors) that could be processed into bomb grade material.  In 1994, Clinton and the DPRK signed an "Agreed Framework" whereby the DPRK would freeze its existing nuclear program and agree to place the plutonium fuel rods under seal and IAEA inspection and in return we would supply the DPRK with fuel oil and two light water reactors which we would supply fuel for and remove the waste. According to the IAEA, the DPRK abided by the agreement until 2002 when Bush broke the agreement.
In 2002, because he had a “gut feeling” (little to no evidence) that they might be cheating, Bush ceased the fuel oil shipments specified in the Agreed Framework, thereby unilaterally abrogating the pact with the DPRK. As usual, Bush refused to talk since he considers that a “reward for bad behavior”. As a consequence, the DPRK broke the seals and removed the plutonium fuel rods which they have now processed into bombs. The plain fact is: If Bush had not broken the agreement with North Korea, they would not have nuclear bombs.
The neocons like to try to rewrite history and lay the blame on Clinton, they can spin it any way they want but the facts are undeniable: North Korea would not have nuclear bombs today if Bush had not broken the agreement with them!

Kevin Tillman's Tribute

Editor’s note: Kevin Tillman joined the Army with his brother Pat in 2002, and they served together in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Pat was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. Kevin, who was discharged in 2005, has written a powerful, must-read letter that is reprinted here.

By Kevin Tillman

It is Pat’s birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after.  It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military.  He spoke about the risks with signing the papers.  How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people.  How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition.  How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice… until we get out.

Much has happened since we handed over our voice:

Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can’t be called a civil war even though it is.  Something like that.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them.  Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few “bad apples” in the military.

Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet.  It’s interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat.

Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes.

Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground.

Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started.

Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated.

Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated.

Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated.

Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated.

Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe.

Somehow torture is tolerated.

Somehow lying is tolerated.

Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense.

Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world.

Somehow a narrative is more important than reality.

Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is.

Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world.

Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance.

Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country.

Somehow this is tolerated.

Somehow nobody is accountable for this.

In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people.  So don’t be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity.  Most likely, they will come to know that “somehow” was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites.

Luckily this country is still a democracy.  People still have a voice.  People still can take action.  It can start after Pat’s birthday.

Brother and Friend of Pat Tillman,

Kevin Tillman

A Model of Strength

The Amish victims of the school shootings in Pennsylvania displayed courage and strength in the face of their losses. They grieved, they buried their dead, they reached out to the killer's widow and they counseled forgiveness for the soul of the murderer. They modeled a peace built not on vengeance but on respect and forgiveness.

Contrast this with Bush’s approach of seeking revenge for 9/11 by invading Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with it. According to the Lancet medical journal, 650,000 Iraqis have been killed as a result of the invasion (more than died from 20 years of Saddam). When will we realize that killing and vengeance against Muslims that had nothing to do with 9/11 is totally counter productive to dealing with radical Islam? It feeds the flame.

This is not about being Amish or having the right religion. This is about having the courage to live by a set of principles we claim to believe in. This is about understanding the strength in building bridges, not just striking back. It is about understanding that we have allowed hate, fear and violence to guide the governance of our country for the last 5 years. Look where it has gotten us.

The Amish provided a model of strength, courage and healing for the rest of America.

Another Big Lie

According to a recent CNN poll, 43% percent of Americans still believe that Saddam/Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Wow! I think this bit of information may be the primary determinant of whether someone thinks the Iraq war was a good idea or not. If I had thought there was a connection between Saddam/Iraq and 9/11 then I would have supported the war – but even though I did not have access to top secret information, I knew all along there was no connection.
Here is why:
1.    Saddam ran an atheist government that was diametrically opposed to the fundamentalist religious wackos that were the terrorists.
2.    Saddam survived by keeping complete control – he wasn’t about to share power with terrorists.
3.    The terrorists hated Saddam. Osama bin Laden had labeled Saddam an infidel and called for his assassination.
4.    If Saddam had given weapons to the terrorists, they would have been as likely to use them on him as us.

Knowing these self-evident truths served to immunize some Americans from the lies of the Bush administration. Remember in the run up to the war, how Bush and his cronies always included Saddam and bin Laden or Iraq and al Qaida in the same sentence? They did this incessantly for months – over and over on the propaganda shows on FOX and right wing radio, on every appearance on every news show they would hammer this association into the minds of the American people. Is it any wonder that by the beginning of the war, 80% of Americans thought there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11?
There was a lot of parsing of words in these implications of linkage between Saddam/Iraq and the terrorists. You could say that I am linked to Kevin Bacon (because I know someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who knows Kevin Bacon) but it would be fundamentally dishonest to make the association. The 9/11 Commission stated categorically that there was “no collaborative relationship” between Saddam and al Qaida.
Bush recently admitted there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 and he said no one in his administration ever implied there was. That is another big lie.

A Sane Policy Toward Iran

I have previously criticized the Bush administration for their shortsighted policy of confrontation with Iran but now I will offer a constructive alternative.

A sound policy should be based on these self-evident assumptions:

1.    The government of Iran is pragmatic and invested in their self-interest as is demonstrated by the fact that they have held on to power for 27 years.
2.    The notion that Iran is crazy with self-destructive zeal is not borne out by the facts. For instance, in their 27 years of rule, Iran has never invaded another country. Iran’s military expenditures are 6 billion per year; compared to 25 billion for Saudi Arabia and 300 billion for the U.S.
3.    Even if they were to achieve a nuclear weapon in the next 5 to 10 years, there is no reason to believe they would use it and assure their own destruction.
4.    Seventy percent of Iran’s population is under 30 and most are moderates that want the benefits of western culture. Time is on our side as long as we avoid radicalizing the population.
5.    Iran wants very much to be accepted as a respected member of the community of prosperous and influential modern states.
6.    An Iran that was indeed a trustworthy member of that community would be an enormous benefit to America and to the world.

The objective of American policy therefore should be accommodating and eventually modifying the legitimate national aspirations of a self-interested and pragmatic Iran - not launching a potentially catastrophic preemptive war against a potentially powerful and influential Muslim nation of seventy million people.
Coaxing Iran down a path leading toward successful achievement of international respectability and acceptance is the single most important "carrot" that we have to offer to today’s Iranian leadership and tomorrow’s new Iranian leaders.
The potential value of positive incentives has been completely squandered; however, by the pointless hostility and belligerence of the Bush administration. It started with the "axis of evil" speech and proceeded downhill from there to the most recent threats and ultimatums. This has greatly diminished our own bargaining power while making the job of arriving at a reasonable accommodation with Iran infinitely more difficult.

The Insanity of the Neocons Continues

This article uses some ideas from a brillant post by Cenk Uygur.

The debate is on again about whether we should attack another Middle Eastern country that did not attack us. Now the neocons want a war with Iran – I guess because their war with Iraq went so well. Please note this quote from the NY Times:
"The consensus of the intelligence agencies is that Iran is still years away from building a nuclear weapon. Such an assessment angers some in Washington."

1.    If they were really concerned about the weapons, shouldn’t the neocons be glad that Iran is years away from a nuclear weapon?
2.    Isn’t their displeasure in the assessment proof that they are just looking for a quick excuse for war?

Next please observe this quote from neocon Newt Gingrich:
"When the intelligence community says Iran is 5 to 10 years away from a nuclear weapon, I ask: If North Korea were to ship them a nuke tomorrow, how close would they be then?"

1.    Isn't he admitting that Iran doesn't have any weapons and would have to buy them from North Korea?
2.    What would prevent them from buying those weapons the day after our air strikes?
3.    In fact, wouldn't they have a far greater incentive to buy nuclear weapons if we attacked them?
4.    Since North Korea already has nuclear weapons, why aren’t the neocons clamoring for war with North Korea?

The answer is 100% undeniable - because it isn't about the weapons. They want the war for other reasons. Iraq didn't have any weapons and we're still in there three and half years later. It was never about the weapons. See this admission by the neocon architect of the Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz.
The real reason the neocons want war with Iraq, Iran and Syria is they have a “theory” that we can take over and impose our will on these countries thus reshaping the Middle East. This “theory” has already been shown to not work – just look at the mess they created in Iraq. If the neocons in the Bush administration had simply been honest and told the American people that we should go to war and invade countries in the Middle East because they had a “theory” that it might work; the American people would probably not have found that a plausible reason for war. That is why they focus on weapons and fear. The real question is: Are we going to allow them to manipulate us into another needless war?