Friday, December 29, 2006
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Thursday, December 07, 2006
From Simone Weil's The Iliad, or the Poem of Force
"Thus it happens that those who have force on loan from fate count on it too much and are destroyed." ~Simone Weil
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Ronald Reagan Links
RonaldReagan.com
Worldpress.org - Ronald Reagan - The World View
Ronald Reagan: Famous Quotes
The Reagan Information Interchange
American Presidents: Life Portraits
USS RONALD REAGAN (CVN 76)
Actor, Governor, President, Icon (washingtonpost.com)
CBS News | Ronald Reagan, Master Storyteller | June 7President Ronald Reagan: 75 Top Links
NPR : Ronald Reagan, 1911-2004Ronald Reagan: Second Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989
Ronald Reagan Quotes - Funny Reagan Quotes and JokesRonald "Dutch" Reagan and Eureka College: The Foundations of Leadership
"Reagan's Liberal Legacy" by Joshua GreenRonald Reagan Dies (washingtonpost.com)
TIME Magazine: Commemorative Issue: Ronald Reagan: 1911 - 2004Worldpress.org - Ronald Reagan - The World View
Ronald Reagan: Famous Quotes
Ronald Reagan Quotes: The Quotations Page
Ronald Reagan: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989Pictorial History of Ronald Reagan
The American Experience | Reagan | Timeline (1911 - 1958)The Reagan Information Interchange
American Presidents: Life Portraits
The American Experience | Reagan
The Public Papers of President Ronald ReaganRonald W. Reagan Presidential Library & Museum Bookstore
TIME 100: Ronald ReaganUSS RONALD REAGAN (CVN 76)
Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation & Library
Google Search: Ronald ReaganMonday, November 20, 2006
Friday, November 10, 2006
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Friday, November 03, 2006
Notes on Process
Let's try this one: you can make use of bookmarks, I believe. You will have to use html in your newsletter, it's true, because these links are quite long. But that's okay. And how about if you just forget about plain text altogether. Would you get complaints about that? How many readers would you miss. Not many, I think! You have to be flexible, I think. You also have to avoid vague thinking, and be as efficient as you can! So what happens if you publish this short piece without having post pages enabled. Let's put a couple of links in an e-mail message and see what happens...
The Secret Letter from Iraq
The Secret Letter from Iraq
Most Profound Man in Iraq — an unidentified farmer in a fairly remote area who, after being asked by Reconnaissance Marines if he had seen any foreign fighters in the area replied "Yes, you."
Most Profound Man in Iraq — an unidentified farmer in a fairly remote area who, after being asked by Reconnaissance Marines if he had seen any foreign fighters in the area replied "Yes, you."
Civil Commotion
Civil Commotion
Hi Bob,
I just read your commentary on the recently published book of Reagan's letters. Good work! May I use it for my newsletter on Reagan, The Last Jeffersonian? The newsletter has a good readership, and I know they'd appreciate your remarks about the book.
Let me know what you think. If you like the idea, I'll get the text formatted and run it by you before the newsletter goes out.
Steven Greffenius
Hi Bob,
I just read your commentary on the recently published book of Reagan's letters. Good work! May I use it for my newsletter on Reagan, The Last Jeffersonian? The newsletter has a good readership, and I know they'd appreciate your remarks about the book.
Let me know what you think. If you like the idea, I'll get the text formatted and run it by you before the newsletter goes out.
Steven Greffenius
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Monday, October 30, 2006
Monday, October 23, 2006
Monger - Definitions from Dictionary.com
monger - Definitions from Dictionary.com: "a person who is involved with something in a petty or contemptible way (usually used in combination): a gossipmonger."
Thursday, October 19, 2006
This Land is Your Land
This Land is Your Land - words and music by Woody Guthrie
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me.
As I was walking a ribbon of highway
I saw above me an endless skyway
I saw below me a golden valley
This land was made for you and me
I've roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me
The sun comes shining as I was strolling
The wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The fog was lifting a voice come chanting
This land was made for you and me
As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!
In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me.
As I was walking a ribbon of highway
I saw above me an endless skyway
I saw below me a golden valley
This land was made for you and me
I've roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me
The sun comes shining as I was strolling
The wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling
The fog was lifting a voice come chanting
This land was made for you and me
As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin!
Now that side was made for you and me!
In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple
Near the relief office - I see my people
And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin'
If this land's still made for you and me.
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California, to the New York Island
From the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters
This land was made for you and me
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Friday, October 13, 2006
Sunday, October 08, 2006
How We Got Here
How We Got Here
Ronald Reagan said that, "governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them."
Ronald Reagan said that, "governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them."
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Speaker refuses to resign over Foley scandal
Speaker refuses to resign over Foley scandal
"Preying on interns, preying on pages is what Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over, so yeah, people get this," former presidential aide David Gergen told CNN.
"Preying on interns, preying on pages is what Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over, so yeah, people get this," former presidential aide David Gergen told CNN.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Friday, September 22, 2006
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
Is Islam Violent?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/18/pope.islam.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories
An al-Qaeda-linked extremist group warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that he and the West were "doomed," as protesters returned to the streets across the Muslim world to demand more of an apology from the pontiff for his remarks about Islam and violence.
The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al-Qaeda in Iraq, issued a statement on a Web forum vowing to continue its holy war against the West. The authenticity of the statement could not be independently verified.
The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."
An al-Qaeda-linked extremist group warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that he and the West were "doomed," as protesters returned to the streets across the Muslim world to demand more of an apology from the pontiff for his remarks about Islam and violence.
The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al-Qaeda in Iraq, issued a statement on a Web forum vowing to continue its holy war against the West. The authenticity of the statement could not be independently verified.
The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Monday, September 11, 2006
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Friday, August 18, 2006
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Bush's Reagan Moment
Bush's Reagan moment - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
An article that shows how divided we've become about the current war. What a gulf!
An article that shows how divided we've become about the current war. What a gulf!
Consequences of Defeat
"Chutzpah has its limits. You cannot lead an entire nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeat and remain in power." - Ari Shavit on Ehud Olmert (applies to George W. Bush as well)
Monday, August 14, 2006
Riding Anti-War Wave, Lamont Wins Primary
Greenwich Citizen - News - Riding Anti-War Wave, Lamont Wins Primary: "We have 132,000 of our bravest troops stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war in Iraq and I say it's high time we bring them home to a heroes' welcome." - Ned Lamont
About This Lamont Thing: An Open Letter from the Democratic Base
Blogcritics.org: About This Lamont Thing: An Open Letter from the Democratic Base: "About This Lamont Thing: An Open Letter from the Democratic Base"
Sunday, August 13, 2006
Friday, August 11, 2006
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Stone's new September 11 film opens, hailing courage
Stone's new September 11 film opens, hailing courage
"We're saying, 'Look, go back to the day, forget about all your prejudices and look at it again,'" Stone said in an interview with Reuters.
"I think what might emerge is a re-examination of the feelings that day that were somehow transmuted into hatred and revenge and misunderstanding," he said, ticking off what he sees as September 11 fallout - "a war, debt for America, a climate of fear, a breakdown of the Constitution."
"We're saying, 'Look, go back to the day, forget about all your prejudices and look at it again,'" Stone said in an interview with Reuters.
"I think what might emerge is a re-examination of the feelings that day that were somehow transmuted into hatred and revenge and misunderstanding," he said, ticking off what he sees as September 11 fallout - "a war, debt for America, a climate of fear, a breakdown of the Constitution."
Monday, August 07, 2006
Sheehan returns to Crawford
Sheehan, her followers have returned to Crawford: "On Sunday, Sheehan, who is fasting as part of her protest, led about 50 supporters in a march to the security checkpoint outside Bush's ranch. She was turned away by officials, and White House spokesman Tony Snow said there are no plans for the president's representatives to meet with her. They did so last year.
'You know what, honestly, when you're talking about the kind of issues we've been talking about, Cindy Sheehan just has not risen to the level of staff meetings at this point,' Snow said in reference to strife in the Middle East and elsewhere.
He added, 'I would advise her to bring water, Gatorade or both.'"
'You know what, honestly, when you're talking about the kind of issues we've been talking about, Cindy Sheehan just has not risen to the level of staff meetings at this point,' Snow said in reference to strife in the Middle East and elsewhere.
He added, 'I would advise her to bring water, Gatorade or both.'"
Sunday, August 06, 2006
The Secret of Success
Sincerity and Politics: "The secret of success is sincerity; once you can fake that you've got it made." - Jean Giraudoux
Leadership
"A leader is a person you will follow to a place you wouldn't go by yourself."Here is an article in Forbes about the Lieberman campaign:We keep getting hung up on these useless questions. Here is an example of a useless question:Stay the course, or cut and run? Who thought that one up? I could say, the Republicans thought that one up, but that would be too easy, wouldn't it?You can see the latest Doonesbury at Slate.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Monday, July 31, 2006
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Friday, July 28, 2006
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Monday, July 17, 2006
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Mohammed Atta
Here is a picture of Mohammed Atta. How would we learn the names and faces of the other eighteen?
Monday, July 10, 2006
All Out Civil War
I'd like to know why we still keep seeing the phrase "all out civil war" in connection with the war in Iraq. A couple of years ago, the comment always was, there'll be a civil war if we leave. It'll be a bloodbath. The Iraqis decided to have a civil war while we were still there. So now we keep hearing that Iraq is on the brink of an all out civil war, and the government has the difficult job of preventing that. Well I'd like to know, what would an all out civil war look like?
Does an all out civil war mean that the soldiers fighting it have to wear uniforms? Do they have to use heavier weapons? What do you mean by the phrase _all out_? Does all out mean that the battle has to be like the Battle of Stalingrad? People died at a rate of roughly 400 a day during the American Civil War, the worst civil war of its century. The Iraqi body count in Baghdad has been running about fifty deaths a day. No one can keep track of the body count in the rest of Iraq, though people have tried. What does the daily death toll have to be to count as an all out civil war?
Let's try to ask the question this way. Suppose we were losing fifty soldiers a day in a war. What kind of a war would we call that? During the years we fought in Vietnam, we lost roughly twenty soldiers a day. Did that war not count as an all out war? Does it not count because we didn't use nuclear weapons, or because we didn't invade North Vietnam?
I'd like to know what is the use of the distinction between an all out civil war and a civil war that is not all out? When one of the corpses lying on a Baghdad street with hands tied behind the back and a bullet in the back of the head is your husband or father, you don't care much whether the people who did it thought they were fighting an all out civil war or not. Who cares what you call it - sectarian killings, reprisals, insurgent violence - it amounts to the same thing.
The reason the journalists keep repeating the phrase _all out civil war_ is that they want to remind us that things could get worse. Well yes, things could get worse. Things can always get worse. But that's not the point here. The thing to remember here is that things have gotten very bad now, and they're not getting better. Built into the phrase _all out civil war_ is the hope that things can get better, that the government can prevent the situation from worsening. And, one can add, the only way the Iraqi government can do that is if we stay to help them.
But remember that the Iraqi government is a fiction. Iraq does not have a government. If Iraq had a government, people would be secure. That's the definition or a government. A government has a monopoly on the use of force. Put more precisely, a government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. No one has a monopoly on the use of force in Iraq. That's the definition of a civil war. A civil war exists when no one has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Well, we can get technical here. That's anarchy. When no one has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and various sides actually use force, that's a civil war.
Iraq's so-called government is a creature of the United States. The institutions that exist in the Green Zone: the parliament, the cabinet, the presidency and the prime minister's office, the offices that administer the police and the army: these are not real institutions in the eyes of Iraqis. They exist to make America's presence in the country look legitimate. If these institutions made up a real government, they wouldn't have to hide in the Green Zone. If they made up a real government, they would be able to control the use of force in the country. Obviously they don't make up a government, and they don't have any control over anything outside of the Green Zone.
So I have a request for journalists here. Please stop referring to the Iraqi government as something that actually exists. If you were to say "American puppets," at least you'd be honest. As it is, your analysis of what's happening in Iraq sounds false as soon as you say the phrase _Iraqi government_. Who do you think you're fooling? No one in Iraq thinks Iraq has a governement. Perhaps people here do just because they have heard the phrase repeated so often.
Does an all out civil war mean that the soldiers fighting it have to wear uniforms? Do they have to use heavier weapons? What do you mean by the phrase _all out_? Does all out mean that the battle has to be like the Battle of Stalingrad? People died at a rate of roughly 400 a day during the American Civil War, the worst civil war of its century. The Iraqi body count in Baghdad has been running about fifty deaths a day. No one can keep track of the body count in the rest of Iraq, though people have tried. What does the daily death toll have to be to count as an all out civil war?
Let's try to ask the question this way. Suppose we were losing fifty soldiers a day in a war. What kind of a war would we call that? During the years we fought in Vietnam, we lost roughly twenty soldiers a day. Did that war not count as an all out war? Does it not count because we didn't use nuclear weapons, or because we didn't invade North Vietnam?
I'd like to know what is the use of the distinction between an all out civil war and a civil war that is not all out? When one of the corpses lying on a Baghdad street with hands tied behind the back and a bullet in the back of the head is your husband or father, you don't care much whether the people who did it thought they were fighting an all out civil war or not. Who cares what you call it - sectarian killings, reprisals, insurgent violence - it amounts to the same thing.
The reason the journalists keep repeating the phrase _all out civil war_ is that they want to remind us that things could get worse. Well yes, things could get worse. Things can always get worse. But that's not the point here. The thing to remember here is that things have gotten very bad now, and they're not getting better. Built into the phrase _all out civil war_ is the hope that things can get better, that the government can prevent the situation from worsening. And, one can add, the only way the Iraqi government can do that is if we stay to help them.
But remember that the Iraqi government is a fiction. Iraq does not have a government. If Iraq had a government, people would be secure. That's the definition or a government. A government has a monopoly on the use of force. Put more precisely, a government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. No one has a monopoly on the use of force in Iraq. That's the definition of a civil war. A civil war exists when no one has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Well, we can get technical here. That's anarchy. When no one has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and various sides actually use force, that's a civil war.
Iraq's so-called government is a creature of the United States. The institutions that exist in the Green Zone: the parliament, the cabinet, the presidency and the prime minister's office, the offices that administer the police and the army: these are not real institutions in the eyes of Iraqis. They exist to make America's presence in the country look legitimate. If these institutions made up a real government, they wouldn't have to hide in the Green Zone. If they made up a real government, they would be able to control the use of force in the country. Obviously they don't make up a government, and they don't have any control over anything outside of the Green Zone.
So I have a request for journalists here. Please stop referring to the Iraqi government as something that actually exists. If you were to say "American puppets," at least you'd be honest. As it is, your analysis of what's happening in Iraq sounds false as soon as you say the phrase _Iraqi government_. Who do you think you're fooling? No one in Iraq thinks Iraq has a governement. Perhaps people here do just because they have heard the phrase repeated so often.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Saturday, July 08, 2006
The Worst President in American History?
Spencer Blog Archives 1-03: The Worst President in American History? 01-23-03
"Okay, as I'm sure you're well aware, I'm not at all in the habit of defending W about anything but, as a historian, this story and the Helen Thomas quotation that W is 'the worst president in all of American history' is beginning to become quite grating to me.
Don't get me wrong. W does have the genuine potential to make that short list of real presidential losers that includes folks like Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, U.S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, and Warren Harding, but he's not there yet. He hasn't been president long enough and done enough damage yet to qualify.
(Yes, I know there were more bad presidents, of course, but these are the ones that damned near every historian will agree were the bottom of the barrel.)
Now, if W's administration continues its assault on civil liberties, if his administration engages us in an unnecessary and morally bankrupt war that will kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, destabilize a region and increase the threat of terrorism worldwide, if his administration follows through on its plan to re-implement Nixonian secrecy and the imperial presidency, and if he and his surrogates continue to drag American political discourse into the gutter by questioning the patriotism of political opponents a la Joseph McCarthy in political campaigns, then he very well may get to make the presidential shit list but it's awfully premature to put him in this category.
Now, of the nine presidents Helen Thomas has covered, he probably is the worst one IMHO. His daddy was downright impressive in comparison folks. But it's awfully early to be making such pronouncements and, I would argue, pretty damned irresponsible. While I might enjoy thinking about W this way, the historian in me thinks this is taking things too far after just two years of W's presidency.
Now that I've finished defending W, I'm going to go take a shower.
I think I'm going to be sick."
- Tom Spencer
"Okay, as I'm sure you're well aware, I'm not at all in the habit of defending W about anything but, as a historian, this story and the Helen Thomas quotation that W is 'the worst president in all of American history' is beginning to become quite grating to me.
Don't get me wrong. W does have the genuine potential to make that short list of real presidential losers that includes folks like Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, U.S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, and Warren Harding, but he's not there yet. He hasn't been president long enough and done enough damage yet to qualify.
(Yes, I know there were more bad presidents, of course, but these are the ones that damned near every historian will agree were the bottom of the barrel.)
Now, if W's administration continues its assault on civil liberties, if his administration engages us in an unnecessary and morally bankrupt war that will kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, destabilize a region and increase the threat of terrorism worldwide, if his administration follows through on its plan to re-implement Nixonian secrecy and the imperial presidency, and if he and his surrogates continue to drag American political discourse into the gutter by questioning the patriotism of political opponents a la Joseph McCarthy in political campaigns, then he very well may get to make the presidential shit list but it's awfully premature to put him in this category.
Now, of the nine presidents Helen Thomas has covered, he probably is the worst one IMHO. His daddy was downright impressive in comparison folks. But it's awfully early to be making such pronouncements and, I would argue, pretty damned irresponsible. While I might enjoy thinking about W this way, the historian in me thinks this is taking things too far after just two years of W's presidency.
Now that I've finished defending W, I'm going to go take a shower.
I think I'm going to be sick."
- Tom Spencer
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Commentary by Steven Hayward
"Many have drawn comparisons between Reagan and FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Lincoln, but Steven Greffenius draws our attention to what should be the most obvious comparison of all—Jefferson. Reagan paraphrased Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address and many other speeches, and moreover embodied the straightforward Jeffersonian axiom that 'that government governs best which governs least.' As Greffenius points out, Reagan followed Jefferson in understanding limited government as the platform for American greatness and individual virtue rather than as a narrow ideology of self-interest." - Steven Hayward, author of The Age of Reagan
Monday, July 03, 2006
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Friday, June 30, 2006
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Iraqi echoes of Reagan's campaign in Lebanon
Iraqi echoes of Reagan's campaign in Lebanon:
"Iraq, as in Lebanon, suffers not from a lack of trained government security forces - more than 230,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained - but from a lack of willingness to fight on behalf of the Iraqi government. That willingness is something the United States cannot instill no matter how long it stays.
The longer we wait, the longer we will only continue to serve as a crutch for the Iraqi security forces. A phased redeployment, as advocated by people such as Murtha, should give Iraqi forces the motivation to stand up. And the United States would still maintain forces in the region by keeping ground forces in Kuwait and a carrier battle group and a Marine Expeditionary Force in the Persian Gulf.
Reducing troop levels in Iraq would also enable the U.S. to better fight the war on terror. It would allow United States to send more troops to Afghanistan, deal more effectively with Iran, better protect the homeland, and reduce the strain on our ground forces."
"Iraq, as in Lebanon, suffers not from a lack of trained government security forces - more than 230,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained - but from a lack of willingness to fight on behalf of the Iraqi government. That willingness is something the United States cannot instill no matter how long it stays.
The longer we wait, the longer we will only continue to serve as a crutch for the Iraqi security forces. A phased redeployment, as advocated by people such as Murtha, should give Iraqi forces the motivation to stand up. And the United States would still maintain forces in the region by keeping ground forces in Kuwait and a carrier battle group and a Marine Expeditionary Force in the Persian Gulf.
Reducing troop levels in Iraq would also enable the U.S. to better fight the war on terror. It would allow United States to send more troops to Afghanistan, deal more effectively with Iran, better protect the homeland, and reduce the strain on our ground forces."
A Prayer at Bedtime
Make me lay my head down to rest,
To awaken refreshed and filled with zest.
The sun comes up each day, ready for us.
God's gift, not to be missed.
God's gift, not to be missed.
To awaken refreshed and filled with zest.
The sun comes up each day, ready for us.
God's gift, not to be missed.
God's gift, not to be missed.
Meg Greenfield at Work
In the late 1970s, Roger Rosenblatt was a journalist at the Washington Post. He tells how his boss, Meg Greenfield, assigned him an editorial about an irate golfer who murdered a goose on the links when it interfered with his game. To make matters worse, he apparently ate the evidence. Rosenblatt wrote up the Post's position on the case, but he still needed a title for the piece. As he rushed past Greenfield's desk to submit the article he shouted, "What shall we call this?" Without looking up from her paperwork she replied, "Honk if you think he's guilty."
Subscribe to The Last Jeffersonian
If you've read enough political rubbish on the Internet, subscribe to The Last Jeffersonian. (TLJ is a free journal and a book you can purchase at Amazon.) You may not always agree with what you read, but you're sure to find the argumentation worth your time. Compare what you read here with what you see in the newsgroups, and see if you don't agree.
Who Was Ronald Reagan?
"The Last Jeffersonian gives Reagan his due as a politician, a patriot, and a political thinker." (Mark Burson, former Executive Director of the Reagan Library)
The Last Jeffersonian: Ronald Reagan’s Dreams of America, by Steven Greffenius, looks closely at Ronald Reagan the man, the politician, and the U.S. President.
Many Americans think of President Reagan as the last great conduit for the democratic principles held by Founding Father Thomas Jefferson. Mr. Reagan held high hopes for America, and believed fervently in the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and democracy.
Though his thinking was radical, and his approach to politics often described as "unconservative," Reagan was a political force to be reckoned with ¾ a leader loved and revered by Americans and others the world over.
The Last Jeffersonian paints a true portrait of Ronald Reagan, explaining his radical ideas in light of Jefferson's beliefs about politics and society.
No matter their political background or beliefs, most Americans would agree that Ronald Reagan is a multi-faceted character ¾ one who demands to be understood and respected. The Last Jeffersonian gives you that understanding, and entertains you in the process.
Whether you're a student of politics, a patriot, or an American looking for an interesting and enlightening read, The Last Jeffersonian leaves you with a higher understanding of this great man, his ideals, and his legacy. Mark Burson of the Reagan Presidential Library writes: "Here is a book that translates the essence of Ronald Reagan for the rest of us."
For a limited time, you may purchase The Last Jeffersonian new at Amazon's Marketplace for one-third off the usual price. Use the credit card and shipping address in your Amazon account to buy the book for only $11.95! Shipping is just $2.26, and the book is en route to you in less than two days. To go straight to the book's home page at Amazon, click here.
The Last Jeffersonian: Ronald Reagan’s Dreams of America, by Steven Greffenius, looks closely at Ronald Reagan the man, the politician, and the U.S. President.
Many Americans think of President Reagan as the last great conduit for the democratic principles held by Founding Father Thomas Jefferson. Mr. Reagan held high hopes for America, and believed fervently in the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and democracy.
Though his thinking was radical, and his approach to politics often described as "unconservative," Reagan was a political force to be reckoned with ¾ a leader loved and revered by Americans and others the world over.
The Last Jeffersonian paints a true portrait of Ronald Reagan, explaining his radical ideas in light of Jefferson's beliefs about politics and society.
No matter their political background or beliefs, most Americans would agree that Ronald Reagan is a multi-faceted character ¾ one who demands to be understood and respected. The Last Jeffersonian gives you that understanding, and entertains you in the process.
Whether you're a student of politics, a patriot, or an American looking for an interesting and enlightening read, The Last Jeffersonian leaves you with a higher understanding of this great man, his ideals, and his legacy. Mark Burson of the Reagan Presidential Library writes: "Here is a book that translates the essence of Ronald Reagan for the rest of us."
For a limited time, you may purchase The Last Jeffersonian new at Amazon's Marketplace for one-third off the usual price. Use the credit card and shipping address in your Amazon account to buy the book for only $11.95! Shipping is just $2.26, and the book is en route to you in less than two days. To go straight to the book's home page at Amazon, click here.
That's What Ronald Reagan Knew
Ronald Reagan Knew
Author Dick Lynch
Finding Nancy His Love and Soul Mate
Was What Gave His World Its Hue
Because of Nancy He Would Reach His Potential
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
As He Took The Presidential Oath Of Office
The Almighty Gave His Life’s Mission A Clue
Fight For Personal Freedom Around The World
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
What Makes The U.S. So Special
Are The Soldiers The Proud & The Few
Those Who Sacrifice & Bleed For Our Freedom
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
A Tragedy Saddens America
With The Loss Of The Challenger Crew
Time To Be A Father To An Entire Nation
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
Terrorism Rears Its Ugly Head In Beirut
Killing My Marines & Yours Too
We Must Protect America At All Cost
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
A Bullet Impacts Our Leader
His Faith In God Rightfully Grew
We Must Pray For John & Everyone
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
Take Down This Wall Now He Told Gorbachev
Who’s Predecessor Once Pounded A Shoe
Freedom’s Intrinsic To Citizens In Every Nation
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
Graceful In His Years Of Decline
His Life On Earth A Passing Thru
Eternity Is The World That Counts
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
The Commander & Chief Is Surrounded By His Troops
Giving President Reagan His Rightful Due
Our Nation And Children Are Safe Cause Of Them
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
Seated At The Right Hand Of The Father Our Creator
The President Flawlessly Delivers His Last Line On Cue
“My Fellow Americans God Is With Us”
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
Author Dick Lynch
Finding Nancy His Love and Soul Mate
Was What Gave His World Its Hue
Because of Nancy He Would Reach His Potential
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
As He Took The Presidential Oath Of Office
The Almighty Gave His Life’s Mission A Clue
Fight For Personal Freedom Around The World
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
What Makes The U.S. So Special
Are The Soldiers The Proud & The Few
Those Who Sacrifice & Bleed For Our Freedom
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
A Tragedy Saddens America
With The Loss Of The Challenger Crew
Time To Be A Father To An Entire Nation
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
Terrorism Rears Its Ugly Head In Beirut
Killing My Marines & Yours Too
We Must Protect America At All Cost
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
A Bullet Impacts Our Leader
His Faith In God Rightfully Grew
We Must Pray For John & Everyone
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
Take Down This Wall Now He Told Gorbachev
Who’s Predecessor Once Pounded A Shoe
Freedom’s Intrinsic To Citizens In Every Nation
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
Graceful In His Years Of Decline
His Life On Earth A Passing Thru
Eternity Is The World That Counts
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
The Commander & Chief Is Surrounded By His Troops
Giving President Reagan His Rightful Due
Our Nation And Children Are Safe Cause Of Them
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
Seated At The Right Hand Of The Father Our Creator
The President Flawlessly Delivers His Last Line On Cue
“My Fellow Americans God Is With Us”
That’s What Ronald Reagan Knew
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Ronald Reagan’s Legacy to the Nation
The Claremont Institute: The Remedy: "Ronald Reagan�s Legacy to the Nation"
Monday, June 19, 2006
Robert Heinlein Quotation
"Do not handicap your children by making their lives easy." - Robert Heinlein
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Spokesman: Bush Polls Don't Rule Iraq War
Spokesman: Bush Polls Don't Rule Iraq War:
"'If I had known the president was going to be this incompetent in his administration, I would not have given him the authority' to go to war, said Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Americans should be a bit more patient, citing progress including the recent death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi after a U.S. airstrike in Iraq.
'We do need to do a better job,' said Graham, who appeared with Biden on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'We are having progress in Iraq. Zarqawi's death is a sea change. If we're going to go on these shows every Sunday and talk about every mistake ever made in a war, we're going to lose this war.'"
"'If I had known the president was going to be this incompetent in his administration, I would not have given him the authority' to go to war, said Biden, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Americans should be a bit more patient, citing progress including the recent death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi after a U.S. airstrike in Iraq.
'We do need to do a better job,' said Graham, who appeared with Biden on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'We are having progress in Iraq. Zarqawi's death is a sea change. If we're going to go on these shows every Sunday and talk about every mistake ever made in a war, we're going to lose this war.'"
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Monday, June 12, 2006
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Friday, June 09, 2006
The Reagan Presidency: The Role of a Lifetime (V)
Summer's greetings to everyone, near the beginning of June. I wanted to mail an issue of TLJ while this season of remembrance season is still with us. Ronald Reagan died on Saturday, June 5, 2004. This week marks the second anniversary of his death.
As summer of 2006 gets underway, please think of who among your friends, relatives, and colleagues shares your interest in Ronald Reagan and American politics. Think of one or two people, and forward this issue of TLJ to them with your compliments. If you received this copy from a friend, and you'd like to have your own issue delivered to your inbox, you can subscribe easily at http://techwritepublishing.com/tlj/. Thanks!
For June, we're happy to publish part five of Lou Cannon's biographical essay about Ronald Reagan. This installment looks back at Reagan's policy toward the Soviet Union. Quite a lot of time has passed since the Berlin Wall came down, enough time to see a new global war develop, a conflict just as deadly and difficult as the Cold War. We need Reagan's brand of competent leadership now. What a difference Reagan made during his time at the wheel!
The Role of a Lifetime (Part V), by Lou Cannon
I mentioned earlier a short story that Reagan wrote as a young man deploring the horror of war. As he expressed in Kansas City, Reagan was haunted by the notion that the United States and the Soviet Union could blunder into war if the policies of mutual assured destruction continued. Reagan felt that it was up to him to end this policy and prevent nuclear war. At The Washington Post, when he was running for president in 1980, Reagan acknowledged that the U.S. military buildup he advocated would lead a to an intensified arms race. But Reagan saw this as desirable because he believed the Soviets could not compete economically and would come to the bargaining table. To Reagan, unlike some of his boosters, the arms race was always a mean towards an end.
Reagan's detractors didn't see it this way. They feared that the combination of his polices and his rhetoric would incite the Soviets and perhaps ignite a war. Reagan said some harsh things about the Soviet Union, most of them true. Some Soviet leaders were even harsher in response. One of them compared Reagan to Hitler. But when Gorbachev, beginning with the Geneva summit in 1985, sat down with Reagan he learned to appreciate Reagan's candor and commitment. According to a Soviet participant at Geneva, Gorbachev was standing with a group of Soviet officials and one of them became highly critical of Reagan's positions and of Reagan personally. Gorbachev, showing irritation, interrupted. "This is the president of the United States, elected by the American people," he said.
Reagan respected Gorbachev, as well, and said after his return to the United States from Geneva that he was a different sort of Soviet leader. Already, without perhaps quite realizing it, the two men were creeping along the road to the first treaties of the nuclear era that reduced the arsenals of the superpowers and put us on the path to the end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet Union.
In February 1993, the Princeton Conference on the End of the Cold War brought together nine leading former U.S. and Soviet diplomats, including former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz and Alexander Bessmertnykh, who had been the deputy Soviet foreign minister in the crucial last years of the Reagan administration. While they differed on details, all agreed that the Cold War had not ended automatically. The participants gave credit to Reagan and Gorbachev, none more eloquently than Bessmertnykh, who said of them:
"As for the common things, I would say that those two men were very idealistic. They each had their own ideals, which they had tried to follow all through their lives. Their ideals were not similar, but the dedication to those ideals was similar. They both believed in something. They were not just men who could trim their sails and go any way the wind blows... this is what they immediately sensed in each other, and why they made good partners."
Bessmertnykh scoffed at opinions in "the American press" after Reykjavik that Reagan had fallen short as a negotiator. "It was not true at all," he said. "Reagan handled negotiations very, very well. He might not have known all the details. He used little cards when he would come to details. He didn't like the formal part of negotiations... He would try to rush through this formal part, and then he would throw away the cards and then he would start talking the direct way. I was across the table at all the summits and followed this president for all those years, and I personally admired the man very much. He was a good politician. He was a good diplomat. He was very dedicated. And if it were not for Reagan, I don't think we would have been able to reach the agreements in arms control that we reached later, because of his idealism, because he thought that we should really do away with nuclear weapons. Gorbachev believed in that. Reagan believed in that. The experts didn't believe, but the leaders did."
Even though Reagan appreciated that Gorbachev was different - and better - than any of the Soviet leaders who had become before, his great goal remained to end communism as we knew it. As Condoleezza Rice, then a Russian expert, said to me in 1999, the Cold War was "frozen in time" when Reagan became president and called the Soviet Union an evil empire. "It was like there was this crazy aunt in the basement that no one wanted to talk about and that once you said she was there everyone said they knew it all along," Rice said. Reagan somehow did. Before he became president he told Richard Allen, who became his first national security adviser: "My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple, some would say simplistic. It is this: We win and they lose. What do you think of that?"
But that's not the whole story. Reagan and Gorbachev both knew that winning and losing would have no meaning if there were a nuclear war. Reagan knew there had been close calls on both sides during the years when Mutual Assured Destruction was the policy of both superpowers. Gorbachev knew this, too. So the oft-asked question of who won the Cold War - however it is answered - may not be the most important question. That question would be: How was it that the Cold War ended peaceably? And the answer would be that both leaders recognized the dangers of the alternative.
Next issue, Lou Cannon concludes The Role of a Lifetime, his biographical essay about Ronald Reagan. He considers Reagan's attitudes about using force to spread freedom and democracy beyond America's borders.
Links
You can buy two of Lou Cannon's books about Ronald Reagan in a boxed set: Governor Reagan and President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime (Second Edition). The set is titled Ronald Reagan: A Life in Politics. Click the link to go to Amazon's page for these books.
Also see the latest articles at the TLJ weblog, Opponents of the War in Iraq Need a Strategy and Bush Says U.S. Is Winning in Iraq, Sacrifices Ahead. For a long time now the weblog has served as TLJ's alter ego. Since the war has been such a significant event in our time, you'll find a lot of ideas and links about that issue there. Please have a look.
Please forward TLJ to anyone who might be interested, especially people interested in American politics. Also, please browse TLJ's home on the web, and make recommendations about what you'd like to see there. The site contains articles, speeches, links, past issues of this journal, and many other resources.
If you'd like to contribute an article, a letter, or anything else to the TLJ weblog or to this journal, please write to me at steveng@TechWritePublishing.com. TLJ welcomes your comments about what you read here, or your thoughts about any other political issue. Thanks!
Steven Greffenius is the author of The Last Jeffersonian: Ronald Reagan's Dreams of America. To learn more about the book, please visit http://techwritepublishing.com/tlj. To order a copy, please visit TLJ's page at Amazon.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Monday, May 29, 2006
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Ethics Now and Then: Mistakes, Crimes, and Sedition
What's the difference between a crime and a mistake? Well, here are a couple of differences:
When you commit a crime, you deserve punishment. When you make a mistake, you may or may not be punished for it, but you generally don't deserve to be punished in the same sense. Of course, you may or may not be punished for committing a crime, but if you're not, we say that justice is not done.
Another difference, according to lawyers and judges, is that a criminal has to have criminal intent. Perpetrators must know that what they are doing is wrong. If they don't know what they are doing is wrong, it's not clear that they deserve punishment. If they don't know what they are doing is wrong, they've made a mistake. That covers a lot of human behavior, because a lot of people who make mistakes think they are doing the right thing.
I was talking with someone tonight about whether or not our president is a criminal because he launched a war that's illegal in international law. She responded that it takes a long time for people to come around to that point of view. It took me a long time to come around to that point of view. For a couple of years, I said that the president is incompetent, and that he lacks judgment. That's what you say about someone who makes bad mistakes. Then I began to say that he's an incompetent criminal. Most recently, I've dropped the incompetent part. Do you know why? Because of the torture. Torture follows this president wherever his authority reaches: Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, secret prisons in Europe, rendition and waterboarding and death after death... That's what transforms this president's actions from mistakes into crimes. He is responsible for the way we conduct the war that started on September 11. He and his team have conducted the war not as incompetents, but as criminals.
One problem with calling the president a criminal is that it's almost impossible to do so without seeming to dishonor the brave soldiers who are fighting now in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I don't see it. Soldiers follow orders and civilian leaders give them. I know we have a whole jursiprudence in military law about not following illegal orders, but that's just not relevant in this case. We have an administration that has overseen the development of torture as a policy in the so-called war against terror. This policy is deliberate and it flows from the top of our government. Blaming our soldiers for the war itself, or for the way it's conducted, is out of the question. They are not to blame for what the government has done. The few soldiers who are blameworthy are already under investigation, and their acts don't diminish the bravery or honor of all the others who fight for us.
For all that, we still don't want to recognize the president's actions for what they are. We think that if Secretary Rumsfeld steps down, we can make things okay again. Well, Bush was right when he said, "I'm the decider." He meant that he supports Rumsfeld and the rest of the team that brought us Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, and all the rest. Bush is responsible for all of it, but no one in government will say it. To say during a war that the president is a criminal sounds like sedition. Sedition is the incitement of rebellion against a lawful state, though, and this state is not lawful. It has shown itself a criminal state. It has destroyed our beloved constitution and our reputation as a democratic country that protects human rights. So we have to ignore its authority and find new leadership, fast.
When you commit a crime, you deserve punishment. When you make a mistake, you may or may not be punished for it, but you generally don't deserve to be punished in the same sense. Of course, you may or may not be punished for committing a crime, but if you're not, we say that justice is not done.
Another difference, according to lawyers and judges, is that a criminal has to have criminal intent. Perpetrators must know that what they are doing is wrong. If they don't know what they are doing is wrong, it's not clear that they deserve punishment. If they don't know what they are doing is wrong, they've made a mistake. That covers a lot of human behavior, because a lot of people who make mistakes think they are doing the right thing.
I was talking with someone tonight about whether or not our president is a criminal because he launched a war that's illegal in international law. She responded that it takes a long time for people to come around to that point of view. It took me a long time to come around to that point of view. For a couple of years, I said that the president is incompetent, and that he lacks judgment. That's what you say about someone who makes bad mistakes. Then I began to say that he's an incompetent criminal. Most recently, I've dropped the incompetent part. Do you know why? Because of the torture. Torture follows this president wherever his authority reaches: Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, secret prisons in Europe, rendition and waterboarding and death after death... That's what transforms this president's actions from mistakes into crimes. He is responsible for the way we conduct the war that started on September 11. He and his team have conducted the war not as incompetents, but as criminals.
One problem with calling the president a criminal is that it's almost impossible to do so without seeming to dishonor the brave soldiers who are fighting now in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I don't see it. Soldiers follow orders and civilian leaders give them. I know we have a whole jursiprudence in military law about not following illegal orders, but that's just not relevant in this case. We have an administration that has overseen the development of torture as a policy in the so-called war against terror. This policy is deliberate and it flows from the top of our government. Blaming our soldiers for the war itself, or for the way it's conducted, is out of the question. They are not to blame for what the government has done. The few soldiers who are blameworthy are already under investigation, and their acts don't diminish the bravery or honor of all the others who fight for us.
For all that, we still don't want to recognize the president's actions for what they are. We think that if Secretary Rumsfeld steps down, we can make things okay again. Well, Bush was right when he said, "I'm the decider." He meant that he supports Rumsfeld and the rest of the team that brought us Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, and all the rest. Bush is responsible for all of it, but no one in government will say it. To say during a war that the president is a criminal sounds like sedition. Sedition is the incitement of rebellion against a lawful state, though, and this state is not lawful. It has shown itself a criminal state. It has destroyed our beloved constitution and our reputation as a democratic country that protects human rights. So we have to ignore its authority and find new leadership, fast.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Our Deepest Fear
Our deepest fear, Marianne Williamson
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It is not just in some of us; it is in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Friday, May 12, 2006
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Wisdom from Horace
"Dimidium facti, qui coepit, habet; sapere aude, incipe.”
"He who has begun has half done. Dare to be wise (know); begin!"
- Horace, Epistles
"He who has begun has half done. Dare to be wise (know); begin!"
- Horace, Epistles
Saving Iraq: Mission Impossible
Tonight I read an article by Juan Cole called Saving Iraq: Mission Impossible. It's at http://salon.com. He argues that prime minister designate al-Maliki won't be able to make much of a difference in securing Iraq. Cole is pessimistic that anyone could unite the country.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Remembering Reagan's Big Win in Texas
Remembering Reagan's Big Win in Texas by Gary Hoitsma
Barnhart, who was later elected chairman of the Texas Republican Party and then appointed by Reagan in 1981 as federal highway administrator, recalled that he had learned the true measure of Reagan’s character during one incident in that early first hard-fought campaign in Texas. He said he was stunned when Reagan calmly turned down an extraordinary opportunity Barnhart had arranged for the governor to make a cameo scripture-reading appearance at W.A. Criswell’s Sunday worship service at his Baptist Church in Dallas. Criswell was an icon to more than four million Texas Baptists who Barnhart knew would be mightily impressed by a Reagan appearance.
“We’re not going to it,” Reagan said. “Not do it?” Barnhart replied. “There isn’t a politician in Texas who wouldn’t cut off his arm for this opportunity.”
“You don’t understand, Ray.” Reagan responded. “My relationship with my God is MY relationship, and we’re not going to abuse it.”
Years later Barnhart recalled, “I knew at that moment there’d never be a man in politics more principled and deserving of respect.”
Barnhart, who was later elected chairman of the Texas Republican Party and then appointed by Reagan in 1981 as federal highway administrator, recalled that he had learned the true measure of Reagan’s character during one incident in that early first hard-fought campaign in Texas. He said he was stunned when Reagan calmly turned down an extraordinary opportunity Barnhart had arranged for the governor to make a cameo scripture-reading appearance at W.A. Criswell’s Sunday worship service at his Baptist Church in Dallas. Criswell was an icon to more than four million Texas Baptists who Barnhart knew would be mightily impressed by a Reagan appearance.
“We’re not going to it,” Reagan said. “Not do it?” Barnhart replied. “There isn’t a politician in Texas who wouldn’t cut off his arm for this opportunity.”
“You don’t understand, Ray.” Reagan responded. “My relationship with my God is MY relationship, and we’re not going to abuse it.”
Years later Barnhart recalled, “I knew at that moment there’d never be a man in politics more principled and deserving of respect.”
Monday, May 01, 2006
Saturday, April 29, 2006
The Reidsville Review | Speaker recalls Reagan days
ReidsvilleReview.com -- The Reidsville Review Speaker recalls Reagan days
"President Lincoln once said the true test of leadership is not only how you use power, but how it uses you."
"President Lincoln once said the true test of leadership is not only how you use power, but how it uses you."
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Monday, April 24, 2006
By Their Fruits
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." - Mark Twain
Now that opponents of the war in Iraq have the majority, what's next? "I told you so" is not too helpful right now. It is time to reform our thoughts - that is, rethink the situation and form our thoughts again.
It doesn't matter why Bush and his team have made such destructive mistakes. It'll matter to historians and analysts who have the benefit of hindsight, who have a responsibility to draw lessons and increase our knowledge. Right now we're in the middle of a horrible catastrophe, and our only responsibility is to survive it. So we don't need to explain why the president led us here. It doesn't matter how his religious beliefs might influence him, or what his motives are, or how honest he's been. We only have to recognize that his leadership is incompetent and has had disastrous results. If we understand the bad situation we're in, and start to act to get out of it, we'll be thinking rightly. All the rest - including the preternatural desire on every side to place blame - distracts from that. Focus on what is essential, or we'll die from what's inessential.
Last night I was talking with a friend about Barack Obama. Obama, Democratic senator from Illinois, was explaining why the Democratic party has been so quiet. There's a saying in politics, he said: "When your opponent is in trouble, stay out of the way."
Well I've got to stop getting exasperated so much. Everyone always calls Obama a rising star in the Democratic party, and people seem to listen him. The Democratic party, as a party, has indeed been quiet. Obama sums up the reason for its silence succinctly. Back before Bush was in trouble - when his poll ratings were still above fifty percent - the Democrats were cowards. They didn't want to deal with charges from Cheney and his ilk that they were traitors, ready to help the enemy. Now that the Republicans are in trouble, the Democrats want to stay out of the way - no need to pile on when your opponent is doing all of your work for you.
Obama's remark about the current reason for the Democrats' lack of leadership is just as exasperating as it is revealing. The two parties are so deeply sunk in partisan thinking now, that is the only way they _can_ think. How can we get an advantage over the other side? How can we dodge their shots, and land our own? All their thinking amounts to strategy for getting an advantage in the next election. The Democrats might be happy the Republicans are in trouble, but many citizens, less partisan, see a bigger picture. The country is in trouble. The country needs competent leadership. The country needs courageous people who can take hard steps to solve hard problems. What claim do the Democrats have on our loyalty if all they think about is how to take some votes away from the Republicans? What was political business as usual before 9/11 is appalling and intolerable pettiness now.
Often the competition between the two parties serves the country well. It doesn't take that much vision to make the balance of forces in our domestic politics productive for all of us. These times are unusual, though, and the leadership on both sides is especially bad. The Republicans are incompetent criminals. The Democrats are gutless wonders. Obama's explanation for their silence may in fact be a sound principle of politics in normal times. We're in post 9/11 times, though, and the country needs unity to win the war that started on that day. We can't win the war without unity, and we can't have unity without good leadership.
We know we're not going to get good leadership from the Republicans, and now we know we are not going to get it from the Democrats, either. Stay out of the way, they say. Let the Republicans self-destruct. Let the country self-destruct, too. Who do they think will want to follow them in 2008? What do they think the voters are going to say then? The Republicans failed us. Let's give the cowards a chance. We can see that arrogance didn't work. Perhaps moral cowardice masquerading as sound political strategy will do the job.
All right, I have to concede that many Democrats are more than partisan hackers. Some, for example, support the war in Iraq on principle. Others oppose it and have said so. So few have opposed it with the passion of Howard Dean or John Murtha, though. It's all such cautious opposition. I don't know what Obama's position on the war is, though I don't think he's been too vocal an opponent. I don't even know enough about him to say he's practicing hacksmanship, but I do wonder where his voice has gone. We'll have to look outside the Democratic party for reasoned, forceful opposition to the debacle in Iraq.
We've traveled so far down the road from 9/11 now, we don't even know what we're talking about when we say _the war_. Let me tell you what I mean. On the radio recently, I listened to a Virginia defense analyst speak in support of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Several retired generals have called for Secretary Rumsfeld to resign, and the analyst figured he ought to say why Rumsfeld should stay. He acknowledged that Rumsfeld has a hard time admitting mistakes, that he doesn't show much humility in the face of our current troubles. Humility and willingness to concede mistakes are just the qualities we don't need now, he continued. A leader who reacted that way would not have the resolve necessary to win the war. War is a test of wills, the speaker reminded us, and only the utmost determination can prevail in such a struggle. Rumsfeld has shown he has the requisite determination to see the war to a successful conclusion. A humble man, the analyst suggested, would fold.
As soon as this gentleman started talking about _the war_, I started shaking my head. Our terms of discourse are so distorted by this criminal enterprise in Iraq. The war we should be fighting against Al Qaeda is displaced by aggression in Iraq, and commentators talk about them as if they are the same thing! We have come so far down this road now, the war in Iraq is the only one we know. References to the other war, the real war, the war against Al Qaeda, sound odd now, out of tune, irrelevant. What do you mean, the _other_ war, people must think. We're in _this_ war, the one in Iraq. That's the one we have to win. That's the war we're fighting against the terrorists.
Well let me tell you something: if you think most of the fighters in Iraq are the same people who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, if you think that even now, we are certainly not going to win any war anywhere. People who so deeply misunderstand the nature of the conflict they're in aren't going to win. Yes we have to make the best of a deteriorating situation in Iraq. The fighting is so bad there now that we can't even keep hold of our conceptions of victory anymore. We are at a loss now to propose a solution that anyone believes in. The significant thing in this context is that we have completely disregarded the _other_ war, because we are in so much trouble where we are.
We can't even say _the war_ anymore, because it begs the question of _which war_. We all think of Iraq as the war now, and if someone responds that the war started on September 11, 2001, not in March 2003, Bush and Cheney can say that it's the same thing. They have made it the same thing, and no one can pull the two apart now. We can't win the 9/11 war without finding some reasonable resolution to the current conflict in Iraq.
Here are eleven points to help us find our way. You could call them a roadmap but Bush has already discredited that term. Take these points, think about them, and see where they lead. Notice that they don't include any timetables.
1. Find new leadership for our country. Ignore our current leaders, who are proven failures. Be creative about fighting together under leaders we trust. Do not listen to the people currently in office, and do not obey them. They do not obey the law, and have no claim on our fidelity. They do not speak for us, and we do not owe them anything as citizens. We have to find other sources of authority.
2. Admit our mistake to the world, and ask for its forgiveness. Do so in a way that does not dishonor our fallen soldiers, but do so in a way that clearly acknowledges the fault of our leaders.
3. Ask the United Nations to help pacify Iraq. Then work closely with that institution to make the effort successful. The UN would have both a civil and a military role. This step can only take place after we have regained some trust from UN members, starting with the apology in step two. Truly invite them in - the idea can't work if the UN simply covers our withdrawal. Even if they were capable of that kind of operation, and they aren't, that is not the kind of role I'm suggesting here. The particulars of their contribution will become clearer as the situation unfolds.
4. Let Iraq break into three separate entities - Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center, and Shias in the south. Let the arrangements voted into place in the constitution take effect. Stop pressing for a national unity government.
5. Invite all of Iraq's neighbors - yes, I mean _all_ of them, including Iran - to assist the UN in Iraq's transition. The breakup of a state is a complex process, especially when it is accomplished by war. Iraq's neighbors can make this process successful.
6. Engage the political process in Iraq in productive ways. Listen carefully. Deal with leaders wherever we find them, and don't rely primarily on Iraqis in the Green Zone. Don't expect military leaders to do most of this labor intensive, delicate work. Civilian troubleshooters devoted to that kind of work should do it.
7. Make Afghanistan the fifty-first state. It's an expression, I know, but most people know what I mean. Build an interstate highway system, high speed data network, secondary roads, communications of every sort, supply depots, airfields, business enterprises, and every other kind of improvement you can think of. No asset that increases our military presence and strength is too costly. Make it the largest outpost we've ever built. Realistically, we can't accomplish this step soon. We can only prepare for it, and hope that we haven't lost our chances for success in Afghanistan forever.
8. Gradually redeploy our soldiers and military material to other locations. In particular, as we rotate men and material out of Iraq, rotate people and equipment into Afghanistan.
9. As our strength in Afghanistan grows, and as a sign of our peaceful intentions toward people who have not attacked us, establish and improve friendly relations with Iran, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, and other countries along Afghanistan's northern border. Ask them to help us fight the war against Al Qaeda, and mean it.
10. Repair relations with our allies across the Atlantic: Germany, Spain, Italy, France, and all the other countries in Europe that helped us or opposed us. Tell them we'll listen to them, and mean it.
11. Establish unity here at home, and use that unity as a basis for increasing the size of our army. When we have enough soldiers on the ground, engaged with our real enemy, with an enemy that all good people everywhere recognize, we'll be respected again. Other people will want to help us again.
I should add a twelfth point here that is more general than the others. We have to regain control of our own foreign policy in the Middle East. Right now we have placed our success, or lack of it, in the hands of other parties. We devise plans that we have no control over. Outcomes depend entirely on what others do. "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" embodies this idea: what we do depends entirely on other people's actions. An alternate epigram, "As we stand down, the Shias and Sunnis will work things out," gives us quite a bit more freedom than we have now.
By their fruits you shall know them. Bad men, with bad intentions using bad means, produce bad results. Hitler sincerely believed that what he was doing was best for Germany. He persuaded others that what he was doing was best for Germany. Historians say that if he had died in 1938, Germans and others would still see him as a hero. But he lived long enough for the consequences of his actions to become apparent.
How will it be with George W. Bush? Will he live long enough for the consequences of his actions to become apparent? I've said that in twenty-five years, Iraq will be stable, and the Republicans will take credit for it. But however things are in Iraq, twenty-five years may be long enough to see the consequences of our aggression, not just in Iraq, but throughout the region and all over the world. Dire your plight, you pretenders, who think you are good enough to save the world. Instead you'll destroy everything that is good, because you couldn't see the evil in what you did.
Who _will_ rescue us? Where is the wise leadership we so clearly need now? How will we find it? When we do find a wise, practical, successful leader, the individual won't be a Democrat or a Republican.
Now that opponents of the war in Iraq have the majority, what's next? "I told you so" is not too helpful right now. It is time to reform our thoughts - that is, rethink the situation and form our thoughts again.
It doesn't matter why Bush and his team have made such destructive mistakes. It'll matter to historians and analysts who have the benefit of hindsight, who have a responsibility to draw lessons and increase our knowledge. Right now we're in the middle of a horrible catastrophe, and our only responsibility is to survive it. So we don't need to explain why the president led us here. It doesn't matter how his religious beliefs might influence him, or what his motives are, or how honest he's been. We only have to recognize that his leadership is incompetent and has had disastrous results. If we understand the bad situation we're in, and start to act to get out of it, we'll be thinking rightly. All the rest - including the preternatural desire on every side to place blame - distracts from that. Focus on what is essential, or we'll die from what's inessential.
Last night I was talking with a friend about Barack Obama. Obama, Democratic senator from Illinois, was explaining why the Democratic party has been so quiet. There's a saying in politics, he said: "When your opponent is in trouble, stay out of the way."
Well I've got to stop getting exasperated so much. Everyone always calls Obama a rising star in the Democratic party, and people seem to listen him. The Democratic party, as a party, has indeed been quiet. Obama sums up the reason for its silence succinctly. Back before Bush was in trouble - when his poll ratings were still above fifty percent - the Democrats were cowards. They didn't want to deal with charges from Cheney and his ilk that they were traitors, ready to help the enemy. Now that the Republicans are in trouble, the Democrats want to stay out of the way - no need to pile on when your opponent is doing all of your work for you.
Obama's remark about the current reason for the Democrats' lack of leadership is just as exasperating as it is revealing. The two parties are so deeply sunk in partisan thinking now, that is the only way they _can_ think. How can we get an advantage over the other side? How can we dodge their shots, and land our own? All their thinking amounts to strategy for getting an advantage in the next election. The Democrats might be happy the Republicans are in trouble, but many citizens, less partisan, see a bigger picture. The country is in trouble. The country needs competent leadership. The country needs courageous people who can take hard steps to solve hard problems. What claim do the Democrats have on our loyalty if all they think about is how to take some votes away from the Republicans? What was political business as usual before 9/11 is appalling and intolerable pettiness now.
Often the competition between the two parties serves the country well. It doesn't take that much vision to make the balance of forces in our domestic politics productive for all of us. These times are unusual, though, and the leadership on both sides is especially bad. The Republicans are incompetent criminals. The Democrats are gutless wonders. Obama's explanation for their silence may in fact be a sound principle of politics in normal times. We're in post 9/11 times, though, and the country needs unity to win the war that started on that day. We can't win the war without unity, and we can't have unity without good leadership.
We know we're not going to get good leadership from the Republicans, and now we know we are not going to get it from the Democrats, either. Stay out of the way, they say. Let the Republicans self-destruct. Let the country self-destruct, too. Who do they think will want to follow them in 2008? What do they think the voters are going to say then? The Republicans failed us. Let's give the cowards a chance. We can see that arrogance didn't work. Perhaps moral cowardice masquerading as sound political strategy will do the job.
All right, I have to concede that many Democrats are more than partisan hackers. Some, for example, support the war in Iraq on principle. Others oppose it and have said so. So few have opposed it with the passion of Howard Dean or John Murtha, though. It's all such cautious opposition. I don't know what Obama's position on the war is, though I don't think he's been too vocal an opponent. I don't even know enough about him to say he's practicing hacksmanship, but I do wonder where his voice has gone. We'll have to look outside the Democratic party for reasoned, forceful opposition to the debacle in Iraq.
We've traveled so far down the road from 9/11 now, we don't even know what we're talking about when we say _the war_. Let me tell you what I mean. On the radio recently, I listened to a Virginia defense analyst speak in support of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Several retired generals have called for Secretary Rumsfeld to resign, and the analyst figured he ought to say why Rumsfeld should stay. He acknowledged that Rumsfeld has a hard time admitting mistakes, that he doesn't show much humility in the face of our current troubles. Humility and willingness to concede mistakes are just the qualities we don't need now, he continued. A leader who reacted that way would not have the resolve necessary to win the war. War is a test of wills, the speaker reminded us, and only the utmost determination can prevail in such a struggle. Rumsfeld has shown he has the requisite determination to see the war to a successful conclusion. A humble man, the analyst suggested, would fold.
As soon as this gentleman started talking about _the war_, I started shaking my head. Our terms of discourse are so distorted by this criminal enterprise in Iraq. The war we should be fighting against Al Qaeda is displaced by aggression in Iraq, and commentators talk about them as if they are the same thing! We have come so far down this road now, the war in Iraq is the only one we know. References to the other war, the real war, the war against Al Qaeda, sound odd now, out of tune, irrelevant. What do you mean, the _other_ war, people must think. We're in _this_ war, the one in Iraq. That's the one we have to win. That's the war we're fighting against the terrorists.
Well let me tell you something: if you think most of the fighters in Iraq are the same people who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, if you think that even now, we are certainly not going to win any war anywhere. People who so deeply misunderstand the nature of the conflict they're in aren't going to win. Yes we have to make the best of a deteriorating situation in Iraq. The fighting is so bad there now that we can't even keep hold of our conceptions of victory anymore. We are at a loss now to propose a solution that anyone believes in. The significant thing in this context is that we have completely disregarded the _other_ war, because we are in so much trouble where we are.
We can't even say _the war_ anymore, because it begs the question of _which war_. We all think of Iraq as the war now, and if someone responds that the war started on September 11, 2001, not in March 2003, Bush and Cheney can say that it's the same thing. They have made it the same thing, and no one can pull the two apart now. We can't win the 9/11 war without finding some reasonable resolution to the current conflict in Iraq.
Here are eleven points to help us find our way. You could call them a roadmap but Bush has already discredited that term. Take these points, think about them, and see where they lead. Notice that they don't include any timetables.
1. Find new leadership for our country. Ignore our current leaders, who are proven failures. Be creative about fighting together under leaders we trust. Do not listen to the people currently in office, and do not obey them. They do not obey the law, and have no claim on our fidelity. They do not speak for us, and we do not owe them anything as citizens. We have to find other sources of authority.
2. Admit our mistake to the world, and ask for its forgiveness. Do so in a way that does not dishonor our fallen soldiers, but do so in a way that clearly acknowledges the fault of our leaders.
3. Ask the United Nations to help pacify Iraq. Then work closely with that institution to make the effort successful. The UN would have both a civil and a military role. This step can only take place after we have regained some trust from UN members, starting with the apology in step two. Truly invite them in - the idea can't work if the UN simply covers our withdrawal. Even if they were capable of that kind of operation, and they aren't, that is not the kind of role I'm suggesting here. The particulars of their contribution will become clearer as the situation unfolds.
4. Let Iraq break into three separate entities - Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center, and Shias in the south. Let the arrangements voted into place in the constitution take effect. Stop pressing for a national unity government.
5. Invite all of Iraq's neighbors - yes, I mean _all_ of them, including Iran - to assist the UN in Iraq's transition. The breakup of a state is a complex process, especially when it is accomplished by war. Iraq's neighbors can make this process successful.
6. Engage the political process in Iraq in productive ways. Listen carefully. Deal with leaders wherever we find them, and don't rely primarily on Iraqis in the Green Zone. Don't expect military leaders to do most of this labor intensive, delicate work. Civilian troubleshooters devoted to that kind of work should do it.
7. Make Afghanistan the fifty-first state. It's an expression, I know, but most people know what I mean. Build an interstate highway system, high speed data network, secondary roads, communications of every sort, supply depots, airfields, business enterprises, and every other kind of improvement you can think of. No asset that increases our military presence and strength is too costly. Make it the largest outpost we've ever built. Realistically, we can't accomplish this step soon. We can only prepare for it, and hope that we haven't lost our chances for success in Afghanistan forever.
8. Gradually redeploy our soldiers and military material to other locations. In particular, as we rotate men and material out of Iraq, rotate people and equipment into Afghanistan.
9. As our strength in Afghanistan grows, and as a sign of our peaceful intentions toward people who have not attacked us, establish and improve friendly relations with Iran, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, and other countries along Afghanistan's northern border. Ask them to help us fight the war against Al Qaeda, and mean it.
10. Repair relations with our allies across the Atlantic: Germany, Spain, Italy, France, and all the other countries in Europe that helped us or opposed us. Tell them we'll listen to them, and mean it.
11. Establish unity here at home, and use that unity as a basis for increasing the size of our army. When we have enough soldiers on the ground, engaged with our real enemy, with an enemy that all good people everywhere recognize, we'll be respected again. Other people will want to help us again.
I should add a twelfth point here that is more general than the others. We have to regain control of our own foreign policy in the Middle East. Right now we have placed our success, or lack of it, in the hands of other parties. We devise plans that we have no control over. Outcomes depend entirely on what others do. "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" embodies this idea: what we do depends entirely on other people's actions. An alternate epigram, "As we stand down, the Shias and Sunnis will work things out," gives us quite a bit more freedom than we have now.
By their fruits you shall know them. Bad men, with bad intentions using bad means, produce bad results. Hitler sincerely believed that what he was doing was best for Germany. He persuaded others that what he was doing was best for Germany. Historians say that if he had died in 1938, Germans and others would still see him as a hero. But he lived long enough for the consequences of his actions to become apparent.
How will it be with George W. Bush? Will he live long enough for the consequences of his actions to become apparent? I've said that in twenty-five years, Iraq will be stable, and the Republicans will take credit for it. But however things are in Iraq, twenty-five years may be long enough to see the consequences of our aggression, not just in Iraq, but throughout the region and all over the world. Dire your plight, you pretenders, who think you are good enough to save the world. Instead you'll destroy everything that is good, because you couldn't see the evil in what you did.
Who _will_ rescue us? Where is the wise leadership we so clearly need now? How will we find it? When we do find a wise, practical, successful leader, the individual won't be a Democrat or a Republican.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Mark Twain Quote
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform."
George Bernard Shaw on Life
"This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy.
I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community, and as long as I live it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can.
I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work the more I live. I rejoice in life for its own sake. Life is no 'brief candle' for me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations." - George Bernard Shaw
I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community, and as long as I live it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can.
I want to be thoroughly used up when I die, for the harder I work the more I live. I rejoice in life for its own sake. Life is no 'brief candle' for me. It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got hold of for the moment, and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to future generations." - George Bernard Shaw
Friday, April 21, 2006
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Prayer by Oscar Romero - The Long View
Catholic Online - Stewardship Resource Center
THE LONG VIEW
A Prayer by Archbishop Oscar Romero
It helps, now and then, to step back and take the long view.
The Kingdom is not only beyond our efforts,
It is even beyond our vision.
We accomplish in our lifetime only a tiny fraction of
The magnificent enterprise that is God's work.
Nothing we do is complete,
Which is another way of saying that
The Kingdom always lies beyond us.
No statement says all that should be said.
No prayer fully expresses our faith.
No confession brings perfection,
No pastoral visit brings wholeness.
No program accomplishes the church's mission.
No set of goals and objectives includes everything.
This is what we are about.
We plant the seeds that one day will grow.
We water seeds already planted,
Knowing that they hold future promise.
We lay foundations that will need further development.
We provide yeast that produces effects far beyond our capabilities.
We cannot do everything,
And there is a sense of liberation in realizing that.
This enables us to do something,
And to do it very well.
It may be incomplete,
But it is a beginning,
A step along the way,
An opportunity for the Lord's grace to enter
And do the rest.
We may never see the end results,
But that is the difference
Between the master builder and the worker.
We are workers, not master builders,
Ministers, not messiahs.
We are prophets of a future that is not our own.
Amen.
THE LONG VIEW
A Prayer by Archbishop Oscar Romero
It helps, now and then, to step back and take the long view.
The Kingdom is not only beyond our efforts,
It is even beyond our vision.
We accomplish in our lifetime only a tiny fraction of
The magnificent enterprise that is God's work.
Nothing we do is complete,
Which is another way of saying that
The Kingdom always lies beyond us.
No statement says all that should be said.
No prayer fully expresses our faith.
No confession brings perfection,
No pastoral visit brings wholeness.
No program accomplishes the church's mission.
No set of goals and objectives includes everything.
This is what we are about.
We plant the seeds that one day will grow.
We water seeds already planted,
Knowing that they hold future promise.
We lay foundations that will need further development.
We provide yeast that produces effects far beyond our capabilities.
We cannot do everything,
And there is a sense of liberation in realizing that.
This enables us to do something,
And to do it very well.
It may be incomplete,
But it is a beginning,
A step along the way,
An opportunity for the Lord's grace to enter
And do the rest.
We may never see the end results,
But that is the difference
Between the master builder and the worker.
We are workers, not master builders,
Ministers, not messiahs.
We are prophets of a future that is not our own.
Amen.
Monday, April 17, 2006
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Flight 93: American Heroism
Flight 93 in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001: American Heroism
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/408513p-345761c.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/408513p-345761c.html
Lt. Kendall-Smith: One More Brave Individual Willing to Tell the Truth
The United States' invasion of Iraq was an act of aggression that is against the law. We have to be willing to say this until people recognize it as the truth. Lt. Kendall-Smith is one of very few who have been willing to call this war a crime. His stand is principled, not just an effort to avoid service as a doctor in the theater of war. He has already served two tours of duty in Iraq. He studied the issue extensively before he decided not to return.
We admire you Lt. Kendall-Smith. You're not alone in your stand.
Here are links to two articles about this brave doctor who served in the Royal Air Force:
http://scotlandtoday.scottishtv.co.uk/content/default.asp?page=s1_1_1&newsid=11183
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=acvjJvecAgaE&refer=uk
We admire you Lt. Kendall-Smith. You're not alone in your stand.
Here are links to two articles about this brave doctor who served in the Royal Air Force:
http://scotlandtoday.scottishtv.co.uk/content/default.asp?page=s1_1_1&newsid=11183
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000102&sid=acvjJvecAgaE&refer=uk
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid - Martin van Creveld
Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War
"Maintaining an American security presence in the region, not to mention withdrawing forces from Iraq, will involve many complicated problems, military as well as political. Such an endeavor, one would hope, will be handled by a team different from - and more competent than - the one presently in charge of the White House and Pentagon.
For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins."
Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University, is author of 'Transformation of War' (Free Press, 1991). He is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.
"Maintaining an American security presence in the region, not to mention withdrawing forces from Iraq, will involve many complicated problems, military as well as political. Such an endeavor, one would hope, will be handled by a team different from - and more competent than - the one presently in charge of the White House and Pentagon.
For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins."
Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University, is author of 'Transformation of War' (Free Press, 1991). He is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Iraq three years on: Don't look away
Independent Online Edition > Middle East:
"The formation of a national unity government is now being presented as an antidote to violence. 'Terrorists love a vacuum,' said the Defence Secretary, John Reid, citing his experience in Northern Ireland. But one Iraqi official remarked caustically that the three main communities - Sunni, Shia and Kurds - do not 'hate each other because they do not have a government, but rather they do not have a government because they already hate each other.'"
"The formation of a national unity government is now being presented as an antidote to violence. 'Terrorists love a vacuum,' said the Defence Secretary, John Reid, citing his experience in Northern Ireland. But one Iraqi official remarked caustically that the three main communities - Sunni, Shia and Kurds - do not 'hate each other because they do not have a government, but rather they do not have a government because they already hate each other.'"
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Friday, March 31, 2006
Definition: Green Zone
From the war glossary:
Green zone: (a) the heavily fortified area in Baghdad that the American forces in Iraq call headquarters; (b) the only place in Iraq that anyone feels safe; (c) the place in Iraq where people go to get morally compromised.
Green zone: (a) the heavily fortified area in Baghdad that the American forces in Iraq call headquarters; (b) the only place in Iraq that anyone feels safe; (c) the place in Iraq where people go to get morally compromised.
Definition: Iraqi Government
From the war glossary:
Iraqi government: (a) a large number of nervous politicians holed up in the Green zone who have trouble agreeing with each other; (b) Iraqi government? Come on, you know Iraq has no government. It's just convenient for America to pretend that it does.
Iraqi government: (a) a large number of nervous politicians holed up in the Green zone who have trouble agreeing with each other; (b) Iraqi government? Come on, you know Iraq has no government. It's just convenient for America to pretend that it does.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Franklyn Nofziger, Reagan spokesman and adviser, dies of cancer at 81
Franklyn Nofziger, Reagan spokesman and adviser, dies of cancer at 81
"Asked why he was leaving the White House, Nofziger replied, 'I don't like government, it's just that simple.' "
"Asked why he was leaving the White House, Nofziger replied, 'I don't like government, it's just that simple.' "
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Scripps Howard News Service
Scripps Howard News Service:
"Does Giuliani call himself a Reaganite?
'Absolutely!' he exclaims. 'He had strong beliefs. He knew what those beliefs were. He stuck to them whether they were popular or unpopular. And he did it in a way in which he was civil and nice to everyone. It was a beautiful combination of tremendous commitment to what he believed in, but not anger.'
'Ronald Reagan was a role model for me,' Rudy Giuliani says. 'I consider him a hero.'"
"Does Giuliani call himself a Reaganite?
'Absolutely!' he exclaims. 'He had strong beliefs. He knew what those beliefs were. He stuck to them whether they were popular or unpopular. And he did it in a way in which he was civil and nice to everyone. It was a beautiful combination of tremendous commitment to what he believed in, but not anger.'
'Ronald Reagan was a role model for me,' Rudy Giuliani says. 'I consider him a hero.'"
Monday, March 20, 2006
Iraq: from Vietnam to Lebanon
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2006/03/19/2003298208
Martin Van Creveld, a prominent Israeli military historian who is the only non-US author on the US Army's required reading list for officers, offered a brutal assessment of the decision to invade Iraq. It was, Van Creveld said, the worst military adventure in 20 centuries. "For misleading the American people and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial," Van Creveld wrote in the Forward, a mainly Jewish-readership newspaper in New York.
Martin Van Creveld, a prominent Israeli military historian who is the only non-US author on the US Army's required reading list for officers, offered a brutal assessment of the decision to invade Iraq. It was, Van Creveld said, the worst military adventure in 20 centuries. "For misleading the American people and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial," Van Creveld wrote in the Forward, a mainly Jewish-readership newspaper in New York.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Beyond Ridicule, Beyond Lying (Part II)
All right, I raised the issue of whether or not Bush is evil. A lot of the people who oppose the war think he is...
Bush is interested in power, and he has no understanding of democracy.
In the previous post I wrote: Bush and his advisors are not bad leaders because they are bad people, or because they are evil. They are bad leaders because they don't know how to lead. They are incompetent and they have no judgment. I came back to that topic while I was running on Saturday. These thoughts are in the form of a postscript to that post.
I said that Bush and his advisors were not bad people, and I traced their poor leadership to incompetence and poor judgment. But there are two more things about Bush and his group that are more insidious and scary. First, Bush and his inner circle are primarily interested in power, not leadership. Leadership and power are not the same thing. (Hannah Arendt distinguishes between power and authority in On Revolution.) Power gives you the ability to make people do what they don't want to do. Good leaders give people the will and energy to do what they want to do, but find it difficult to do on their own. Good leadership is not coercive, it is persuasive.
Well, back to Bush and company - or I should say, back to Karl Rove and company. Karl Rove and George Bush are not interested in leadership. They are interested in consolidating the power of the Republican party. They do not see a connection between winning the war and uniting the whole country. That is, they do not see uniting the whole country as an essential condition for winning the war. Rather, they use the war to enhance the strength of their own party. You would expect them to use such tactics during the presidential election of 2004. This pattern of behavior extends beyond the reelection campaign, though. Bush would like to unite as many people as he can behind his foreign policy, but his focus has been on Republican unity, not American unity.
The second quality, or failing, grows out of the first. Bush and his advisors do not understand democracy. The two clearest examples of this quality concern torture and warrantless wiretaps. They do not see democratic constraints - natural rights that limit government's power to do certain things - as constraints that balance the imperatives of national security. That is, if national security seems to require a certain course of action, that is it. There is no more argument. National security trumps the limits on governmental power with no more argument necessary.
Well, what can you do in a situation like this? The administration's actions indicate that it doesn't recognize any limits on its power in the area of national security. If that is the case, then we have a terrible case of: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. A sincere desire to protect the American people has led the administration into the corruption of unchecked power. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," is one of the most famous sayings in political thought. If it applies here - and evidence indicates that it does - then our government has suffered the absolute corruption that seemed impossible before 9/11.
I truly don't want to admit that our government is evil. But evil is banal in so many ways. It doesn't always come at you with a blood-drenched scimitar. It shows up in small ways and progresses until you can't escape it...
Back once more to the team that pretends to lead us, but actually does whatever it thinks best, whether or not it is in the country's long-term interest.
Here is the best evidence that the administration is not interested in leadership. It says that its opponents are traitors, that people who disagree with it are helping our enemies. It is ready to turn us against ourselves, to divide us so it may conquer the whole. It can succeed without our friends in Muslim countries. It can succeed without our European allies and without the United Nations. It can succeed without the loyal opposition at home. All of its actions point to one source of success: the power of its own party, the ability to force its way on others.
By letting this government continue, we have reached a true turning point. People still act as if we are living in the democracy we had before 9/11, but we're not. We've allowed our fears to affect the kind of country we are. One of our main qualities in the past was fearlessness. Now we've let fear make us ready to give up our democratic way of life. That's why we have to shrug off 9/11. If we shrug it off, we won't fear our enemies any more. If we shrug it off, we won't care about what they do to us. We'll just destroy them. We'll find out who they are, where they are, and we'll just destroy them.
That's how you have to fight a war - with ruthlessness and with determination. Yes, there's fear, but you shrug that off, too. Where are the leaders who help us face fear and forget it, rather than monger fear for the sake of their own advantage? Where are the leaders who help us face fear and forget it, rather than divide us and make us fear even each other? Where are the leaders who unite us, and help us defeat those who want to destroy us? I tell you, you will not find them among the members of the current administration. They think they are brave and resolute, but they are cowardly incompetents. They think they protect us, but they destroy everything worth protecting. They think they are truthful, but they don't even know what the truth is. They think they will be proven correct in the end, but in fact historians will record a hundred years from now that they caused the loss of our democracy. And we let them do it.
Bush is interested in power, and he has no understanding of democracy.
In the previous post I wrote: Bush and his advisors are not bad leaders because they are bad people, or because they are evil. They are bad leaders because they don't know how to lead. They are incompetent and they have no judgment. I came back to that topic while I was running on Saturday. These thoughts are in the form of a postscript to that post.
I said that Bush and his advisors were not bad people, and I traced their poor leadership to incompetence and poor judgment. But there are two more things about Bush and his group that are more insidious and scary. First, Bush and his inner circle are primarily interested in power, not leadership. Leadership and power are not the same thing. (Hannah Arendt distinguishes between power and authority in On Revolution.) Power gives you the ability to make people do what they don't want to do. Good leaders give people the will and energy to do what they want to do, but find it difficult to do on their own. Good leadership is not coercive, it is persuasive.
Well, back to Bush and company - or I should say, back to Karl Rove and company. Karl Rove and George Bush are not interested in leadership. They are interested in consolidating the power of the Republican party. They do not see a connection between winning the war and uniting the whole country. That is, they do not see uniting the whole country as an essential condition for winning the war. Rather, they use the war to enhance the strength of their own party. You would expect them to use such tactics during the presidential election of 2004. This pattern of behavior extends beyond the reelection campaign, though. Bush would like to unite as many people as he can behind his foreign policy, but his focus has been on Republican unity, not American unity.
The second quality, or failing, grows out of the first. Bush and his advisors do not understand democracy. The two clearest examples of this quality concern torture and warrantless wiretaps. They do not see democratic constraints - natural rights that limit government's power to do certain things - as constraints that balance the imperatives of national security. That is, if national security seems to require a certain course of action, that is it. There is no more argument. National security trumps the limits on governmental power with no more argument necessary.
Well, what can you do in a situation like this? The administration's actions indicate that it doesn't recognize any limits on its power in the area of national security. If that is the case, then we have a terrible case of: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. A sincere desire to protect the American people has led the administration into the corruption of unchecked power. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," is one of the most famous sayings in political thought. If it applies here - and evidence indicates that it does - then our government has suffered the absolute corruption that seemed impossible before 9/11.
I truly don't want to admit that our government is evil. But evil is banal in so many ways. It doesn't always come at you with a blood-drenched scimitar. It shows up in small ways and progresses until you can't escape it...
Back once more to the team that pretends to lead us, but actually does whatever it thinks best, whether or not it is in the country's long-term interest.
Here is the best evidence that the administration is not interested in leadership. It says that its opponents are traitors, that people who disagree with it are helping our enemies. It is ready to turn us against ourselves, to divide us so it may conquer the whole. It can succeed without our friends in Muslim countries. It can succeed without our European allies and without the United Nations. It can succeed without the loyal opposition at home. All of its actions point to one source of success: the power of its own party, the ability to force its way on others.
By letting this government continue, we have reached a true turning point. People still act as if we are living in the democracy we had before 9/11, but we're not. We've allowed our fears to affect the kind of country we are. One of our main qualities in the past was fearlessness. Now we've let fear make us ready to give up our democratic way of life. That's why we have to shrug off 9/11. If we shrug it off, we won't fear our enemies any more. If we shrug it off, we won't care about what they do to us. We'll just destroy them. We'll find out who they are, where they are, and we'll just destroy them.
That's how you have to fight a war - with ruthlessness and with determination. Yes, there's fear, but you shrug that off, too. Where are the leaders who help us face fear and forget it, rather than monger fear for the sake of their own advantage? Where are the leaders who help us face fear and forget it, rather than divide us and make us fear even each other? Where are the leaders who unite us, and help us defeat those who want to destroy us? I tell you, you will not find them among the members of the current administration. They think they are brave and resolute, but they are cowardly incompetents. They think they protect us, but they destroy everything worth protecting. They think they are truthful, but they don't even know what the truth is. They think they will be proven correct in the end, but in fact historians will record a hundred years from now that they caused the loss of our democracy. And we let them do it.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Quotes from Ronald Reagan
Google Groups : alt.politics.usa.republican
Quotes from Ronald Reagan:
When you see all that rhetorical smoke billowing up from the Democrats, well ladies and gentleman, I'd follow the example of their nominee; don't inhale.
~ Ronald Reagan, Republican National Convention, 1992.
The size of the federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable concern.
~ Ronald Reagan, Address to the National Alliance of Business, October 5, 1981
We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.
~ Ronald Reagan
There are no such things as limits to growth, because there are no limits on the human capacity for intelligence, imagination and wonder.
~ Ronald Reagan
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
~ Ronald Reagan
The other day, someone told me the difference between a democracy and a people's democracy. It's the same difference between a jacket and a straitjacket.
~ Ronald Reagan
Quotes from Ronald Reagan:
When you see all that rhetorical smoke billowing up from the Democrats, well ladies and gentleman, I'd follow the example of their nominee; don't inhale.
~ Ronald Reagan, Republican National Convention, 1992.
The size of the federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable concern.
~ Ronald Reagan, Address to the National Alliance of Business, October 5, 1981
We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.
~ Ronald Reagan
There are no such things as limits to growth, because there are no limits on the human capacity for intelligence, imagination and wonder.
~ Ronald Reagan
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
~ Ronald Reagan
The other day, someone told me the difference between a democracy and a people's democracy. It's the same difference between a jacket and a straitjacket.
~ Ronald Reagan
Friday, March 10, 2006
Beyond Ridicule, Beyond Lying
We can't blame Bush for 9/11 any more than we can blame FDR for Pearl Harbor. But if FDR had handled the war against Japan as poorly as Bush has handled the war against Al Qaeda, we'd be learning Japanese in all our schools right now. That's what is at stake in this war - leadership of the world. That's where Bush's failure is greatest, He is not a world leader, and it's plain to see.
I still grieve over the loss of the pieces on torture. All right, you know what I mean. Torture's not the current topic now, anyway. Civil war is the current topic. All the questions now are about what we should do if Iraq descends into civil war. Rumsfeld says that the Iraqi security forces will have to deal with a civil war. That's the only chance we have to form a stable, democratic government, he says.
You know what, I'm not going to ridicule our leaders anymore. They are beyond ridicule. I don't even like to ridicule people. It doesn't do any good: it doesn't persuade anybody to see things differently from the way they saw things before. But let me say this: these leaders have no claim on our trust, our loyalty, or even our forgiveness. They are the worst: arrogant, unforgiving, unreflective, and untruthful. One kind of dishonesty implies that you know you are lying. Another kind of dishonesty occurs because you don't care whether what you say is truthful or not. That is the kind of dishonesty we observe in our leaders. They are beyond lying. They are beyond ridicule. Nothing we could say now could describe how bad they are. They are not bad leaders because they are bad people, or because they are evil. They are bad leaders because they don't know how to lead. They are incompetent and they have no judgment. They don't know what they are doing.
I don't really get angry anymore. When Bush comes on the radio, even when it's a pretty short sound bite, I usually turn it off. I can't stand to hear his voice. The thought that he represents our country is horrific. Even though he does not sound very intelligent to me, I don't think he is stupid. The Democrats have harped on that canard - he's an idiot - for so long. It's a substitute for good thinking. President Bush is not stupid. But he's not smart in the ways that he needs to be, given the position that he's in. He may be shrewd and disciplined, but those aren't the qualities he needs now. He needs so many qualities that he does not have, and it's sad to see him so sure that we're doing okay. If we're doing okay, he's doing okay. And we know that he's deceiving himself. We are not doing okay, and neither is he.
A house divided against itself cannot stand. The thought reminds us of Lincoln and the beginning of the Civil War, but Jesus said it first. Who predicted during those weeks that followed 9/11 that we would be so divided now? A good leader would have kept us united. The people who support the war in Iraq are not traitors, no more than the people who oppose it. Yet the two sides in this argument do not listen to each other. Indeed, they don't listen because they don't care that much what the other side has to say. I'm part of the national deafness. I made up my mind on the question when the president first announced his plan to invade Iraq. I had never been more vehement on a question of war or peace, not even during the Vietnam war. I knew I wouldn't change my mind, no matter what the other side said. Lincoln wasn't going to change his mind about human bondage, either.
Had enough? Have you had enough? Have you had enough of an illegal war, and all the lies that surround such a horrendous enterprise? We don't have to follow this path any longer. We've already done so much damage - yes, to ourselves as well as to Iraq - but we can still turn back. We can't redeem the past three years, but we can still make things turn out for the best. We have to believe that's true, that no matter how bad things seem now, we can turn the dross into something brighter. If we lose that essential hope, then 9/11 and its depressing aftermath will truly have destroyed us.
I still grieve over the loss of the pieces on torture. All right, you know what I mean. Torture's not the current topic now, anyway. Civil war is the current topic. All the questions now are about what we should do if Iraq descends into civil war. Rumsfeld says that the Iraqi security forces will have to deal with a civil war. That's the only chance we have to form a stable, democratic government, he says.
You know what, I'm not going to ridicule our leaders anymore. They are beyond ridicule. I don't even like to ridicule people. It doesn't do any good: it doesn't persuade anybody to see things differently from the way they saw things before. But let me say this: these leaders have no claim on our trust, our loyalty, or even our forgiveness. They are the worst: arrogant, unforgiving, unreflective, and untruthful. One kind of dishonesty implies that you know you are lying. Another kind of dishonesty occurs because you don't care whether what you say is truthful or not. That is the kind of dishonesty we observe in our leaders. They are beyond lying. They are beyond ridicule. Nothing we could say now could describe how bad they are. They are not bad leaders because they are bad people, or because they are evil. They are bad leaders because they don't know how to lead. They are incompetent and they have no judgment. They don't know what they are doing.
I don't really get angry anymore. When Bush comes on the radio, even when it's a pretty short sound bite, I usually turn it off. I can't stand to hear his voice. The thought that he represents our country is horrific. Even though he does not sound very intelligent to me, I don't think he is stupid. The Democrats have harped on that canard - he's an idiot - for so long. It's a substitute for good thinking. President Bush is not stupid. But he's not smart in the ways that he needs to be, given the position that he's in. He may be shrewd and disciplined, but those aren't the qualities he needs now. He needs so many qualities that he does not have, and it's sad to see him so sure that we're doing okay. If we're doing okay, he's doing okay. And we know that he's deceiving himself. We are not doing okay, and neither is he.
A house divided against itself cannot stand. The thought reminds us of Lincoln and the beginning of the Civil War, but Jesus said it first. Who predicted during those weeks that followed 9/11 that we would be so divided now? A good leader would have kept us united. The people who support the war in Iraq are not traitors, no more than the people who oppose it. Yet the two sides in this argument do not listen to each other. Indeed, they don't listen because they don't care that much what the other side has to say. I'm part of the national deafness. I made up my mind on the question when the president first announced his plan to invade Iraq. I had never been more vehement on a question of war or peace, not even during the Vietnam war. I knew I wouldn't change my mind, no matter what the other side said. Lincoln wasn't going to change his mind about human bondage, either.
Had enough? Have you had enough? Have you had enough of an illegal war, and all the lies that surround such a horrendous enterprise? We don't have to follow this path any longer. We've already done so much damage - yes, to ourselves as well as to Iraq - but we can still turn back. We can't redeem the past three years, but we can still make things turn out for the best. We have to believe that's true, that no matter how bad things seem now, we can turn the dross into something brighter. If we lose that essential hope, then 9/11 and its depressing aftermath will truly have destroyed us.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Monday, February 27, 2006
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Saturday, February 25, 2006
What Civil War Could Look Like
What Civil War Could Look Like - New York Times:
"Surveying all the nightmare possibilities in an interview late last week, Zalmay Khalilzad, the United States ambassador to Iraq, said: 'Those are issues that some people should be thinking about, but I do not believe that we are heading that way. The leaders of Iraq know that they came to the brink with the attack on the shrine, and there has been an evolution of their attitudes as a result. I simply believe that the leaders of Iraq do not want a civil war.'
Lincoln, however, said in retrospect that having leaders who do not want war is not enough - that the problem is whether there are things that they want more than war, and are willing to accept war to get. In Iraq, it seems, this will also determine whether the leaders will one day say with satisfaction that they stepped back from the brink or, sadly like Lincoln, that 'the war came.'"
"Surveying all the nightmare possibilities in an interview late last week, Zalmay Khalilzad, the United States ambassador to Iraq, said: 'Those are issues that some people should be thinking about, but I do not believe that we are heading that way. The leaders of Iraq know that they came to the brink with the attack on the shrine, and there has been an evolution of their attitudes as a result. I simply believe that the leaders of Iraq do not want a civil war.'
Lincoln, however, said in retrospect that having leaders who do not want war is not enough - that the problem is whether there are things that they want more than war, and are willing to accept war to get. In Iraq, it seems, this will also determine whether the leaders will one day say with satisfaction that they stepped back from the brink or, sadly like Lincoln, that 'the war came.'"
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Monday, February 20, 2006
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Friday, February 17, 2006
Competence vs. Incompetence
As leaders and as statesmen, the members of the Bush administration are totally, completely incompetent. The only thing they can do well is carry out criminal acts. Criminally competent and civically incompetent is the only way to put it.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Connecting the Dots of Cheney's Crimes - Yahoo! News
Connecting the Dots of Cheney's Crimes - Yahoo! News:
"Ultimately, however, it was 'Daily Show' correspondent Rob Corddry who hit the bullseye, when he reported that: 'The Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now, according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be a 78- year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Wittington's face.'"
"Ultimately, however, it was 'Daily Show' correspondent Rob Corddry who hit the bullseye, when he reported that: 'The Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now, according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be a 78- year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Wittington's face.'"
Connecting the Dots of Cheney's Crimes - Yahoo! News
Connecting the Dots of Cheney's Crimes - Yahoo! News:
"Ultimately, however, it was 'Daily Show' correspondent Rob Corddry who hit the bullseye, when he reported that: 'The Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now, according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be a 78- year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Wittington's face.'"
"Ultimately, however, it was 'Daily Show' correspondent Rob Corddry who hit the bullseye, when he reported that: 'The Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now, according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be a 78- year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Wittington's face.'"
