What will the Iraq end-game be?

I have been overcome by a certain malaise when writing about the Iraq war or George W. Bush. What ever your view, Iraq, and the President's legacy, will remain with us for quite some time. While the news has been filled with Iraq reports, the President's televised address, and General Petreaus's Senate testimony, sifting through the information and misinformation is not only incredibly time consuming but largely fruitless. Which is why I greatly appreciate the work of George Packer.

I have followed Mr. Packer's writing since first reading the incredibly even-handed Dreaming of Democracy which Packer wrote in early 2003 before the fateful invasion of Iraq. With hindsight that peace proved to be incredibly predictive of the now historic lapses in judgment that accompanied Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I have also read Packer's book The Assassin's Gate which devotes 480 pages to America's activities in Iraq after the invasion. Packer has also written numerous pieces on Iraq for the New Yorker but it is his latest report entitled Planning for Defeat which brings to light a few more unfortunate truths.

Both General Petraeus and President Bush have hinted at future troop reductions in Iraq, those men say the draw downs are due to recent success, but in truth they are the product of more mundane forces. The American "surge" in Iraq will have to end at some point next summer. It will end for logistical reasons--brigades will have to rotate out because their tours will be over-extended. The surge's 160,000 troops will inevitably be reduced to 130,000 which will eventually be further reduced due to political pressures at home. (All of the Democratic presidential front-runners are calling for a withdrawal of troops.) But what then?

This is the answer Packer seeks in his article, the conclusion of-which is grim: Iraq will continue to slide into sectarian factions. Barring an incredible turn of events, control in Iraq will continue to rescind away from the central government and into more localized control. These are conditions no one wants to talk about and if the military is doing any planning in this area it is highly secretive. Hillary Clinton has asked the Pentagon for a briefing on their Iraq exit strategy but her request was largely rhetorical, insinuating that surely the pentagon plans to leave Iraq at some point, right? But would anyone be surprised if no such plan exists?

And if it doesn't exist, which is highly likely, it is not because the military does not know how to plan. It is because the administration fears even the thought of planning for defeat. Such a thing would, in the mind of a true believer like Bush, be like kryptonite, radiating its negative energy through the Department of Defense and draining the will to fight. We are living with a President who only sees what he wants to see, and he has proven acutely representative of a country who also sees what it wants, but in slightly different ways. Where the President believes victory first comes from the absolute abolishment of the hint of failure, Americans want to pull the plug on the whole operation, back out, and hope the radicalism we have unleashed in Iraq never manifests itself on our shores. This too is selfish and wishful thinking.

President Bush, most of the Republican presidential candidates, and a hand-full of hard core supporters, continue to talk about victory in Iraq, a concept which has moved from the removal of WMDs to hoping that the Iraqi central government can gain enough traction to run the country. The point of the surge was to buy the Maliki government some time to do this. This seems highly unlikely since the government has become "dysfunctional" according to a recent report), unable to overcome the sectarian rifts that separate its constituents. The big winners could be the tribal warlords, insurgents, and Iran, a country with a vested interest in seeing Iraq's Shi'ite majority remain in power.

Perhaps our leaders have come to grips the very real possibility that Iran's stature will be enhanced. Maybe this is why the administration has upped its rhetoric against that country and why we are now arming Sunni groups to defend themselves. America says this is to battle Al Quada, but the long-term goal could be to build a proxy buffer against Iran. Adept readers will recognize this is essentially the very same role Saddam Hussein filled when his Sunni minority ruled Iraq with an iron grip, and kept an eye on its blood enemy Iran.

So perhaps in the end, after all that blood and treasure, the administration is taking steps to duplicate as closely as possible the situation as it was before we ever went into Iraq. But will anyone realize it when we declare victory and pull out? Removing Saddam paved the way for a Shi'ite led, sectarian government in Iraq, thus matching Iran's. The solution to a very minor problem has created two intractable issues at the heart of the Middle East. That this possibility could have eluded the minds of the war's creators seems baffling but not all that surprising when you consider the people who cooked up the idea in the first place.

Bridges, and the Funny Thing About Bad Goverment

President Bush dismissed today raising the federal gas tax to repair the nation's bridges citing fiscal responsibility.

"The way it seems to have worked is that each member on that (Transportation) committee gets to set his or her own priorities first," Bush said. "That's not the right way to prioritize the people's money. Before we raise taxes, which could affect economic growth, I would strongly urge the Congress to examine how they set priorities."

This comes a week after the highway 35W bridge collapsed in downtown Minneapolis during rush hour killing five people, at least eight are still missing. As a resident of the Twin Cities, and one who traverses its bridges frequently, this event has been, perhaps, more personal than to our nation's leaders. One does not expect a major bridge, in a major city, to collapse during rush hour. It's not only stunning but obviously unacceptable.

What is also stunning is that the press has quickly uncovered previous inspections of that bridge deeming it structurally unsound. Thus I am not sure which element I find more disconcerting: the collapse of the bridge, or the wealth of information on-hand warning us that such a thing could occur and was basically ignored. Minnesota Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty twice vetoed compressive transportation bills, but more on that in a moment.

Since the collapse Pawlenty has been quick to point out there are 70,000 bridges across the country that are in similar condition. His point serves two purposes. One, to illustrate the dire condition of our nation's infrastructure while at the same time assuaging fears many people have about their own bridges. After 69,999 of these unsound bridges are still standing.

But how many of these bridges are in major cities? How many carry over 100,000 cars a day as the 35W bridge in Minneapolis did? Shouldn't some priority have been given to a major bridge when it is found to be structurally unsound? Our problem is not lack of information but leaders who lack the wisdom and judgment to make the right decision with the information they have. We now know that the 35W bridge inspections had been done and their findings turned out to be an accurate harbinger of the disaster. Still, our leaders choose to take their chances. That bridge, and the pages of findings about its deficiencies, is a symbol of how we govern these days. It is now a terrible tragedy; unfortunately, and unnecessarily, a recovery zone.

There's a funny thing about conservativism, which stokes a strong American distrust for government: operations which are conducted are done so poorly that one finds the distrust reasonable. When those operations are found to be woefully inefficient, comities are formed to plumb the depths of their incompetence, but nothing changes. Amazingly, the people usually know what needs to be done without the availability of official reports. They go to their executive leaders and ask to be taxed to create the funds needed for remedy and they are turned away in the name of fiscal responsibility. Thus bad government, trying to do things for nothing, creates disasters, which fosters more mistrust in the government. In this area President Bush, and Gov. Pawlenty have done a magnificent job.

In early 2006 the Minnesota legislature produced a transportation bill which was being pushed unilaterally from both sides, and notably by business leaders, a crowd not usually anxious for more taxes, who affirmed the poor condition of our state's infrastructure. Gov. Pawlenty swiftly and dramatically vetoed the bill while musing aloud, "How dumb can they be?" The people resurrected the bill as an amendment which was voted on, and rejected, in the 2006 elections. By November 2006 enough people had seen enough inefficiency in government to allow the no-tax, something-for-nothing crowd to have its day and in the end we are left with what we (don't) pay for. Since the 35W bridge collapse Pawlenty, to his credit, says he could accept a higher gasoline tax to pay for infrastructure upgrades. A changed man, perhaps, we will see if he has discovered the leadership needed to govern above people's base fears.

And You Shall Know the Truth

"I want to know the truth," President Bush once said concerning the Valerie Plame affair. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of." And today, the culmination of over three years of truth-finding ended when Bush commuted Lewis Libby's conviction. This means Judith Miller will spend more time in jail for honoring her sources than the person who obstructed justice and perjured himself in the investigation.

The pathetic move by the president does not surprise anyone. I don't find the move disturbing as much as the all the presidential rhetoric used at the outset, and the tactics used in the interim. The sense of outrage is palpable across the country. While the rest of us go to work, pay our taxes, and keep the country running, the president and his man gallivant around as war leaders while keeping the inner workings of their organization hidden behind a wall of obfuscation. To say nothing of accountability, the American people rarely even get an explanation for their government's incredibly inept results.

"I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive," Bush said in a statement. "Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."

This "excessive" prison sentence was handed down by a Republican appointed judge, after a three year, exhaustive investigation started by John Ashcroft, and prosecuted by Patrick Fitzgerald who was appointed by Ashcroft's office. The case went through so many conservative hands it is hard to imagine any verdict reached as "excessive." And, in what seems to be a fitting metaphor for the last six years, the truth found in that long investigation is immediately discarded by the Bush administration, which opted instead to honor loyalty. The mantra apparently is that this administration will claim deal with the truth inasmuch as the search for truth can be coerced for political gain. Any unfortunate findings can be quickly erased with the stroke of a pen--whether they are global warming facts, or members of the administration convicted of a felony.

No, Libby was no the leak. No, he was not the person the prosecution was originally looking for. Conservative pundits latched onto this and called the whole thing a witch-hunt. Which is to say it is just unfair to go after anyone who obstructs justice and/or commits perjury if the original trial was not about them. This notion stems from the party who claims to know something about family values.

Bush vowed to "take care" of the person involved in the leak. Both Dick Cheney and Karl Rove have been closely linked in the case yet Bush has shown no interest to expedite any investigation in those key members of the administration. Libby took the hit instead and is spared by the president. But, really, how much can expect from a man void of a realistic, cohesive long view? I do not find it surprising at all that today is the four year anniversary of another great Bush bloviation: bring 'em on. Bush once laid down the gauntlet with those choice words; and, as it turns out, everyone was ready for the challenge except the White House.

Bush was once heralded as a man of integrity. A decisive war-time president. A straight talking Texan. We now know none of those things are true. Like Libby, perhaps, we too have been set free. We now know the truth that Bush once claimed to seek. The Libby issue effectively blows away any hint of the former caricature that was the strong, post-9/11 president. All bad things can be blamed on partisan politics and witch-hunts but did such things shrink Bush? Or was it his own, indescribable contempt? Some horrors need no embellishment.

"Saved" Stem Cells Headed for Destruction

Apparently the only thing President Bush cares more about than saving lives is not saving them. Yesterday Bush vetoed, for the second time, a stem cell research bill. Today congress blocked the administrations request for $89 billion to develop a new generation of nuclear missiles.

Could the juxtaposition be any more evident?

About the stem cell bill, Bush said yesterday, "If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line."

Supporters of the veto seem to care little that the embryos that Bush ceremoniously "saved" are slated to be discarded anyway. Instead the hopes of millions of Americans, and the potential for scientific advancement, wastes away on a paper thin federal budget. Not that there's any money to spare in the budget anyway, with $90 being asked to enhance our nuclear arsenal.

The perpetually heated and contentious stem cell issue is mainly fueled by ignorance, which is exactly why it somehow finds its way onto voting ballots come election time where wide-eyed, sheep-like voters can weigh in on the issue. The rhetoric is heated, it boils down to a simple matter of life and death. With such a clear moral and ethical objective, and a divine mandate, why is it not reprehensible for potential life to be created and remain frozen in IVF clinics? Why is it not abhorrent for that potential life to be discarded and destroyed?

Those who find Bush's veto comforting are deluding themselves. There is not even a debate in anything other than the partisan sense of the term. The veto has not saved any lives. The stem cells in question will be discarded. Therefore the only thing that has been stopped are potential cures for fatal and debilitating diseases. Where's the moral or ethical ground in that?

Saving Scooter

William Kristol, he of the Orvill Reddenbacherish neoconservative ilk, has made no secret his desire to see I Lewis "Scooter" Libby receive a presidential pardon. But Bush does not appear to be listening, and so in the latest edition of "The Weekly Standard" Kristol advises the president, again, to go for it.

It's always dicey when one petitions for a convicted felon to be pardoned by the president. One does not simply go about such a thing lightly. There are many factors to consider. How does someone like Kristol, who represents the party of family values and ethics, also take the side of someone who perjured himself, obstructed justice, and made false statements during an investigation?

Typically the spin-control involves pointing out a similar grievance from the opposite party. For example, when Mark Foley was found to be courting under-age congressional page boys and House Speaker Dennis Hastert knew about it all along, the Republicans immediately recalled the Gary Studds scandal in-which the Democratic congressman had sex with a 17 year-old page. That scandal had its day in court 25 years ago and invokes little contemporary outrage.

Still, Kristol tries a similar move in his attempt to save Scooter.

"Of course, Sandy Berger, national security adviser to Bill Clinton, hid original documents on his person, took them out of the National Archives, destroyed them, and lied to investigators. One might think of this as 'creating a problem.' But Berger got no prison time and a fine one-fifth that imposed on Libby."

You know you're hurting when your first line of defense is "hey, they do it too." It's also pathetic to see such a high-powered Republican mouth-piece once again dragging out the bogyman Clinton administration. No one cares about Bill Clinton anymore, and who can even tell you who Sandy Berger was (National Security Advisor) except these neoconservatives? Clinton is gone. Propping him up as a straw man only to beat him down was at its climax ten years ago. The world has moved on, neoconservatives have not, which is why, perhaps, they seem so completely lost these days.

Kristol goes on to say that "Libby's sentence--to say nothing of the original prosecution--is unfair and vindictive." This echoes a very popular conservative line of thinking, one that strikes a deep vein of paranoia and fearfulness.

Erik on the blog Redstate echoes the vibe when he says, "To me, Scooter Libby was the victim of a partisan witch hunt. He, at most, got his timeline mixed up when he went before the grand jury and was inconsistent with his prior statements to the FBI. To Mr. Lindorff, it was intentional."

A witch-hunt? A political circus perpetuated by an over zealous attorney and an activist judge and probably, carefully concealed communists? Maybe they're right. Maybe Libby has been made an unfair example, the sacrificial lamb for a sinful administration. He did his duty and took the fall. He got pinched for his more powerful brethren. A patriot, maybe the man deserves not jail time, but a pardon.

I dearly hope the president succumbs to this line of "reasoning." A pardon of Libby would be such an obnoxious display of loyalty over values that whatever is left of the paper-thin, self-righteous atmosphere around the president will be blown away by a public outrage with the power of corona discharge. And why not? What brought this presidency down was a level of arrogance that bordered on blindness. This was an administration, and a political party, which sought to consolidate its power and run itself like the mafia. Except the mafia actually gets things done rather than masquerade around.

And so, I predict there will be no pardon for Libby. Forget all the logic that says this president, with his hobbled administration, abysmal approval ratings, and crippled foreign and domestic policy cannot afford the political capital to pardon Libby. There is another reason: a complete vacuum of leadership at the White House. To pardon Libby would require a certain amount of courage in the face of overwhelming odds. I have never seen this president play it that way. When the going gets tough he sticks every time. This is George W. Bush, the leader who rubber-stamped for a Republican congress; the guy who has propped up bloated and inept government institutions; the man who could not even fire Donald Rumsfeld before the 2006 elections. He is a self-serving, unimaginative heir. His time will now be spent salvaging a mangled legacy with missile defense or immigration reform and Libby can go to jail as the tip of the vast and corrupt White House iceberg.

Word of the Day

Word of the day to describe the Bush presidency: fugue.

Fugue - n - A pathological amnesiac condition during which one is apparently conscious of one's actions but has no recollection of them after returning to a normal state. This condition, usually resulting from severe mental stress, may persist for as long as several months.

Bush's foreign policy has descended into a fugue state.


Thanks to Sidney Blumenthal's latest article on Salon.

Enhanced Background Check for Guns Gains Momentum, Ron Paul Dissents

What do Democrats, the NRA, and President Bush have in common? A desire to see a federal gun control act that enhances background checks come into law. The bill is designed to improve states reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check aimed to prevent gun purchases by certain people, including criminals and the mentally ill.

The bill was formed in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings where Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people before taking his own life. Cho was ordered to undergo mental health treatment and should have been barred from buying the weapons he used in the slayings. However Virginia never forwarded that information to the NICBC.

If the bill moves through congress and the president signs it will be the first gun control measure since the assault weapons ban was passed in 1994, which the president recently let expire.

The NRA is reportidly on-board with the measure because it does not add any extra preventions from owning a gun, only to enhance the current system of checks. Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president, agreed – provided lawmakers do not try to attach a lot of other gun control amendments to it.

"If this bill is kept in its present form, I predict it will pass the House and Senate and be signed into law" by President George W. Bush, LaPierre said. "But if they turn it into a gun-control wish list, we will withdraw our support," LaPierre said, adding he believes such a sweeping measure would be rejected.

The only dissenting vote came from Ron Paul, Republican from Texas, who described the bills as "a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms.''

Four Years Ago Iraq Mission Accomplished

Four years ago today combat operations in Iraq ended, marked in a speech by President Bush on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln May 1, 2003. Bush, who rode in the back of an S-3 Viking which landed on the carrier, spoke in front of a large banner which declared "mission accomplished" and began the speech by declaring an end to major combat operations in Iraq.

"In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed," Bush declared. He also noted the destruction of the Taliban in Afghanistan. "You are homeward bound," Bush said to the men and women aboard the Abraham Lincoln.

And, as if in a dream, it all turned out to be exactly as the President said. The banner was perhaps a premonition. The war, like wars of old, ended with the words of the President. Like World War Two, it ended on the deck of a mighty ship. The symbolism was acute. American marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen returned home and grew old with their families. They watched their children grow old with them. They drove their cars under the haze of beautiful American summers. They spent Christmases decorating trees and gathering family members in front of the fireplace.

Iraq moved from years of oppression and division and became a healthy model of Democracy in the Middle East. Iraq influences the entire region as it once did. The oppressed peoples in neighboring countries see what is happening and the call of freedom resonates in every heart. It rings across the entire Middle East. Iran's days of sponsoring terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons are over. Israelis and Palestinians live side-by-side in a two-state solution long advocated by President Bush. The Middle East, long a hotbed for crisis and violence, has become a flowering Democracy ruled by peace.

And I trace this all back to that fateful speech by our stalwart President. His bold vision, enacted at a moments notice, with only the slightest logistical thought, with merely a moment's logical reflection, has changed the world forever. It all started with Iraq. Americans were able to wage war and go shopping at the same time. The Iraqi oil revenues paid for it all.

President Bush Meet Sanjaya Malakar

My anxiety over President Bush falls in correlation to how low his popularity ratings go. The more people disgusted with him the less I feel I have to vent on my blog. I've now come to regard him as a Sanjaya: an unforeseen anomaly of the system. One who fooled us, slipped in under the radar, and wrecked the place before we ever knew what hit us.

But, after six weary years, it looks like Bush has finally jumped the shark. Oh sure, we still have the war in Iraq, which may now be responsible for over 600,000 deaths and a mass exodus of over a million Iraqis. Sure, he is still in power for another 18 months and he still shows an unwillingness to make any prudent command decisions but I think America has finally seen the light.

When both the House and Senate pass a bill calling for a timetable for withdrawal and the President threatens a veto I don't even feel a twinge of excitement anymore. Scoffing at the electorate's wishes is just his way.

When Alberto Gonzalez is revealed to be a liar and the President refuses to hold him accountable I am not even surprised. Rewarding loyalty over competence is the first priority of the Bush White House.

When Dick Cheney lurks behind a hedge during a Bush press conference I don't even find it interesting. Cheney is just a creepy guy.

What is worse than negative press? No press. And I think that's the realm that Bush and the neoconservatives have fallen into. It's not that they're not bungling the war, ruining the future stability of the Middle East, and in-debiting the country for future generations, it's that the on-going bungling is hardly newsworthy anymore.

The neoconservative thought that enthralled so many Americans after 9/11 was this: That America should be filling the cold-war vacuum with it's power, setting the peoples of the world on a natural course towards Democracy. Iraq, for it's continued insolence, became the unwitting subject of such ambitions. It was believed that freedom would sprout where a dictator was removed. High thinkers like Richard Perle thus claimed Iraq a suitable candidate for Democratic reform.

Six years later I think we can rule the test a failure, the policies not just inept but unjust. To invade a country and remove its ruling powers with no plan for rebuilding is not just lazy, it is criminal.

My hope is that we have learned there are limits to our power. It's not how we can wield such power, but when, and why. These, and other unasked questions fall into the realm of judgment which someone like the President has never had any need for. Even now, after crashing the nation on some ill-advised joyride his father brings his lawyers in to help.

No one wants to view their president as a bungling fool. I certainly don't. But let's face it, anyone who demands to be recognized as "the decider" and then rattles off one mistake after another deserves a little chiding. When put to the test he has become a running gag in the daily news and is now held in contempt now even among his own party.

It's hard to imagine what could happen in 18 months that would surprise me. If tomorrow I were to pick up the paper and read we have invaded Iran I wouldn't be too stunned. That is where we have sunk to and why no one really cares anymore: the more insane the less surprising. What would be a real shock is to hear some true wisdom and leadership come out of the White House. Until then I am going to try to think about better things. In 18 months it will all be over, and Bush's place in history will be secure. Then, like the Romans, we will work on blotting it from our memories, like sewing salt over the ruins of Carthage.

Richard M. Nixon or George W. Bush?

Such is the barometer of our times: everyone is now political. What was once a distant echo sounding every election year has now become an all-consuming pastime. With two years to go before the 44th president is sworn in potential candidates are already jockeying for position. I was surprised to find myself engaged with a coworker over who would be remembered as the better president: Nixon or Bush? Strange days indeed.

I went with Nixon of course. Watergate would barely register by today's standards. Would we even be surprised to learn today that the current administration staged a break-in at DNC headquarters then covered it up with a series of lies? That would be the least of our worries compared with the constant summoning of decrepit behavior over the last six odd years. Alas, what will be said of George W. Bush by future historians?

I will give a little credit--the Bush presidency will be historical. I've always thought that political scientists will study it for years as some sort of twisted model for success. Imagine the Machiavellian genius involved to get someone with the intelligence of a water-cooler elected to the highest office in the land. That is either a severe indictment on the American populace or an incredible feat of black magic. The truth probably lies in tearful a mixture of both.

If anything the Democrats seem to take the electorate too seriously. Why did people hate John Kerry? He was too verbose. Why is Al Gore hated all the more? He is too preachy. Yes, this response from a self-proclaimed nation of Christians: too preachy. The Republicans don't waste time trying to figure Americans out. They go right to the prime motivators of any human: fear and selfishness. They happily exploit the results fueled by emotion and declare harmless rogue nations a threat to "homeland security" and gay and lesbians a plague on marriage and family.

The neoconservative movement is one that works by believing and convincing others there are threats everywhere. They mix that in with a little religious fervor and elections become the perfect crime. Scared white people run to the polls to vote for the party that has vowed to protect them. At its apex the movement managed to staff the halls of congress with sex freaks and scam artists, and put a dim-witted fool in the White House, surrounding him with born again brethren from their ideology.

They scared up enough votes to enact policies that would later prove their downfall. Believing threats are everywhere makes it very hard to identify the actual threats. While they dusted off the Iraq war plans in early 2001, Al Qaeda was getting ready to prove that the worst thing is not an insane leader thumbing his nose at the United States but a cabal of motivated, anti-Western followers. Such an idea never even breached the consciousness of neocons consumed with their own superiority. A bunch of peasants living in caves could never strike a blow to the homeland. Or could they?

9/11 proved to be a major blow to neoconservative thinking that nation-states posed the greatest threat to America but even after this their thinking did not change at all. Bush declared a "global war on terror" and proceeded to invade Afghanistan, then moved on to Iraq before finishing the job. Afghanistan is resurgent and Iraq has become the stuff of nightmares. Somewhere Bin Ladden is free. Still, the worst thing any neoconservative can do is to admit failure which is why you see John Bolton still declaring with utter confidence that the only mistake was not taking Saddam Hussein out sooner.

The frighteningly simplistic neoconservative policy you have been witnessing for the last six years is that America should take the opportunity afforded by the collapse of the Soviet Union to move unilaterally in the world against anyone who does not respect our foreign interests. Why Saddam out of all the terrible dictators? Saddam was the thorn in the neocon's side for thumbing his nose at us. Enter our very own tragic figure: the younger Bush ready to avenge the mistakes of the elder. The rest is history.

Even if you take the best-case scenario in each of the administration's massive and consecutive failures the result is still appalling. In each case it comes down to simple reasoning: either they sincerely thought they knew what they were doing, or they didn't know. When either option ends in disaster I'm not sure it matters.

The latest, a string of federal prosecutors fired for political reasons is hardly new or news. Was this a planned act of the administration or something that just occurred? Ultimately, does it matter? Should we be more upset that the administration seemed surprised, or that they knew all along? Is the administration completely out of control or in complete control? In these times, I'm not sure which is the better answer. At least Nixon's crimes were intentional. With Bush and co. you don't know if they planned to ruin the country or if all just happened like a terrible, unforeseen accident. That's the problem with electing people you wouldn't trust to do your laundry to steward your country.

The Difference Between a Dubya and a Washington

Once upon a time an American president stood up to dedicate a battlefield cemetery, noting with great humility that nothing he said would add any substantial value compared to what the soldiers who struggled there had already done. That was then, this is now.

Once, Abraham Liconoln struggled to find the words to convey his respect for what the 46,000 fallen soldiers had done at the three-day Battle of Gettysburg. Their sacrifice, the same as any asked to give their life for their country, was breathtaking, and Lincoln understood how meager his words would sound in comparison. Today our war is compared willingly, politically, with wars of the past. Today our President compared the war on terror to George Washington's long struggle that gave birth to our nation.

"Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life," said Bush, standing in front of Washington's home and above a mostly frozen Potomac River. "And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone."

Such words cheapen the struggle of war. If the sacrifice of the soldier can not stand on its own, if it has to be packaged and sold by the President as one of historical importance, it sounds alarming. Bush is the type of person who, after a child sincerely gives a gift, feels the need to explain the gift, when it is obvious to everyone, and thus cheapens the entire event. This is probably because he himself doesn't really understand the nature of such things.

Abraham Lincoln seemed to understand it perfectly. He did not care if his words were remembered in 1863. In-fact, Lincoln did not want what he said to stand in the way of the sacrifice Americans had made. In less than 300 words, delivered in two minutes, Lincoln summarized the sacrifice of American soldiers by saying almost nothing, by hesitating to make any comparisons or clarifications, by pointing-out that the real message was what the fallen soldiers had done, and what they felt they were dying for.

George W. Bush is our Edward Everett, who, before Lincoln, spoke for two-hours, and almost 14,000 words. His bombastic speech is little remembered, and in comparison to the humble speech that followed, is viewed with contempt; Everret, the main orator for the ceremony, used the dedication of Soldiers' National Cemetery at Gettysburg as a chance to be heard.

Bush does not hesitate to make comparisons before their time.

"I feel right at home here. After all, this is the home of the first George W. I thank President Washington for welcoming us today. He doesn't look a day over 275 years old," Bush said to laughter. "In the end, General Washington understood that the Revolutionary War was a test of wills, and his will was unbreakable," said Bush.

Of course there is almost no comparison between the first George W. and the second. In-fact, I can hardly think of a greater contrast. The first George W. was, above all else, capable, thoughtful, and his integrity was never questioned. His farewell address was a primer for America and a warning on involvement in foreign wars, political factionalism, and debt. He said things like, "The
nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave." I don't even need to mention the obvious juxtaposition to our current President George W.

Washington knew he could not defeat the British, and that wasn't his goal. Instead he had to win enough to get the French involved in the war. In the process he lost many battles but won just enough, at key moments, to allow Benjamin Franklin to gain French support. Had he tried to crush the British head-on, unwaivering, with no retreats, no compromise, the Revolutionary War would have ended almost as quickly as it began. But the British were un-coordinated, and over-confident, a mind-set that mirrors closer to our own arrogance. Perhaps we are the bloated Empire facing a determined enemy that wants rid of foreign intervention. Perhaps these are things our President should have though of, before wondering how he'd compare in history.

The Civil War deeply saddened Lincoln. His words reflect a president with a heavy heart, enduring a war forced upon him. I see no such reflection from President Bush who seems almost pleased to be a "war president" or "Commander n' Chief." He constantly reminds us what a good job he's doing, and how his dedication makes this whole thing worthwhile. Lincoln viewed the sacrifice of American soldiers and, when the time came, compared to what they had already done, could barely bring forward any words. He noted simply that their death, their "last full measure of devotion," dedicates us all, not the other way around.

Bush 'certain' Iran suppling weapons in Iraq, and by 'certain' he means 'there's no proof'

Consider the opening paragraph of a new AP article form White House correspondent Terence Hunt:

President Bush said Wednesday he's certain the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons used by fighters in Iraq against U.S. troops, even if he can't prove that the orders came from top Iranian leaders.

That, really, is all you need to know. That should be enough to terrify every American who considers sound judgment a virtue. Because, as we have all painfully discovered, all it takes for this President to do something horrifying is a hunch, a sneaky suspicion, a gut feeling. No proof is necessary for the man who has spent so much time ignoring facts about global warming, stem cell research, evolution, and foreign affairs..

And so you get this:

"I'm going to do something about it," Bush pledged, displaying apparent irritation at being repeatedly asked about mixed administration signals on who was behind the weaponry. "To say it is provoking Iran is just a wrong way to characterize the commander in chief's decision to do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way," Bush said.

Uh, oh. Bush is getting irritated again. Nothing gets the President more worked up than a request for some evidence. You might as well ask him how he knows Jesus Christ is the son of God.

Bush spoke a day after Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cast doubts on the claims that higher-ups in the Iranian government had authorized the arming of Iraqi Shiite militias. Pace told reporters that materials used in some of the munitions could be traced to Iran, "but that does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involv