Is The Surge Working?: Biden vs. Graham.

A Lebanese historian once cautioned that “great powers should never get caught up in the politics of local tribes.” That’s a pretty accurate assessment, unfortunately, of why America’s intervention in Iraq has gone so wrong. The United States is spending $10 billion dollars a month in Iraq and it is now losing an average of sixty soldiers a month. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham believes this sacrifice is worth it because he foresees the prospect of a political reconciliation within the next couple of months. Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, on the other hand, argues that America will be forced to evacuate Baghdad with the next couple of years, and that our departure will resemble the fall of Saigon unless we dramatically alter our approach in Iraq. Given that the bitter Sunni-Shia schism that has existed for centuries and the fact that implanting democracy takes generations, it seems Pollyannaish in the extreme to expect that Iraq’s factions will reach any kind of political settlement in the foreseeable future.

Sphere: Related Content

Bush's Dead Certainty

Bush contends that history cannot judge his presidency until long after he’s dead. Historians are still debating about George Washington, Bush contends, so how can they presume to render a verdict without the vantage point of time. Bush is not entirely wrong here, but he is betraying a glaring contradiction: how can he be dead certain that he will be vindicated by history when his perspective is inevitably subject to the same limitations he is imposing on his critics? How can he be sure that the chaos in Iraq will inevitably organize itself in the direction he envisions?

Bush is relatively young (60) as far as presidents go. He has good genes and appears to be in robust health. It is not unreasonable to expect that he will be alive for decades to come. Most Americans recognized the Carter administration was a failure immediately after it ended, and that verdict has not changed in the intervening decades. Similarly, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was, is, and always will be a catastrophic blunder. The passage of time will not appreciably change these instant verdicts.

Bush’s assertion that history cannot hold him account until he is history doesn’t hold up. This assertion is on par with Bush’s numerous feeble and discredited prognostications. One thing is certain, however, a lot of America troops and Iraqis are going to going to give their lives because Bush is determined to proof himself right. The only other certainty I can think of is that Bush will never admit he’s wrong, no matter what the facts are. But hey, America’s worst president to date, Andrew Johnson, believed to his dying day that he’d be vindicated too.

Sphere: Related Content

Bush and the Art of War

Every time the Bush administration has dug itself a hole it’s asked for a bigger shovel to dig itself out. This thought is worth bearing in mind as talk of a U.S. airstrike against Iran heats up. No doubt, there are hard-line elements in Iran bent on disrupting America’s efforts in Iraq. There aim is multi-fold: 1) Keep America bleeding in Iraq so that it is less capable of responding to Iran’s nuclear program. 2) Force the United States into a humiliating withdrawal from Iraq, which would then leave Iran as the dominant power in the Persian Gulf. 3) Goad the Bush Administration into launching preemptive strikes against Iran, which would rally a pro-American Iranian public around the fundamentalist regime.

The discerning reader will notice there is more than a kernel of contradiction between these three goals. But these incongruities do not work to America’s benefit: The United States can lose by staying in Iraq, by quitting Iraq, or by attacking Iran. For the Bush administration, which has inadvertently furthered Iran’s interests by thoroughly botching the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the prospect of a game changing strike against Iran may seem like a gamble worth taking. Put simply, George Bush and Dick Cheney do not want to go down in as the architects of the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history. Accordingly, in their view the best way to get Iraq’s recalcitrant militias into line would be to decapitate their sponsors in Iran.

There is also the related problem of Iran’s nuclear program, which if successful would: a) instantly transform Iran into the dominant power in the Gulf, b) provoke a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, c) destabilize the entire region, d) leave the West over a barrel (of oil). In a nutshell, the United States cannot disengage from the Middle East without suffering catastrophic economic and geopolitical consequences. Nor can it easily continue to sustain the Bush administration’s present course, which has decimated America’s image abroad, divided the country at home, and stretched America’s military to the breaking point.

Attacking Iran can be understood as escaping forward, which is military jargon for launching a frontal assault when faced with an increasingly untenable position. As a military gambit, escaping forward is often the soundest choice one can make when facing dire straights. However, most military experts believe that it would be sheer lunacy for the Bush administration to launch a preemptive attack against Iran. After all, Iran could probably close the Straits of Hormuz, the transit way for more than 30% percent of the world’s oil. And U.S. troops in Iraq would be highly vulnerable to retaliation from groups controlled by Tehran. Indeed, a direct assault on Iran could unleash a wave of terror attacks across the globe launched by Iranian controlled sleeper networks.

So, what’s a superpower to do? The Iranian regime’s greatest vulnerability is the price of oil. In fact, if the price of oil were to drop precipitously the mullahs in Iran would likely lose their grip on power fairly quickly. It is axiomatic, for instance, that the ruling elites in petro states are corrupt and cannot sustain their rule without subsidizing inefficient state industries, supporting the security apparatuses, and buying off the political opposition. Significantly decrease the amount of petro profits flowing into the clerics’ coffers and the Iranian regime will collapse of its own accord, just as the Soviet Union did when oil prices hit bottom in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s.

In Sun Tzu’s The Art of War the successful commander is the one who can defeat his enemy before the first battle even begins. Many military experts consider Sun Tzu’s meditations on warfare the most important observations ever made on the topic. But for Sun Tzu, the ideal commander-in-chief is not characterized primarily by his (or her) military skill or his genius for combat, but rather for his (or her) ability to achieve greater social harmony. The war in Iraq, or a war against Iran, is unlikely to engender a more harmonious and balanced world. However, recognizing the ecological dimension behind the conflicts America faces gives us the opportunity to adapt our energy habits so they no longer feed the forces that threaten us. Before striking Iran it is worth pondering a question that the Bush administration failed to ask before attack Iraq: what would Sun Tzu do?

Sphere: Related Content

Is George W. Bush Driving you Crazy? Take This Multiple Choice Test to Find Out

It is my deeply held conviction that the world is crazier than I am. Of course, I’m close to certifiable myself, so this must mean the rest of the world is off its rocker. For those of you who are completely sane, you have my deepest sympathy. After all, trying to maintain one’s sanity in an insane world is sure to drive you crazy, eventually. If you don’t believe the world is just plain irrational just consider trying to pass this Psychological Inventory prepared by the APA meant to test your mental stability:

1) You are in a lavatory stall when a conservative Republican Congressman peeks his head beneath the divider. Do you?

a) Give him a campaign contribution and run like hell.
b) Ask him if he thinks Bush’s surge is working.
c) Thank him for championing legislation that upholds the sanctity of marriage.
d) Ask him if he liked Will Ferrell wearing leotards in the movie Blades of Glory.
e) Wear pampers like astronaut Lisa Nowak and avoid public restrooms altogether.

The correct answer, of course, is none of the above. You should probably spray the congressman with mace and move your family to Canada. But because this is a multiple choice test devised by the mental health professionals any answer that you give can be interpreted as a sign that you are truly disturbed. For instance:

2) Imagine you are the president of the United States of America. You’ve just ordered the invasion of country X, but you have inadvertently started a civil war. Your generals tell you that cutting and running will spark a regional conflagration and staying the course will destroy America’s military. Do you?

a) See if the job you really wanted -- baseball commissioner – is still available.
b) Do what you always do when you screw up; ask mom and dad for help.
c) Take troops from country X and invade country Y.
d) Blame the politicians in Washington.

Once again, the correct answer is none of the above. The world was a mess before you took office and it will be a mess after you leave. If the next guy/gal wants your job so bad, then let them figure out what to do.

The next question he designed to test if you have a conflict between the delusions of grandeur we all harbor and a natural resentment of authority figures.

3) President Bush reminds me of which fictional superhero?

a) Inspector Clouseau
b) Mr. Bean
c) The Wizard of Oz
d) Captain Kirk
e) The Lone Ranger

This one had me stumped, I admit, till I realized it was all of the above. Now, here’s a question designed to test your moral reasoning:

4) You are pulling in $6 billion a year salary as the manager of an exclusive hedge fund, but hordes of deadbeat sub-prime borrowers can’t keep up with the double-digit spike in their adjustable rate mortgages. If they default, then the value of the assets in your portfolio will be worthless. The best course of action is to:

a) Call the Fed Chairman collect and ask him to print more money so that someone -- anyone – will have enough money to buy the junk bonds you need to sell pronto.
b) Call the President collect and ask him to read, Socialism for the Rich: Why Deficits Don’t Matter, by economist Ken Lay. Then read him the riot act and tell him he needs to cut taxes right away on capital gains, inheritances, and financial windfalls.
c) Buy every Lotto and Powerball ticket in the country.
d) Ebenezer Scrooge was right; foreclosing on deadbeats is the only way to engender fiscal responsibility.

The correct answer, of course, is none of the above. The savvy hedge fund manager should immediately recognize that his best bet is to liquefy his position by selling his worthless stock and bond certificates on EBay, before some other hedge fund manager gets wise and has the same idea.

Congratulations! You’ve just complete the APA’s Psychological Inventory designed to measure your degree of personal psychosis. By now you are probably wondering how you fared? Just count up the number of belly laughs, chuckles, and snickers you experienced in taking this test. If you:

1) Laughed five or more times – You are psychologically well adjusted and are probably qualified to serve as Hillary Clinton’s running mate.
2) Chuckled twice and snickered once – Go back and take this test again and see if you can’t do better next time.
3) You didn’t laugh once – You are definitely a Republican and you probably think Barack Hussein Obama is the leader of the terrorist organization that attacked America.

Sphere: Related Content

Mr. Bush and Mr. Bean

George Bush is to statecraft what Mr. Bean is to vacations; both threaten disaster at every turn. Actually, when it comes to rebuilding New Orleans and Iraq, America would probably be a lot better of if we had Mr. Bean at the helm instead of Mr. Bush. This week marks the second anniversary of Bush’s mishandling of the Katrina disaster. However, Bush is still desperately seeking to salvage his legacy not by rebuilding New Orleans, but by trying to reconstruct Iraq after America’s invasion turned the country into a failed state. Press reports indicate the Bush administration may ask Congress and the taxpayers for an additional $ 50 billion this September, roughly four-fifths of the cost of what is needed to repair America’s ailing bridges and highways.

When the final tab comes due, Iraq is almost certain to be Bush’s $2 trillion Bridge to Nowhere (which will provide a new twist on the slogan Bush once used to describe his economic philosophy: “It’s your money, you paid for it”). The Bush administration claims, of course, that although it may have made a few teensy weensy mistakes in the past, this time they have Iraq moving in the right direction. Indeed, one conservative interest group is spending $15 million to run an ad campaign in decisive Congressional districts in hopes staving of a Republican defection from the president’s Iraq policy come September.

A newly leaked summary of a report prepared by the General Accounting Office presents a grim assessment of the “progress” being made in Iraq. In short, the report indicates that the Iraqi government has made little or no progress towards meeting 15 out of the 18 benchmarks that have been set by Congress and the president.

More ominous, by far, is the fact that Iraq’s much maligned prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, has been hinting that he may have to find new friends (Iran or Russia) to replace the United States as a stabilizing force in the country. Is this the thanks we get for ensuring the free and fair elections that helped place al-Maliki in power? Actually, as David Ignatius reports in the Washington Post, the Iranians funneled so much money to Shiite religious candidates favorable to Iran, that they essentially bought the outcome they wanted. Indeed, 5,000 Iranians a week slipped into Iraq with counterfeit credentials that the results in Baghdad were even more suspect than the results in Palm Beach, Florida during the 2000 election.

In sum, the triumph of “free elections” hailed by the Bush administration as a milestone in Middle Eastern politics appear to have paved the way for Iran’s dominance of Iraq, and the Persian Gulf. Mr. Bush, like Mr. Bean, is largely oblivious to all this. There is one difference between Mr. Bush and Mr. Bean: Mr. Bean makes me laugh, but I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when watching Mr. Bush.

Sphere: Related Content

Bush vs. History and the Future of Iraq

During the final year of WWI the Germans won a series of tactical victories before losing the war. A befuddled public was fed the right-wing myth that defeatists in the high command had snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, essentially stabbing the Fatherland in the back. This falsehood would find favor with a certain bohemian corporal, one Adolf Hitler, who would launch a second world war to avenge Germany’s humiliation in the first. Needless to say, Germany’s decision to refight a war it had lost ended up creating an even greater catastrophe.

Fast forward 60 years, and George W. Bush is invoking America’s humiliation in Vietnam as a rationalization for staying the course in Iraq. Bush represents a fringe in American politics that believes America could have, should have, and would have prevailed in Vietnam, if only America’s leaders had had the will to win. This reactionary element has never seen America’s involvement in Vietnam as a strategic blunder, the product of defective assumptions and pathological misjudgments, but rather as a test of American character that the nation failed. In their view, spineless liberals lost Vietnam. Ipso facto, weak-willed leftists will be responsible for our failure in Iraq (notwithstanding conservative incompetence in waging the campaign in Iraq).

Over the next several months, the Bush administration will be trying to use whatever tactical benefits the so-called surge is producing to cover for the fact that America’s strategic position in Iraq is unraveling. Put simply, despite modestly encouraging developments associated with the surge – Sunni insurgents training their sights on al-Qaeda in Iraq, for instance -- the overall situation in Iraq is a worsening disaster for America’s interests. The longer the Bush administration remains in denial, the worse the denouement in Iraq is likely to be.

Bismarck once famously remarked that “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” If this is true, then in follows that so long as the United States is fighting in Iraq it is because the political process, diplomatic efforts, and reconciliation are failing. The question, of course, is can the United States military turn the situation in Iraq around?

A game changing moment is always possible, but the centrifugal forces in Iraq appear to be tipping in the direction of greater chaos. The Maliki government in Iraq appears to have no interest in pursuing political reconciliation. Indeed, the Shiite dominated government gives every indication of stalling for time, essentially waiting the Bush administration out, so that it can proceed apace with its campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Sunnis.

The Bush administration, eager to find some glimmer of hope in the disaster it has wrought, points to the recent Sunni-American alliance against al-Qaeda in Iraq, as proof of progress. This short-term success, however, may actually undermine Iraq’s long-term prospects (in so far as American efforts to arm Sunni militia are an unwelcome development as far as the Shiite dominated central government is concerned). Further, we should be under no illusions that the Sunni insurgents have suddenly become pro-American; they just hate al-Qaeda more than they hate us at the moment. In other words, once they finish fighting al-Qaeda, or Shiites, they might very well turn the guns we’ve given them back on us.

There’s another complication on the horizon for America’s efforts in Iraq; sometime in December, Iraq’s prime minister will have to request that the United Nations renew its Security Council Resolution that provides the legal basis for the U.S. occupation. It is possible that Maliki will no longer be in office at that point, but the Iraqi parliament has already passed a bill requiring the prime minister to consult the legislature on the matter of renewing the Security Council Resolution. They have also passed a non-binding resolution calling for a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal. The upshot, in other words, is that come December the U.S. could very easily be voted out of Iraq, while an American adversary (Iran or Russia) is invited in to fill the vacuum.

The Bush administration, of course, would likely ignore anything from the U.N. Security Council, but it may be tempted to launch a preemptive attack against Iran to change the equation ahead of time. One thing is for sure, the Bush administration is not about to let Iraq’s parliament decide the fate of Iraq.

Sphere: Related Content

Bush's and Absolute Power

Absolute power doesn’t corrupt, as Lord Acton once supposed, but it does reveal character. In the case of George W. Bush, his stint as commander-in-chief has exposed the fact that the 53,000,000 Americans voted for a man who suffers from a glaring lack of substance.

Bush, when you get down to it, is a rather pedestrian character, but his privileged background has imbued him with delusions of grandeur. He does not appear to have learned from his failures, in part because he has never had to face the consequences of failing. Whether it was his alcoholism, his multiple failures in the oil business, or the fact that his father’s friends on the Supreme Court had to bail him out before anyone examined the ballots too closely, Bush is the kind of guy who always got promoted despite his performance, not because of it.

Lincoln suffered from depression, F.D.R. from polio, but George Bush is just plain insufferable. There’s no better example of Bush’s unbearable obliviousness than when interviewers ask him to discuss the topic of asking Americans to sacrifice on behalf of the nation during a time of war. Apparently, as Bush sees it, Americans are sacrificing too much already just by spending a few extra minutes going through airport security. Perish the thought that Americans might be asked to forgo their tax cuts or face a military draft.

One problem with Bush is that he cannot match means with ends. No doubt, this has something to do with the fact that Bush has always achieved his ends without having to bother with the means. For instance, Bush’s oil ventures kept drilling dry holes, but wealthy investors bought him out to curry favor with his highly placed father. Bush’s stock went up, even as his business ventures went bust. No wonder, then, that Bush has a sense that no matter how much he screws up a deus ex machina will intervene at the last possible moment to make everything right.

Bush’s shallowness is apparent in ad hoc style of his arguments. For example, at one time Bush vigorously rejected any comparison between Vietnam and Iraq, but lately Bush has been drawing analogies between Vietnam and Iraq to argue America cannot leave Iraq without creating a humanitarian disaster. Implicit in Bush’s argument, of course, is the notion that America should have remained in Vietnam longer, as if prolonging that mistake could have prevented disaster.

But Bush was against nation building before he was for it, so it is best not to scrutinize his arguments too carefully. Bush has always been a flip-flopper, but he gets away with it because he has no shame in accusing his opponents of engaging in the very tactics he employs. Bush, when you get down to it, will spout whatever slogan or line of argument he thinks will let him get his way. His Vietnam analogy is tailor made to try and pin the blame for losing Iraq on the Democrats. Bush was given virtually absolute power, but the only accomplishment Bush has demonstrated is his ability to skirt responsibility.

Sphere: Related Content

Alberto Gonzales Resigns

Most Americans would sooner trust Michael Vick to walk their dogs than trust Alberto Gonzales with the law. Gonzales has been both Bush's loyal lap dog and the president's pit bull when it came to shredding the Constitution. His tenure will be remembered for his dubious rationalizations for scrapping the Geneva Conventions, his efforts to turn the Justice Department into the political arm of the Republican Party, and his shameless effort to hoodwink a desperately ill John Ashcroft into signing off on unconstitutional procedures associated with the administration's illegal wiretapping program. No wonder Gonzales suffered from amnesia every time he was called to account for his activities.

Sphere: Related Content

George Bush vs. Vietnam

The ordinary person learns from experience. The wise person learns from the experience of others. But the fool never learns. I’ll leave it to the reader to guess which group George W. Bush belongs to. It is clear, however, that Bush exhibits about as much sagacity in military matters as Inspector Clouseau demonstrates in law enforcement. The draft-dodging Bush, never served in Vietnam, but he has no compunction about Swift Boating veterans like John Kerry and Max Cleland, casting them as weak-willed surrender monkeys.

John Kerry, of course, served and was wounded in a war he opposed. George Bush, on the other hand, was gung-ho about a war he took pains to avoid serving in. Which contradiction is more ironic? Kerry’s experience taught him that America’s involvement in Vietnam was misguided from the start, which led him to pose the following question intended to end the war:” How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” It is a tragedy of historic proportions that Bush, the man who failed to serve in Vietnam, and has thus failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam, has gone on creates an even more tragic blunder in Iraq.

There are many eerie parallels between Vietnam and Iraq. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was as phony as Saddam’s phantom WMD, and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was as flaky as Donald Rumsfeld. In both cases, it seems, the “reason” we kept fighting was to avoid defeat. America’s leaders during the Vietnam era acknowledged this privately, but Johnson’s determination not to be the first president to lose a war meant that tens of thousands of U.S. troops would die for a cause that was unwinnable.

Bush believes America lost Vietnam because our leaders lost their nerve, not because the war was strategically misguided and misconceived. By failing to understand the lessons of Vietnam – that America’s involvement was predicated on false premises (like the Domino Theory: if Vietnam fell all of South East Asia would become Communist) – Bush has “succeeded” in creating a quagmire potentially even more insidious as Vietnam.

The invasion of Iraq was predicated on similar false premises, most notably the Reverse Domino Theory: once we establish democracy in Iraq it will sprout up all across the Arab world, thus reducing the impetus for terrorism. But so far the invasion has had just the opposite effect; it has discredited democracy and fed the forces that spawn terrorism. Put simply, democracy does not thrive without certain cultural habits, institutions, and a vibrant middle class, none of which exist in Iraq. At best, implanting democracy takes a generation or more, but our botched occupation has set that dim prospect back considerably.

Bush is going to get Swift Boated by History. His “mission accomplished” antics, his intemperate rhetoric (“bring it on”), and his feeble historical revisionism will catch up with him. Bush was AWOL during Vietnam. And Bush will be doing his best evade responsibility for the consequences of Iraq too.

Sphere: Related Content

George and Jesus

Is George W. Bush proof that we live in a universe devoid of intelligent design? Bush, of course, is famous for asserting that Jesus was his favorite political philosopher. He has also claimed that God wanted him to be president. Perhaps the Almighty has a sense of humor, because it looks increasingly certain the George W. Bush will go down in history as presiding over the most incompetent, corrupt, and disastrous administrations in U.S. history.

We now know that the Bush administration’s missionary zeal to spread democracy across the Arab world, beginning in Iraq, was just part of a larger effort to export its libertarian ideology and Christian values into the heart of the Middle East. God knows, the Saddamists and Islamicists could do with a little more capitalism, but more religion?

Seriously, though, the fact that the Bush administration used a litmus test to select the diplomats and officials that would oversee our nation building crusade in Iraq proved to be a fatal mistake. Put simply, the administration vetted State Department officials and other relevant personnel according to the following criteria: are you pro-life? That is, those espousing a pro-life philosophy would be sent to rebuild Iraq while those possessing expertise in Middle Eastern and Arab affairs (but not hewing to the president’s pro-life agenda) were relieved.

It’s a little ironic that so many in the pro-life movement were so gung ho about an invasion that failed to meet the standards established by Christian philosophers for a “just war.” For instance, according just war theory the use of force must meet four criteria: 1) it can only be waged by a legitimate authority, 2) it must be in self-defense only, 3) it must be a last resort, and 4) it must be proportional (the good achieved must outweigh the injuries inflicted).

Leaving aside the question of Bush’s legitimacy, momentarily, it is abundantly clear that Bush’s invasion of Iraq failed to meet three out of four criteria the just war theory requires. For instance, it is evident that Iraq posed no serious, direct, or imminent threat to the United States. Second, Bush unilaterally withdrew the U.N. weapons inspectors just weeks before they were due to complete their mission, thus precluding the possibility of a peaceful outcome. Further, the invasion has “succeeded” in spawning a civil war in Iraq, which means Iraqis are far worse off now than they were under Saddam.

Questions regarding Bush’s legitimacy are worth raising. Bush asked for and got a blank check from Congress authorizing the war, but the wording of the resolution called on the president to exhaust all means short of war first. Bush failed to do this, just as he failed to get a second U.N. resolution explicitly authorizing the invasion. Put simply, Bush used the vaguely worded U.N. resolution he obtained earlier as a blank check, though most international law experts believe Bush acted illegally. It is also worth noting that Bush’s path to the White House was extremely dubious. His ascension to the Oval Office owed more to legal sophistry and a partisan Supreme Court, which essentially nullified the will of the American people (as expressed by the majority of Americans who voted for Al Gore and the majority of Floridians who cast their ballots for Gore as well).

Bush is a throwback to leaders who operate according to the discredited theory from the Dark Ages known as “the divine right of kings.” According to this deeply irrational idea the monarch is acting as God’s representative on earth and his decisions are divinely guided. Bush’s disastrous reign is a reductio ad absurdum argument against this theory. However, Bush has brought great credit to the sole political teaching of his favorite political philosopher, Jesus: Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. In other words, George has proven that Jesus was right about keeping religion out of politics.

Sphere: Related Content

Why Bush’s Military Surge is Fizzling

General Petraeus and the men under his command are being asked to do the impossible; buy time for a political reconciliation among Iraq’s warring factions. Most observers agree that General Petraeus’ counterinsurgency techniques have improved the security situation for many Iraqis, but only at the cost of increasing the number of U.S. casualties. Virtually no one believes, however, that the Iraqi government is moving in the right direction when it comes to settling sectarian differences. Because the surge cannot be sustained indefinitely, however, any military progress that is not accompanied by diplomatic progress will be in vain.

General Petraeus, as the cliché goes, wrote the Army’s counterinsurgency manual. According to his estimation, successful counterinsurgency efforts generally take at least eight to ten years. This means that pacifying the insurgency, which is a virtual prerequisite for a political settlement, could happen around 2015 at the earliest. And this assumes that Bush’s successor – not to mention the American public – will continue to back the current strategy, an untenable proposition.

In democratic countries different factions agree to settle their differences peacefully through power sharing arrangements and compromise. In the Middle East, however, power and politics are a zero-sum game. Put simply, in the Arab world power only changes hands through violence. The Bush administration claims the invasion of Iraq was intended to establish a new precedent for the Arab world, where leaders come to power through the ballot box rather than through bullets. But the invasion that violently overthrew Saddam Hussein contradicted the lesson the Bush administration insisted it was trying to teach. Actions, no doubt, still speak louder than words.

Historians will tell you that democracy is a generational enterprise. That is, it takes decades before a given people can absorb and exhibit the state of mind, habits, and cultural practices associated with self-government. Absent the requisite educational levels, institutions, and cultural factors (free markets, separation of church and state, and a vibrant middle class) self-government usually breeds mob rule and tyranny. To put it bluntly, Iraq was probably one of the least promising places on the planet to try and plant democracy.

It is not surprising, then, that the Shiites and the Sunnis each seem determined to settle their political differences through force. To complicate matters, the U.S. has been arming Sunni forces (which previously had been shooting at U.S. troops) as a counterweight to al-Qaeda in Iraq, but also to counterbalance the Iranian friendly Shia dominated government we helped install! Arming Sunnis forces, needless to say, makes tactical sense (in so far as they want to kill al-Qaeda), but it may also backfire strategically because it undermines the Shia led government we are counting on. As military historian Andrew Bacevich puts it, the Bush administration’s strategy amounts to arming one gang to check another. This is unlikely do anything for law and order. Sooner or later, Bacevich argues, whomever we’ve armed may turn their weapons back in the cops (which would be us).

Imposing democracy on Iraq is proving about as feasible as a shotgun marriage. Just as an obligatory ceremony, some official looking documents, and the unavoidable vows about working together won’t keep a warring couple from killing each other after the “honeymoon” is over, so the façade of elections and a Constitution are not going to forestall Iraq’s warring factions from slaughtering each other, if that’s what they are determined to do.
Bush’s surge strategy is almost entirely predicated on the Maliki government reaching a political accommodation that will satisfy Iraq’s rival factions. However, the man Bush has tapped, as the “right guy” for Iraq, is either unwilling or unable to reach beyond the sectarian divisions and forge a genuinely inclusive government. As Iraq’s former interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi observes: “It is past time for change at the top of the Iraqi government. Without that, no American Military strategy or orderly withdrawal will succeed, and Iraq and the region will be left in chaos.”Every astute observer, Democrat or Republican, expresses exasperation over the lack of a diplomatic surge to accompany the military surge. Why isn’t George Bush sending one or more of America’s best negotiators – James Baker, George Mitchell, or Dennis Ross (to name a few) – to try and hammer out a political settlement or broker a backroom deal with the parties? It is very likely that Iraq is one mess that even a consummate political fixer like James Baker can’t clean up. But if the man they call the “velvet hammer” could pull it off, then it would certainly make up for his role in securing Bush’s “election.”

Sphere: Related Content

Bush's Catch-22

George W. Bush has always been something of a contradiction. In 2000 he lost the popular vote but “won” the election in the Electoral College. His campaign argued that the most accurate recount procedures violated the equal protection clause, which the Supreme Court accepted as a valid reason for terminating a manual recount. However, Bush’s “victory” in the depended on the fact that votes are weighed unevenly in the Electoral College. To heap insult upon injury, the “states’ rights” candidate effectively got the strict constructionist majority on the Supreme Court to behave as activist judges by intervening in the internal procedures of a sovereign state. It is now abundantly clear that George Bush twisted the law like a pretzel to override the will of the voters. George Bush’s “win,” needless to say, has been America’s loss.

Following Bush’s election America finds itself a universe where Alice in Wonderland logic applies. Only on the wrong end of the rabbit hole could the following things occur:

The draft-dodging duo of Bush/Cheney painting war hero John Kerry as a wimp.
Massive Bush tax cuts in a time of war are followed by the biggest increase in Federal spending in American history (if you don’t think there will be a reckoning for Bush’s financial follies I have a couple of bridges I’d like to sell you).
Bush claims, “the U.S. does not torture. Period. End of discussion.” At the same time, Cheney extols the virtues of water boarding on Rush Limbaugh’s show.
The Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzales, commits perjury in his Congressional testimony and his so unconvincing that even Republicans and officials at the Justice Department believe he’s incompetent. But the president still believes he’s doing a heck of a job.
Bush would decry nation building as a candidate but then attempt nation building in Iraq (all the while managing to paint political opponents who opposed his nation building exercise in Iraq as flip-floppers and historical revisionists).
Bush declares the end of all major combat operations before Iraq explodes into a cauldron of violence and U.S. casualties soar.
The invasion of Iraq was supposed to defend against a threat that never exist (Saddam’s non-existent WMD and alleged but discredited ties to al-Qaeda) while creating the kind of failed state and terror haven the Bush administration said the invasion was meant to meant to forestall. Meanwhile, the U.S. invasion, which was supposed to engender a wave of democracy that would sweep through the Middle East has in fact discredited democracy, spawned and radicalized a new generation of terrorists, and enhanced to fortunes of our chief adversary in the region, Iran.

America’s predicament in Iraq, of course, represents the ultimate Catch-22. We have inadvertently helped install a Shiite dominated government, friendly to Iran, that is trying to squash Sunni insurgents (who were once our adversaries but are now our allies against al-Qaeda). The Shia government, needless to say, is wary about our arming their Sunni adversaries. And the Sunnis, no doubt, are worried that will sell them out to their Shia adversaries. Meanwhile, the Saudis are arming the Sunnis and the Iranians are arming the Shia. And just in case this wasn’t complicated enough, the Shia are fighting among themselves.
All this means we have to stay put in Iraq, or things will get worse. But we can’t stay put without breaking our military. That’s some catch, that catch-22.

Sphere: Related Content

Bush’s Brain Resigns

Karl Rove, the man known as Bush’s Brain, seemed to provide the mental ballast an intellectual lightweight like Bush needed. With the Bush administration sinking like a Russian submarine, Rove’s political genius suddenly seems of a lower order; like a contestant smart enough to win “The Price is Right,” but not someone you’d mention in the same breath as Einstein, Mozart, and Shakespeare.

Still, for a guy who never managed to finish college Rove did manage to accomplish quite a lot, including engineering a political realignment that will make Democrats the majority party for a generation or more. Too bad Rove is a Republican.

Rove deserves credit as the chief architect of the most spectacularly unsuccessful, incompetent, and unpopular administrations in American history. It’s no easy feat to have a wartime president with unparalleled public support, to have control of both houses of Congress, and yet accomplish virtually nothing of lasting significance on the legislative front. On Bush’s signature issues – the privatization of Social Security, immigration reform, faith-based initiatives, replacing Medicare with health savings accounts, and educational reform – only the No Child Left Behind Act was passed. No Child Left Behind, incidentally, is due to expire in a matter of months, and there is little enthusiasm to renew it.

Bush legacy won’t depend on his domestic achievements, thankfully. There’s no telling how bad Bush might have messed up the United States had he not been preoccupied with screwing up Iraq. To be fair, Karl Rove did not play a significant role in foreign affairs, so there’s no sense in blaming him for the “brilliant” idea to invade Iraq as a prelude to remaking the Middle East in America’s image. However, Karl Rove reportedly presided over a domestic policy review process that was so lackadaisical and undisciplined that one observer described it as like watching kids roll around on the White House Lawn.

Rove, it appears, was a genius when it came to reading polls, but a mental midget when it came to policy. His divide and conquer mentality, which led him to portray Democrats as fifth columnists in order to galvanize the Republican base was destined to be self-defeating. Put simply, Rove treated the Republican base the way Pavlov treated his dogs, or as B.F. Skinner treated his pigeons: as mechanistic cogs that could be trained to respond the same way every time to the same stimulus. Ring the bell before dinner and Pavlov’s dogs would soon be drooling every time they heard the bell. Mention “defeatocrats,” gay marriage, and tax and spend liberals and Rove could be certain that those who made up the Republican base would be foaming at the mouth as they pulled the correct lever in the voting both.

Rove’s approach was self-defeating for several reasons. First, his rhetorical appeals (“stay the course,” Democrats had failed to learn the lessons of 9/11, There’s no difference between Saddam and al-Qaeda, for instance) were basically pitched at the lowest common denominator. As Lincoln observed, “You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” At some point, Rove’s insipid slogans, empty clichés, and gross over simplifications were bound to alienate the more educated and sophisticated portions of the electorate. A movement that deliberately marginalizes the best and brightest in order to mobilize reactionaries, the superstitious, and the narrow-minded is not going to sustain itself over the long term.

Rove failed for many other reasons. He failed to build a broad-based coalition, he eschewed consensus building, and he did not establish sound decision-making procedures within the policy-making apparatus. As a result, everything about the Bush administration has proven brittle. Rove was like the general who had the perfect plan on paper, but it fell apart at the first whiff or reality. There's very little doubt that the Bush administration's IQ will decline with Rove's departure, but that may not be a great loss since the administration's collective IQ was not very high to begin with.

Sphere: Related Content

Bush's Economics and the Credit Crunch

In banana republics the financial meltdown usually doesn’t occur until the first family has left office and is safely ensconced in another country. Mexico’s peso crisis, for instance, didn’t materialize until after Carlos Salinas had passed off the palace keys to his successor and bought a one-way ticket to Ireland. So I’m inclined to believe that the current liquidity crisis, accompanied by a fairly precipitous drop in the Dow Jones, is only a momentary phenomenon. The current volatility should not force prudent investors to rethink their retirement portfolios. And it shouldn’t cause them to hoard canned foods, automatic weapons, and medical supplies in anticipation of global economic depression. No, any economic clouds Americans are likely to face are almost certainly days if not months away. After all, if the Bush Administration can avoid impeachment and avoid accountability for the disastrous war in Iraq, then it can certainly avoid any kind of financial reckoning until January of 2008.

There is, alas, little doubt that most Americans are poorer than they were when Bush/Cheney took office. After all, we’ve been borrowing money to pay for: tax cuts, the war in Iraq, and to repair our dilapidated bridges. Actually, we’ve been neglected investing in our bridges and roadways, which is one reason 25% of them are rated structurally deficient. That leads to the inescapable conclusion that our highways are more dangerous than the terrorists. But just as most Americans would rather buy a giant screen TV (for no money down) than fix a leaky roof, so the Bush/Cheney Administration would rather nuke Iran than fix America.

In a sane world we probably wouldn’t borrow money from China, so that we can but oil from Saudi Arabia, so that Saudi Arabia can afford to purchase our high-tech weapons, so that we can keep our military-industrial-political system going, which we need to defend us in a world awash in weapons but scarce in oil. But as the reader may have noticed for him or herself, this isn’t a sane world, not even remotely. Which is why the Bush Administration kind of makes sense, in a tragic Shakespearean kind of way, because we need someone more foolish than us to enact our foolishness for us so that we might recognize how foolish we are, before it is too late.

The Bush Administration has mortgaged America’s future by selling China promissory notes so it can pour resources into a money pit like Iraq. But Americans have long been living beyond their means and ignoring and denying the emerging energy crunch, the climate crisis, and our decrepit infrastructure. We’re on course to spend more than a trillion dollars on Iraq, with nothing to show for it. And we owe the Chinese $ 1.3 trillion for the money they lent us so we can buy their poisoned toothpaste, deadly dog food, and flat tires. One day we’ll wake up and find that we’re poor and stupid. If you don’t believe me, then I have a bridge (in either Baghdad or Brooklyn) to sell you.

Sphere: Related Content

Bush's Madness in Mesopotamia

The Bush Administration’s announcement of a $20 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia makes about as much sense as giving a heart patient a bucket of fried chicken. Sure, a big arms deal with the Saudi sheiks is a nice way to recycle all those petro profits to American contractors that make up what’s left of Bush’s base. But selling our shaky allies a smorgasbord of weaponry is only going to make a volatile region even more unstable. Of course, the fact that we’re sending arming the Sunni Arabs in Saudi Arabia is symptomatic of the fact that our invasion of Iraq has inadvertently backfired to the advantage of the Persian Shiites in Iran.

The Washington Post, incidentally, is reporting that the Pentagon cannot account for 30% of the weapons it has handed over to the Iraqi government. As one expert put it, this "likely means that the United States is unintentionally providing weapons to bad actors." The fact that the U.S. military is battling forces supplied by U.S. taxpayers – the U.S. has spend nearly $20 billion supplying Iraqi security forces – puts a new twist on the administration’s banal old cliché that as “The Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down.” Can there be any doubt that Bush is to the war on terror what Inspector Clousseau is to law enforcement?

Sphere: Related Content

Bush's Bridge to Nowhere

Presidential historians will tell you that great presidents demonstrate political courage and wisdom. JFK, for instance, resisted hawkish advice during the Cuban missile crisis. His defiance of right-wing elements in his own administration convinced many he was an appeaser, but his approach proved remarkably sensible in so far as his cautious incrementalism averted a nuclear war. Likewise, truly great presidents like Lincoln and F.D.R. managed to shape and articulate a vision of what America could be as they guided the nation through perilous challenges. In each of these cases, the United States emerged stronger and more resilient as a result of the decisions these exceptional leaders made.

It is increasingly unlikely that anyone will associate political courage and wisdom with George W. Bush. It is true, of course, that Bush has staked his legacy on the invasion of Iraq, a brash gamble to remake the Middle East. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, however, was a popular gambit, one that that was initially supported by 75% of the electorate. It also helped the Republicans win the mid-term elections in 2002 by painting Democrats as soft on national security. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was audacious, but it was not politically courageous because he had everything to gain politically and little to lose in launching the war.

Many observers argued Iraq “was the wrong war at the wrong time.” They have proven prescient. Bush’s invasion has precipitated the very conditions it was meant to forestall. And we are fighting in Iraq to achieve negative goals – i.e., preventing a full-scale civil war, mass genocide, and a wider regional conflagration. Nothing about the Bush Administration’s invasion of Iraq seems to have been handled with the least bit of sagacity.

The imprudence of invading Iraq is compounded by the fact that America is literally falling apart even as our nation building efforts in Iraq are foundering. We are spending at least half-a-billion every week in Iraq, but we can’t even provide reliable electricity in Baghdad. Meanwhile, America’s basic infrastructure (our highways, bridges, and power grids) is crumbling before our eyes. Not to mention the fact that the United States is facing a crisis in healthcare and health insurance.

In all probability, history will judge the folly of Bush’s misplaced priorities harshly. National security experts like Stephen Flynn have been arguing for some time that America is losing its resilience, its ability to withstand ecological events, terror assaults, and even normal wear and tear. Failing to invest in our critical infrastructure means puts citizens at risk, reduces our competitiveness, and leaves us more vulnerable to terror attacks and extreme weather events.

Extreme weather patterns associated with the climate crisis are all but certain to expose the weaknesses in America’s ailing infrastructure, which will further highlight how foolish the Bush Administration has been in ignoring the scientific consensus on global warming. To put it bluntly, invading Iraq has proven to be a vicious cycle that siphons America’s strength, breeds more terrorists, and diverts resources from sensible endeavors. Bush contends it will be decades before America realizes how farsighted and sagacious his decisions were. His track record as a prognosticator, however, does not inspire much confidence.

Sphere: Related Content

Gonzales vs. the Truth

Most Americans would probably sooner trust Michael Vick with their dogs than trust Alberto Gonzales to tell the truth about his role in the administration’s illegal warrantless wiretap program and the firing of federal prosecutors for political purposes. Even leading Republicans recognize the nation’s chief law enforcement officer has perjured himself, but the hapless attorney general still retains the confidence of the President. In large measure this is because Gonzales is Bush’s firewall. After all, imagine what would happen if an impartial AG enforced Congressional contempt charges against administration insiders, Bush might have to pardon himself before getting impeached.

Sphere: Related Content

New Slogan Needed for Iraq War

The Bush Administration, finding itself stymied by slow pace of progress in Iraq, has been conducting a top-secret search for a new slogan that will rally public support for the war. If you are one of the 25% of Americans that still support Bush/Cheney, then your help in selecting this new cliché is urgently needed. Please vote for the platitude you believe will resonate in the heartland and bolster support for Bush’s war in Iraq. Just think, which hackneyed phrase would you most like to hear from Bush ad naseum:

a) “Bring it on. We’re in Iraq to the last man.”
b) “If we don’t win in Iraq we’ll have to face Hillary at home”
c) “It’s the oil, stupid. If we don't win in Iraq, then gas will be $100 a gallon."
d) “The road to victory goes through Tehran.”

Sphere: Related Content

Bush Multiple Choice Test II

Not content to rewrite history, the Bush Administration is busy devising tests that will be used by future school children to test their knowledge of American history fifty years from now, when George W. Bush is universally recognized as one of the greatest presidents ever!

1). Which military figure was vindicated by history?

a) Reichmarshall Herman Goring: He boasted that although WWII had ended badly for the Nazis, Germany would build him a monument within thirty years time.

b) General Armstrong Custer: He vastly misunderstimated Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse when he urged them to ‘bring it on.’ But the numerous Hollywood depictions of his courageous death lead many historians to hail him as a pioneer of the so-called “surge.”

c) George W. Bush: The public re-evaluates Bush, but only after an aging Tom Cruise plays the former president in the straight to video movie “Top Gun IV: Mission Accomplished.”

d) None of the above

2). In retrospect it’s pretty fortunate that “Scooter” Libby avoided jail time in a federal pen because:

a). Dick Cheney and George Bush admitted to putting “Scooter” Libby up to lying after the next president, Hillary Clinton personally dunked the duo.

b). Pulitzer prizewinning journalist Matt Drudge uncovers ironclad evidence that Saddam Hussein had in fact bid on a Nigerian uranium mine offered on e-bay, but was outbid at the last second by American counter terrorism officials working out of the vice-president’s office. Ambassador Joe Wilson’s Op-Ed in the NYT almost exposed the super-secret Cheney/Rumsfeld operation, which used the online auction site to snag would be terrorists bidding on everything from Pez dispensers to fissile material.

c). Dick Cheney’s secret plan to “liberate Libby” using Special Forces, had he been forced to implement the operation, might have been the straw that broke the camel’s back, particularly since the shotgun wielding VP was preparing to lead the assault himself.

3). Bush’s top-secret nickname for his friend Vladimir Putin was:

a) Mr. Soul
b) Count Vladymre
c) Poison Lips

Sphere: Related Content

The Libby Verdict -- Scooter Gets Off Scot Free

“Our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable.” – George W. Bush

If hypocrisy if the tribute vice pays to virtue, then George Bush is lavishing double standards with as much gusto as a shopaholic who just won the lotto. Cheney’s “Cheney,” as Lewis “Scooter” Libby was known, was undoubtedly the fall guy for the vice-president. That’s the conclusion the jury reached when they reluctantly convicted Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice. It was clear they believed that Cheney, Rove, and Bush deserved to be in the prosecutor’s crosshairs.

Libby’s crime, as prosecutor Fitzgerald characterized it, was like throwing sand in an umpire’s face (a new twist, incidentally, on the notion that justice should be blind). Which is why Fitzgerald asserted, “there is a cloud hanging over the vice-president’s office.”

Actually, the sandstorm that is hanging over the entire White House is Iraq: how America was led to war under false pretenses, how the administration slimed its critics, and how the administration rigged the system to circumvent the Constitution.

The Libby case encapsulates the Bush Administration’s relationship to justice: it uses legalities to undermine the law. Cheney’s office, for instance, was responsible for crafting the dubious legal rationales that justified the use of torture against enemy combatants. These unprecedented interpretations of executive authority were fashioned, at least in part, to immunize leaders like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush from being charged with war crimes. Of course, if there was any serious chance of Bush being held to account for violating the Geneva conventions you can be sure he’d find a way to preemptively pardon himself.

Eliminating the possibility that Libby might spend time behind bars ensures that he won’t cut a deal with Fitzgerald in exchange for leniency. Thus, the commutation makes certain that Cheney, Rove, and Bush will not be implicated in any further proceedings relating to the improper disclosure of a CIA agent’s identity. Bush’s commutation is a self-serving obstruction of justice that undermines the idea that all citizens are equal under the law.

Sphere: Related Content

George W. Bush -- Multiple Choice Test

One day, perhaps fifty years from now, the story of the Bush Administration and the Battle for Iraq will figure prominently in the history books. American schoolchildren will be given multiple-choice quizzes to test their knowledge of this crucial period of American history. Deconstructing Demagogues has obtained an advance copy of the still top-secret examination.

1). Which country was NOT part of the coalition of the willing that liberated Iraq from the evildoer Saddam?

a) Moldavia
b) Atlantis
c) The Republic of Tonga

2). Saddam’s missing WMD cache was eventually found where:

a) An antique shop right outside Tikrit where Donald Rumsfeld said they were all along.
b) A gun show held in the parking lot of a 7-Eleven in Waco, Texas.
c) A 4th of July fireworks display at Disneyland.
d) We think they were actually in Iran, but it may be centuries before we can shift through the radioactive rubble to confirm this hypothesis.

3). Which public relations event revived the Bush presidency in the eyes of both the public and historians?

a) President Bush in a wet suit and a snorkel looking for survivors after Katrina II.
b) The unveiling of Bush’s statue in Baghdad after the president issued an executive order declaring Iraq was America’s 51st state during the final days of his term.
c) Bush heroic last words, “Yipeekayeeee Mother Earth,” just before the secret space shuttle he was piloting tragically crashed into the international space station.


4). Global Warming turned out to be less of a big deal than expected because:

a) Water from melting polar icecaps helped extinguish wildfires that nearly consumed the entire state of California.
b) When temperatures hit 150 degrees in Baghdad during the summer of 2008 the insurgents sued for peace in exchange for U.S. commitment to install frozen slurpee stands in every mosque in Iraq.
c) Cheney’s Ark proved to be the one project the vice-president championed that left the naysayers looking foolish.

5). The U.S. Mint replaced George Washington’s likeness on the $1 bill with George W. Bush’s mug because:

a) The dollar is now worth a fraction of what it once was
b) New treasury department slogan -- “It’s your money. You paid for it.” Which replaced “In God we Trust” – seemed a better fit with Bush’s portrait than Washington’s
c) $$$ with Bush likeness proved a brilliant economic policy in so far as eager foreigners scooped up cheap paper currency, which proved more cost effective than Kleenex tissue and other household paper products.

Sphere: Related Content

Free Libby Letter by Ahmad Chalabi

Lewis “Scooter” Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison for perjury and obstruction of justice. The court received hundreds of letters recommending leniency for Libby from top officials and ordinary citizens. The following letter, which was initially marked TOP-SECRET, was obtained under the freedom of information act.

To: The Honorable Reggie B. Watson:
From: Ahmad Chalabi
Subject: Leniency for Lewis “Scooter” Libby

Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s conviction for perjury and obstruction is the greatest miscarriage of justice since Paris Hilton was forced to shed her pink gown for prison garb. Let’s be frank, Scooter’s scalp is merely a political trophy for those who’d like to see Dick Cheney and George W. Bush in the dock. The mushroom clouds, aluminum tubes, and yellowcake uranium from Africa turned out to be mere mirages in the desert. But then so was the crime of leaking that Libby’s lies were meant to cover up. You follow me? I hope not, because the more confusing the criminal case the stronger the case for acquitting, pardoning, and exonerating Scooter becomes.

I ask you to bear in mind, your Honor, that the jury that convicted “Scooter” believed he was the fall guy. There are conspiracy theorists that believe that Libby misled prosecutors in order to thwart the leak investigation until after the 2004 election. But even if this were true does this justify jail time for the guy who was asked to fall on his sword for his bosses. Isn’t this a form of double jeopardy? Do we really want to criminalize politics? Has my Persian penchant for paradox perplexed your proclivity for moral clarity?

You Americans think the world is black & white, but we in the Middle East recognize reality is paradoxical, shrouded in contradictions, and veiled in ironies without end. If the war had went well do you think Libby would be heading for a cell? Saddam believed he was lying when he said he didn’t have WMD, but he was telling the truth (even if no one believed him). Bush was untruthful when he insisted Saddam had WMD, but he believed his own falsehoods, which means he was misleading himself, but not lying to the American people. But if Bush had told truth Saddam might still be in power and still trying to acquire WMD. So you see, lying and telling the truth are not all they are cracked up to be. That's reason enough, it seems to me, to set Libby free.

Karl Kraus once said that wars are started when politicians lie to journalists and then believe those same lies when they seem them in print. But the Iraq War was well underway when Libby was accused of misleading reporters. Therefore, it’s patently unfair to try and make Libby a poster boy for “a war based on lies,” which is precisely what critics of the war are trying to do. Freeing Libby won’t win the war in Iraq. But it may convince critics of the war to abandon all hope of ever holding the Bush Administration to account for waging this noble war.

Sincerely,

Ahmad Chalabi (from Tehran)

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Reasons to Free “Scooter” Libby

10) We need precious prison space to house the really dangerous criminals, like Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, and Brittany Spears.

9) Pardoning Scooter so he can go back to work at the Bush Administration would be punishment enough.

8) Scooter’s boss, Dick Cheney, is getting kind of lonely at his own secure location without his old bunkmate.

7) A short white guy named “Scooter” doesn’t stand a chance in a Federal pen.

6) “Holy Halliburton. I just realized the same private contractors that ran Abu Ghraib are running the Scooter’s slammer too. Ask Jr. to ask Alberto where we keep those get out of jail free cards.” – Dick Cheney.

5) “If Scooter starts crooning like a canary before going to Sing Sing I’m afraid the whole White House band may be playing Hail to the Chief from behind bars.” – Karl Rove

4) “I agree that Scooter should get off Scot free, but why hasn’t anyone recommended a straight-jacket for Donald Rumsfeld?” – Sigmund Freud

3) “Scooter Libby is fine public servant whose only crime is that he was working diligently on behalf of the American public. And for this he has been hounded from his duties and treated like a criminal. It’s not as if he had sex with an intern.” -- Ken Starr (Special Inquisitor)

2) “Scooter is being treated like an enemy combatant. He has no rights. This is torturing his family. And it’s a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.” -- Alberto Gonzales

1) Locking up a small fry like Scooter makes about as much sense as locking up Tony Soprano’s accountant while the big enchilada goes about his business like nothing happened.

Sphere: Related Content

Secret New Directive Allows Bush to Torture Language

President Bush signed a super secret executive order that authorizes him, in his role as commander-in-chief, to torture the any member of the Axis-of-Information (language, reason, or truth) without court approval. Previously, according to long-standing American tradition, any president who wanted to stretch language to the breaking point, douse the truth, or shock reason had to go before a special magistrate in order obtain a writ of verbias corpus.

Most Americans would probably be surprised to learn that beneath the White House bunker is a secret chamber where men in black hoods use sharp instruments to chop words, dissect logic, and mince meaning. As one former linguistic inquisitor put it: “We have the tools to make language talk. We may have to get a little rough, but we’ll get those damn words to open up. When we’re through with them they’ll tell us everything we want to hear.”

The Department of Linguistic Conformity, which was set up during the last days of the Nixon Administration, remains one of the most secretive and sensitive institutions in the bowels of the government. Most officials refuse to confirm or deny its existence, but recently an unlawfully detained detainee, who for the purposes of protecting his identity we will identify only as Straw Man, has come forward to expose horrific examples of linguistic abuse.

“They’re bending logic like a pretzel, they’ve turned meaning inside out, and they’ve had common sense tied up without a let up for more than six years. They picked me [Straw Man] up around election time and flailed me until I was of no use to them anymore. I was putty in their hands. But you should have seen what they did with a couple of guys nicknamed Bait & Switch. They roughed them up so bad they switched sides and are working for the administration. Talk about flip-floppers. One thing I know for sure, they [the administration] are not interested in the truth.”

Sphere: Related Content

Carter: "Bush is the Worst President Ever "(Bush Sr. Responds).

Stung by former president Jimmy Carter’s assessment, that George W. Bush will go down in history as the “worst president ever,” the president’s daddy, George H.W. Bush, leapt to his son’s defense, saying that G.W.B. will eclipse J.F.K., F.D.R., and S.O.B as “simply the greatest, most splendiferous, supercallifragallisticexpialidocious commander-in-chief ever.” (Several historians consulted believe S.O.B refers to William Jefferson Clinton).

The elder Bush, now 83, could scarcely contain his rage as he repeatedly referred to Carter, a one-time peanut farmer, as “Mr. Peanut Head.” The senior Bush, has been reluctant to offer advice, or make public comments regarding his son’s sagging poll numbers, but aides say he is privately agonized by the criticism from “egg-head historians, al-Qaeda-coddling commentators in the media, and flip-flopping American couch potatoes.”

“When I went in and nabbed Pineapple Face (a reference to the capture of Panamanian strongman Manuel Noregia following the U.S. invasion) I was criticized for getting Ali Baba, but leaving the Forty Thieves. But Jr. got that joker, Saddam, and almost the full deck of the fifty-two evildoers in the Iraqi house of cards. That certainly trumps getting that other guy, Obama, what’s his name? You know the tall skinny guy with the funny name.”

The former president may have been confusing Barack Hussein Obama, a leading democratic presidential candidate, with Osama bin Laden, America’s most wanted fugitive. In any event, Bush Sr. remembers that his son has always attracted a lot of naysayers. “There were those who said he couldn’t hold his liquor, couldn’t find oil when he was a prospector, and couldn’t win a championship with the Texas Rangers. But by golly look at him now, he’s the leader of the free world. I’m so proud I could cry.”

Sphere: Related Content

Who is to Blame for Iraq ?

The slow pace of success in Iraq disappoints President Bush. He knows the Congress didn’t vote for failure when it authorized the war, but someone must be held accountable for the fact certain Democratic defeatists might de-fund the war before we can say Mission Accomplished. Therefore, it is essential that we find a scapegoat, a complete schmuck who will bear the entire moral, political, and historical responsibility for getting us into this nation building exercise in Iraq without an exit strategy. This is where you come in. We need your help in pinning the tail on the @$$hole that got us into Iraq. Please vote for the schmuck of your choice. No write in candidates. Ballots are not subject to recounts. And the Florida State Legislature and/or the United States Supreme Court may reject any and all ballots for any reason whatsoever.

__ Paul Wolfowitz (aka Wolfowitz of Arabia) – Insisted oil revenues could finance Iraq’s reconstruction with enough petrodollars left over to cover his girlfriend’s salary. Underestimated troop requirements by half-a-million and then managed to look ridiculous combing his hair with his own saliva in Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11.

__ Donald Rumsfeld – “Freedom is messy.” “Stuff Happens” “You go to war with the army you got.” “We know where they [the non-existent WMD] are. They are in Tikrit and the area around Baghdad.” This guy is more talkative than “Baghdad Bob,” but he makes less sense.

__ Condoleezza Rice – “We can’t wait till a smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud.” This has to be the mother of all mixed metaphors. Miss Perfect failed to pass on urgent warnings to her boss that could have prevented 9/11. And then failed to be an honest broker between the intelligence community (which had caveats about Saddam’s WMD) and the axis-of-disinformation (Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Chalabi).

__ George Tenet – They say white guys can’t jump, but this Clinton retread would leap through hoops to ingratiate himself with the new team. It’s a slam dunk this guy will make a great patsy.

__ Alberto Gonzales – This guy has “piñata” written all over his face. He can’t even remember if he’s the Attorney General or the President’s Counsel anymore. He called the Geneva Conventions quaint, but now insists he was referring to local customs he experienced during family vacation in Switzerland. Deporting him would make a great twofer (it will please the anti-immigrant base and the anti-war left).

__ Douglas Fieth – This obscure Neoconservative policy wonk working in the Defense Department was once described by General Tommy Franks as “the stupidest motherf##ker on the planet.” He proved the general right by recommending the de-Baathifaction process to Paul Bremmer, which everyone agrees ignited the insurgency.

__ Paul Bremmer – A presidential envoy that reports to Donald Rumsfeld, talk about mixed messages. Bremmer set himself up as the viceroy of Iraq. He reported to the president, but took his orders from the Defense Department. Except, of course, when he made decisions on his own initiative, like his brilliant decision to disband the Iraqi Army.

__ Dick Cheney – Draft dodger with gay daughter already has approval ratings in the single-digits. This guy has got no political future. Multiple misjudgments and off target comments might make him the chump to dump. After five deferments and hiding out in secure locations it’s about time this guy took a bullet for his boss (figuratively speaking, of course).

__ The American Public – 70% of the public believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and that invading Iraq was a good idea. Now, only 28% of the Americans approve of the war and their commander-in-chief. Talk about flip-floppers.

There you have it. An exhaustive list of everyone who we can say has done a “heck of a job” on Iraq, if you know what I mean. We need you help in narrowing this list down to one patsy who will be fall guy when the verdict of history is rendered. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction here, so we can’t just blame the usual suspects (Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons, or Saddam Hussein). Just remember absolutely no write in candidates, no recounts, and you can only vote for one schmuck per ballot (unless you live in Florida, in which case you can vote for any schmuck you like as often as you like).

Sphere: Related Content

Interpreting Evil

The face of evil may be jolly and full of life. This lesson, and many others, is brought home by the remarkable experience of Richard W. Sonnenfeldt, one of the last living witnesses to the Nuremberg Trials that followed the collapse of the Third Reich after WWII.

Sonnenfeldt, a Jew who escaped Germany in 1938, and later fought as a private in the U.S. Army during the Battle of the Bulge, served as the chief interpreter during the Nuremberg Tribunals. His job put him face to face with the architects of evil from Hitler’s empire, men like Hermann Göring, Rudolph Hess, and Albert Speer.

So what is it like to look into the eyes of evil? Sonnenfeldt, now 83, is struck by the banality of evil, the sheer ordinariness and often mediocrity of the men who built and operated the machinery of death that would constitute the most gruesome war crime the world has ever witnessed. Take Hitler’s Foreign Minister, Joachim von Ribbentrop, a former champagne salesman who was forever spouting inane platitudes, and was so lacking in gravitas and substance, that almost everyone he met with wondered how he could have risen so far. Hitler, as one insider from the Third Reich explained to Sonnenfeldt, had never noticed Ribbentrop’s vacuity because the dictator did all the talking when meeting with his foreign minister.

Hitler, from what Sonnefeldt was able to piece together, was a political genius who surrounded himself with yes men and political toadies. He was able to create Germany’s pre-WWII economic miracle through deficit spending. And he then consolidated unchecked power through deceit, legal chicanery, and brute force.

“All of my means are rationale. Only my ends are insane.” So said Melville’s Captain Ahab. This motto might explain Hitler’s methodology – efficient, but utterly lunatic. With a few exceptions the functionaries he surrounded himself were like the mindless cogs in a machine, human drones did their work with great zeal, but little human understanding. For instance, one nazi was asked if he was responsible for killing three-and-half millions Jews; he replied, nonchalantly, that the true figure was only two-and-half million, the rest had died of disease and starvation. Another anecdote Sonnenfeldt relates involves the accusation that a death camp commandant had allowed German guards to steal gold fillings from Jewish victims. “What kind of man do you think I am” was the nazi’s indignant reply.

Stalin one said, “one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic.” Sonnenfeldt’s testament is a reminder that power separated from the rule of law is an invitation to evil. Conversely, there is a wonderful Jewish proverb – “If you save one life, you save the world entire” – that I believe stands as an eternal antidote to evil. If you are seeking insight into human nature, evil, and how simple decency can triumph over barbarism, then I highly recommend Sonnenfeldt’s book Witness to Nuremberg.

Sphere: Related Content

When History Comes Calling

When History finally catches up with George W. Bush it is likely to be in a foul and unforgiving mood. Demagogic scoundrels, to be sure, have run their countries into the ditch before. But the sheer scale of the Bush Administration’s blunders, coupled with its transparent sophistry, takes the breath away. Future generations are likely to gape in awe at Bush’s gall and how he and his minions could continue to get away with it all.

A stolen election, ignoring urgent pre-9/11 warnings, the intelligence fiasco surrounding Iraq’s non-existent WMD, an illegal war, a bollixed reconstruction, a corrupt occupation, the torture and sexual abuse at Abu Ghraib, the P.R. disaster of Guantánamo, unlawful domestic wiretaps, a loony Defense Secretary, a scatterbrained Attorney General, the botched federal response to Katrina, and the failure to address global warming all represent a mind-numbing litany of crimes and errors.

The one thing the Bush Administration has excelled at, however, is in avoiding the consequences of its mendacity and incompetence. It’s approval ratings may be in the low thirties – an indication its credibility has cratered – but democrats are still fearful that Bush will somehow manage to pin the failure in Iraq on their posterior, making them look likes the asses that lost the war.

The Bush strategy in this regard is simple: paint the opponents of the war as insincere defeatists who want America to lose. This amounts to demonizing the opposition as fifth columnists that represent as grave a threat to America’s national security as al-Qaeda.

Bush strategy here is craven. Bush rejected the recommendations of the bi-partisan Baker-Hamilton commission – which offered him a face-saving way of extricating America from the misadventure in Iraq – opting instead for a risky troop surge that few military experts believe has any chance of succeeding. The move may serve little military purpose, beyond postponing the inevitable, but it does manage to turns U.S. troops into political pawns. If the democratic Congress tries to shut down the war, then Bush can always accuse democrats of not supporting the troops. No doubt, Bush’s spiel about “politicians in Washington” overruling the generals on the ground is getting thinner than Karl Rove’s hair, but the president has already proven he’s willing to stay on a given course of attack with all the mindless tenacity of a dead-ender.

It’s mission impossible to imagine a happy outcome in Iraq. Put simply, Alberto Gonzales has a better chance of holding on to his job than Nuri al-Maliki has of holding on to his. The democrats who gave Bush a blank check may have a lot to answer for, but Bush is the one that will be called to account by History. He was the cheer-leader-in-chief who led the charge against phantom stockpiles of WMD. He donned the flight suit and unilaterally declared the end of major combat operations. He made “stay the course” his mantra until it was apparent his stale cliché was leading nowhere. History will catch up with George W. Bush. Bring it on.

Sphere: Related Content

Fire vs. Ice

Some say the world will end in fire. Some say in ice. But is it possible America might expire in a fit of stupidity? Watching the media circus freak show -- populated lately with the likes of the late Anna Nicole Smith, Don Imus, Rosie O’Donnell, Larry Birkhead, Al Sharpton, Ashley Simpson, et al – it’s hard not to imagine that American popular culture is in the last throes of a terminal senescence.

Much do about nothing might be the phrase that best describes the cable TV shout fests dedicated to dissecting every shred of information on the most insipid of subject matters: like what substances Anna Nicole injected into her infected buttocks before she succumbed to a virtual pharmacopoeia of prescription drugs strong enough tranquilize an army of elephants.

Iraq is exploding. The Bush Administration is imploding. But the American masses will not be denied their bread and circuses. The media clowns know the beast must be fed, but the whole “cultural” spectacle has taken on a self-referential air. Hence the self-important pundits are busy cannibalizing one another (so that they are the last ones fed to the lions). That is, all the so-called “news anchors,” like Bill O’Reilly at Fox, spend an inordinate amount of time and attention tearing apart personalities at competing networks instead of covering actual news.

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda is plotting its next attack against the “corrupt infidels.” It’s not a matter of if, but when. The only question remaining is this: will we make their job unnecessary?

Sphere: Related Content

Bush vs. the Truth

If George Bush told me it was sunny and 70 degrees outside, I’d bring an umbrella and wear galoshes before going out. To put it charitably, Bush’s credibility has sunk further than a Russian submarine; it’s just not coming back. This is tragic for the United States. As Winston Churchill observed, “a democratic people can face any adversity, provided they believe their leaders are leveling with them and not living in a fool’s paradise.”

Bush has failed Churchill’s test on both counts. The administration still claims, of course, that it was duped by the same bad intelligence everyone else believed. This is disingenuous; Bush and his underlings confidently asserted there was no doubt whatsoever that Saddam possessed WMD, but the intelligence community was split on the issue.

Put simply, the Bush Administration had no basis for insisting that the case for Saddam’s alleged WMD was an open and shut case. At the very least, Bush did not exercise due diligence in vouching for cherry picked intelligence; at worst he was flat out deceitful.

Bush is so careless with the truth, however, that one has to wonder if he’s opted out of the “reality-based” community for his own Alice in Wonderland alternative universe (where up is down). For instance, at a town meeting forum, Bush claimed as one of the reasons for going to war the “fact” that Saddam kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq. This is false; it a matter of historical record that Bush recalled the inspectors, claiming they weren’t working. Subsequently, the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has gone on record saying that had the inspections process played out for just another two weeks the world community would have known with certainty that Saddam’s alleged WMD were non-existent.

The failure to allow the weapons inspectors to finish their job has cost countless lives. This is because U.S. forces refrained from destroying Saddam’s conventional ammo dumps for fear of setting off hidden WMD stashes, but this left stockpiles of munitions for insurgents to loot, weapons that have since been turned on American forces and Iraqi civilians. This is just one example of where the intersection of ineptness and untruth has led the Bush Administration to disaster.

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Reasons Jeb Bush Should Run for President in 2008.

10). Jeb used to clean up Dubya’s messes when they were kids, so he’ll know what to do about Iraq, the deficit, Walter Reed, FEMA, the Justice Department, New Orleans . . .

9). Jeb, like his dad, is kinder, gentler, taller, smarter, and more competent than W. An even partially successful Jeb Bush Administration is sure to add sibling rivalry to George Junior’s Oedipal Complex.

8). No need for Republicans to print up new bumper stickers, so long as they can entice Dick Cheney to stay in his secure location for another term (or two).

7). Lawyers, media, and voters in Palm Beach County have been looking forward to a rematch of Bush vs. Gore ever since 2000. Jeb will need more than the Supreme Court to best Gore after eight years of Dubya’s debacle.

6). A Bush has been on the national ticket in all but one election since 1980. It’s the next best thing to having a hereditary monarchy.

5). “A carpetbagger like Hillary vs. a Reb like Jeb. Sounds like the start of a civil war to me. Bring it on.” -- General Karl Rove

4). “Bush vs. Clinton seems like déjà vu all over again. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to relive it” – Yogi Berra (Hall of Fame Historian).

3). It’s seems only natural that Florida – the land of Mickey Mouse, Goofy, Katherine Harris, Anna, Nicole Smith, and Elian’s relatives – would give America its next president.

2). The prospect of another decade with a Bush as president may convince liberals to flock to Canada, thus solving our immigration problem. – Bill O’Reilly (Fairly Unbalanced Blowhard)

1). If you think Jeb Bush should run for president, then you sure have clicked on the wrong site.

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Reasons President Bush Should NOT be Impeached

10). Ousting Bush & Cheney would be very bad for late-night comedians and political humorists.

9). Bush has another two years and a stockpile of nuclear weapons to win the war in Iraq. Lets give him a chance.

8). Bush’s first two oil companies went belly up, and now his stint at the White House is a flop. I’m afraid if we fire him now it will damage his self-esteem.

7). Removing Bush will only embolden our enemies, especially the French and the Germans.

6). Keeping the president in office is probably the best chance we have of seeing Bush trying to land the Space Shuttle on an aircraft carrier after the administration catches Osama bin Laden.

5). Impeaching Bush now would only help boost his approval rating above 30%. Let’s leave him in there and see how low his popularity can go.

4). Hey, if we impeach Bush does that mean Cheney will become president? Personally, I’d like to keep the misfiring Veep as far away from our nuclear arsenal as possible.

3). So the president started an illegal war based on false premises that has needlessly killed and maimed tens of thousands while destroying America’s image across the world. It’s not as if he had sex with an intern in the Oval Office.

2). Media sauturation of impeachment trial is sure to interfere with my favorite TV programs.

1). Impeaching Bush would be a tacit admission that Al Gore was right all along (Oops, this is no joke).

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Reasons Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Should Get to Keep His Job.

10). Gonzales keeps all of the administration’s “get out of jail” cards in his wallet.

9). “Those mean and nasty democrats just got Libby, and now they’re picking on another short guy. Why don’t they pick on someone their own size?” – Osama bin Laden (World’s tallest evildoer).

8). As long as Gonzales is Attorney General it would be a blatant conflict of interest for him to prosecute himself for lying under oath before Congress, condoning illegal wiretaps, or crafting torture guidelines that violate the Geneva Conventions.

7). “A truly independent Attorney General that didn’t owe his entire career to George W. Bush, now that’s a scary thought.” –Anonymous high official

6). If Bush fired Gonzales he’d break his pledge to “look out for the little guy.”

5). “First Rummy, then Libby, and now Stubby. This is beginning to look like that Agatha Christie novel, The Ten Little Indians, where someone gets bumped off one by one until there’s nobody left.” -- Anonymous high official hunkered down in a secure location

4). According to torture guidelines drawn up by top democrats, it may be more tormenting to let Gonzales twist in the wind with the rest of the administration for another 21 months.

3). “I’m not in favor of dismissing our Attorney General, but if George does have to let Alberto go I hope we can find a place for him with the Rose Garden landscaping crew.” First Lady Laura Bush

2). Very few experts in the administration are left who could draft new torture memos in case Osama is caught.

1). Hard to find someone of Gonzales’ stature to fill the job.

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Reasons Ann Coulter is America’s Sweetheart

With Bush & Cheney's popularity waning Ann Coulter has become the new poster child for compassionate conservatism. Here are the top-ten reasons she's become America's Sweetheart.

10). "There’s something about a female Archie Bunker that makes my head spin." -- Bill O'Reilly (Conservative crumudgeon and host of the No-Spin Zone).

9). "A woman who can talk tax cuts, firearms, and NASCAR sure puts me in the mood." -- Sean Hannity

8). Doesn’t every guy in America secretly desire a towering, tart-tongued, condescending termagant who earns 50 times what he does?

7). Coulter’s cameo as Captain Jack Sparrow’s psychopathic aunt in the upcoming Pirates of the Caribbean: Revenge of the Shrew will make her as popular among today’s school children as Miss Gulch (the Wicked Witch of the East) from The Wizard of Oz was during the depression.

6). With Coulter’s killer body, personal charm, and innate diplomatic skills I’m surprised the Bush Administration hasn’t appointed her ambassador to North Korea. I’m sure Kim Jung Ill would give up his nukes to go one-on-one with Ann.

5). Ann’s innate warmth, self-effacing modesty, and abundant empathy are qualities any prospective mother-in law would appreciate.

4). "It's about time somebody had the gumption to stand up to all those victims of Hurricane Katrina that had the temerity to make Bush look bad." -- Katherine Harris

3). Scientists discover that Ann’s frigid personality single-handedly offsets the effects of global warming.

2). With Brittany Spears in rehab, Coulter remains the only bona fide female conservative intellectual we have in the U.S.

1). “Hey, give Ann a break. She’s no longer the same gal who pulled the wings off butterflies, blew up frogs with firecrackers, and tried to set the homeless on fire.” -- Childhood friend.

Sphere: Related Content

Cheney vs. History

“History is a nightmare from which I am trying to wake,” wrote James Joyce. The Bush Administration’s arch-pessimist, Dick Cheney, would seem to share Joyce’s dour assessment of the human condition. So it is more that a little ironic that the vice-president, a card-carrying Hobbesian if ever there was one, reportedly still believes History with a capitol “H” will vindicate the administration’s decision to invade Iraq. In other words, the gloom-monger-in-chief is counting on a happy ending in Iraq (a land with a 1,500 year history of unremitting Hobbesian strife).

I can understand that a guy who’s endured four heart attacks, a blood clot, the felony conviction of his top aide, and twenty percent approval rating has got to think positive sometime. Did I leave out the incident where the VP shot his friend in the face, the Taliban assassination attempt, and the strain of having to explain to your conservative base that your gay daughter is going to have a baby with another woman? Personally, I’d rather face Taliban assassins than explain to Focus on the Family’s James Dobson why he should read Heather Has Two Mommies.

The Veep maintains that it may be five decades before he’s vindicated. Sure, and my decision invest in lottery tickets to secure my retirement may end up being vindicated too. In the meantime, however, it’s difficult to see how the civil conflagration in Iraq, the decimation of the American military, and the fact that we’ve managed to turn Iraq into a jihadist training ground (dominated by axis-of-evil member Iran) actually furthers American interests.

Actually, the lessons of history – which us liberals supposedly didn’t learn from 9/11 – are completely lost on this administration. First of all, as anthropologist Jared Diamond notes in his book Collapse, pivotal military defeats signaling imperial decline invariably mask ecological catastrophes that are the true cause of collapse. For instance, Mayan leaders resorted to military raids against neighbors in order to maintain their lavish lifestyles and distract the masses from the ecological devastation and economic deprivations that inevitably attended slash and burn agricultural practices at home.

The U.S. faces a similar predicament as reliance on fossil fuels contributes to ecological and political backlashes (global warming and terrorism respectively). The bid to secure American hegemony over Iraq’s oil reserves was intended to address a potentially crippling vulnerability: anti-American forces in the Middle East in control of the region’s oil wealth. American efforts to alleviate this concern have increased this possibility rather than lessened it.

In the meantime, as Hurricane Katrina demonstrated, America’s aging infrastructure and under funded response systems are less resilient than anyone imagined. As historian Arnold Toynbee pointed out, societies go through life cycles: youthful vigor, middle-aged resilience, and aged senescence. Vigorous and resilient societies meet challenges and weather storms effectively, while senescent societies do not direct their energies and marshal resources appropriately.

When historians look back on America’s invasion of Iraq they are likely to ponder the billions (if not trillions) gambled away in a vain attempt to rebuild Iraq while America’s dilapidated power grids, highway system, and public health system crumbled. Whether global warming is manmade or not, or whether we can do anything about it or not, we have entered a period of global climate change that is unleashing more intense and more unpredictable weather patterns. Further, the forces of globalization are all but certain to make natural disasters, pandemics and acts of terrorism more likely. In other words, America’s resilience is likely to be tested on many fronts.

The administration’s panacea for terrorism was predicated on the notion that transforming Iraq would take the air out of the jihadist movement. Instead, just the opposite has occurred. Tellingly, most terror plots (including 9/11) have been hatched in Europe, illustrating how much the Bush/Cheney bet misses the mark. Terrorism is not the only challenge America faces; natural disasters and pandemics are all but inevitable. The prudent course to address all three – terrorism, natural disasters, and pandemics – would have been to invest in America’s infrastructure, health system, and first responders in order to bolster the nation’s resilience. A lesson Toynbee gleaned from his careful study of history is that those empires that try and change the world rather than themselves usually fail.

Sphere: Related Content

Bush vs. Justice (in the trial of Scooter Libby)

The Bush Administration is to politics what Enron was to business – an enterprise predicated on bending the rules until the system breaks. The Bush Administration’s stock, of course, has taken another hit with the felony conviction of Lewis “Scooter” Libby (an aide so close to the vice-president he was known as “Cheney’s Cheney”). But the real crime here wasn’t Libby’s lies, but the offenses his lies were meant to cover up.

“There is a cloud over the vice-president” Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald rightly surmised before the verdict was rendered. But Cheney was not in the dock because leaking classified information, smearing critics, and misleading the public about the war are not criminal offenses if the vice-president or president does it. Lying before Congress may be impeachable, but deceiving the public is not. Fitzgerald, given his narrow mandate, never discovered that a crime was committed when covert agent Valerie Plame’s name was leaked to the media. The administration was clearly either irresponsible or vindictive in the way it casually disclosed classified information, but the law has little to say about negligence or the politics of personal destruction.

It is clear, however, that the administration was not being truthful with the public on this matter or on the war. President Bush promised the American people that anyone from his administration involved in leaking the classified information in question would be fired. If Bush were a man of his word, then Karl Rove would have cleaned out his desk after testimony proved the president’s chief political advisor was one source of the leak.

Critics of Libby’s guilty verdict claim that the administration had every right to discredit their critics, especially Joe Wilson. Prosecuting Libby, they assert, amounts to criminalizing politics. This defense hardly holds water. If no crime had been committed, then Libby’s only motive to lie – and it is now obvious that he did lie – was to protect Bush and Cheney from political damage before the 2004 election. Of course, it’s possible that Libby’s deceptions were meant to cover up activities Bush and Cheney would want to keep hidden from a special prosecutor, actions that have still not come to light.

The prosecution charged that Libby’s lies amounted to “throwing sand in a referees eyes.” This has been the Bush Administration modus operandi since Bush vs. Gore. It’s ironic that lying under oath in the absence of an underling crime can get you in jail, but deceiving the public about matter as grave as going to war isn’t even prosecutable. The jurors intuited this, asking, “Where’s Rove? Where are these other guys?” One of the other guys in question is preparing a pardon for Libby. If the script plays out Libby will stretch out his appeal as long as possible and Bush will pardon him the day he leaves office. It’s all as legal as Bush vs. Gore, but the entire farce will be devoid of justice.

The Bush Administration knows how to bend the rules, and they know how to take the refs out of the game. But they’re oblivious as to why the rules matter in the first place. When Enron bent the rules to the breaking point it cost investors their retirement savings. The Bush administration has done much of the same thing, but the costs will be far higher. Unlike Ken Lay, however, Bush has a “get out of jail free” card. In pardoning Libby he really be pardoning Dick Cheney and himself.

Sphere: Related Content