Good Riddance?

Ooops, our president seems confused. From his personal message to Saddam, it appears that someone has lead Mr. Bush to believe that Saddam is dead. As a Texan, he ought to know the buckboard goes behind the horse.

President Bush said when asked if he had a personal message for Saddam: "Good riddance. The world is a better place without you...." [news]

Ain’t Nuthin’ but a Family Thing

On September 26, 2002, President Bush spoke in Houston at a fundraiser for a Republican candidate for the Senate. At that time, his Orwellian rhetoric against anyone skeptical of his foreign policy was just getting warmed up, and he took the Senate – then controlled by the Democrats – to task, impugning their patriotism, for dragging their feet over Homeland Security. Then his speech shifted focus to Saddam Hussein.

The president delivered the usual litany of Saddam’s defiance of the UN, his malice toward the US, his threat to world peace, etc. Then Bush said something very interesting:

"After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."

I’ll pause a moment and let that sink in. Think about it. … Yeah. You see what I mean. Remember when George the Elder went to Kuwait for his victory lap, or whatever, during the Clinton Administration? Iraqis tried to kill him. And Clinton sent them some cruise missiles for an attitude adjustment.

I gotta be honest. If somebody tried to kill my Dad, and I became president and had a chance to kick his ass, his whole country’s ass, and render him to a babbling, matted idiot living in a hovel, you better your Euphrates I’d do it. Probably. I’d make him sorry somehow. I like to think I wouldn’t expend thousands of dead and wounded to do it, but I’d take care of business.

George H.W. Bush was, after all, the duly elected and duly replaced ex-president of the United States. My political differences with him aside, you don’t try to assassinate such a person and get away with it. (Or any of us for that matter.) So I’m glad that Saddam got his ass handed to him. He got what he deserved. I wholeheartedly dissent against the war, but I’m pleased with this particular result of it. I wish Clinton had gotten Saddam with a missile, and made it all moot.

Now if Bush had stood up in front of Congress and the Republic and said, “We’re goin’ to get his bastard ‘cause he done tried ta kill Pa,” I don’t think he would have gotten the misbegotten mandate he got last Spring. I suspect the polls would be a tad more lopsided, and the vote in Congress less partisan. But at least he would have gone into the history books as making a little more sense. And eventually, rationality is going to raise it’s bewildered head and ask, “What in the wide world of sports were people thinking back in ’03? What did all those kids die for anyway?”

It’s nice he’s on ice, but it’s not worth the price.

CNN.com - Bush calls Saddam 'the guy who tried to kill my dad' - Sep. 27, 2002

The dollar continues to tumble

After a brief favorable bump upon the capture of Saddam Hussein, the dollar continued to slip, reaching record low levels (one euro now costs $1.23). According to this Reuters article , a selloff of the dollar will continue, only to abate with possible good economic news. Abate momentarily, but then continue, because the unsoundness of the dollar is based on structural defects in the US economy, in particular the massive trade deficit that is building up at record levels, month after month.
There may come a time when those who are keeping the dollar from free fall by making supportive purchases decide to abandon ship because of the declining value of the dollar. If so, we are in for a rugged adjustment in America and, likely, globally.
All of Bush's positives listed in the previous posts will then come to naught, and he'll be another Bush one-termer.
While I agree that the Democrats must now--immediately--stop stabbing each other in this pre-primary period (Kerry and Lieberman's recent attacks on Dean are disgusting), and must come up with a positive message in order to attract votes, it wouldn't hurt their chances if the economy should tank.
I'll keep you--and myself--posted.

A formidable task

Here's what the Democratic nominee for President must overcome in order to win election over Bush:

1. Bush's incumbency--not its effects, which are discussed below, but the mere fact of incumbency. Although incumbents don't always win (Carter, Ford, Bush I), they usually do (FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton).
2. Bush's campaign chest. Nuff said.
3. Bush's clever handlers. Rove, of course, but also terrific speech writers, who've created for Bush's persona a delivery of brief, simple bursts that carry brief, simple messages. He's become a good public speaker now and will have slick, effective ads, displayed round the clock.
4. A resurgent economy, even if it's not real, and even if it unfairly distributes its largesse. The media and the markets have fallen in love with the rebound and that's all that matters, apparently, even though family income continues to fall.
5. A compliant media, plus a baldly supportive Fox-TV network. Not only do these sources trumpet Bush's achievements, he (and his minions) know how to manipulate them. Did anyone not wince when Tribune Bremer let out, "We Got Him," knowing full well that his announcement was tailored to fit across banner headlines?
6. A favorable Congress, willing and able to bury scandals, to time their deliberations and effect enactments to assist his re-election.
7. Bush's control of events. Not just a huge "October surprise," which I long ago predicted would be his announcement of a major withdrawal of troops from Iraq in the month before the election, but mini-surprises along the way. Because the media and the public are able to carry only a fixed amount of news at a time, Bush (or Rumsfeld, or Condi, etc.) can drop an announcement or create a situational crisis whenever it suits them to override some unfavorable development. Witness, for example, the announcement of domestic "alerts" whenever an untoward event (such as the shooting down of helicopters) arises.
8. The "Nascar dad" syndrome, about which I blogged some weeks ago. This is the notion--borne out, I believe, by the election of Schwarzenegger in California--that white workingstiff males are experiencing an anger fueled by their loss of status and income that translates into support for macho, angry male politicians. (A 1970's version of this syndrome could be seen in the TV series, "All in the Family," with Archie Bunker as its protagonist.) Bush portrays his war on terrorism to feed just such anger, and he's got overwhelming support among this group of voters. An adjunct of the syndrome is, I believe, seen in what I call the "Oakland Raider dad" in California, carried by Latino males.
9. Bush is a "war president." Of course he both declared it to be a war and controls its duration, in in the sense that so long as he decides it's ongoing, it is. But no matter, it engenders the fear and resistance to "change horses" that a real war does.
10. Bush's character myth. This excellent article lays out this concept, frighteningly. It's the product of media, polish, cunning and swagger, cloaked in God-phrasing.
11. Corporate support. In addition to the massive infusion of campaign funds, corporations and the wealthy who've fared so well under Bush are also influential in more subtle ways. They can suggest, through their ads and presence, that all is well with America and that thus the status quo should be maintained. They do this daily, by casting out images of a prosperous, well-functioning America, not calling attention to the gross disparities of wealth and benefits.
13. Voter turnout. Always favors the Republican candidate.
14. Luck. The guy's just blessed, let's face it. He's truly a miserable failure in all his endeavors and yet he always lands on his feet--ten rungs up the ladder from where he fell. It's the story of the "fortunate son," this time as President.

There are doubtless more reasons why Bush is favored in 2004. If you have any additions, please submit them via Comment.

The foregoing makes you wonder why we even bother.
Because, quite simply, we must.

Justice Displayed

Blog-contributor John:

The last thing we need is for Bush to crow about how it was his focused measures that brought about the capture of Saddam. We should instead give thanks that Saddam was stupid enough to be caught.

Saddam should not be tried by a military tribunal or by an Iraqi court. He should be taken immediately before the Hague and tried for crimes against humanity like Milosevic. He should not be executed because that would only make him a martyr and show the world that the state of morality of the world community is no higher than that of fundamentalist religions.

Now, more than ever, we need to turn this criminal over to the international court to show we truly are members of an international community and that there is a structure for judging and providing justice even for a ruthless and bloodthirsty dictator. If we fail to stand up for justice even for Saddam, we fail to support a major principle of democracy (for which we fought a war), namely, that world organizations are the proper institutions to adjudicate and sentence those who commit crimes against humanity.

Happy Day

Happy Day! Not Saddam, I've done enough damage on that topic. But today (Sunday) is my buddy Erik's birthday. Happy birthday, Erik. Hope it was a very nice one indeed. You'll notice that the clouds dissipated just in time after the morning rain to give you a clear and brilliant afternoon. I could take credit for that, but sadly I had no more to do with it than Bush had to do with finding whatshisname. Nevertheless, I hope you'll think of me, and this fine afternoon of birdsinging and untangled sunlight, come election day.

Captured Saddam: street party

Well, I've had a busy day. My bedroom TV comes on automatically on CNN, so I knew before I got up that Saddam had been captured. But I haven't really had time to sit down and enjoy the show. Actually, I could've watched this evening, but I was watching Dinosaur Planet with my Dad. So there.

I've had time now to read some major news reports on the capture and its aftermath, and few things come to mind:

I wonder who gets the reward, and whether they have to pay anybody taxes on it. Do they get it in a lump, and move out of the Middle East for someplace nicer, or in payments, and just buy a nicer place in Iraq?

Are the Fab Five from Queer Eye available to give Saddam a makeover? 'Cause he really needs some help.

Now, I've never claimed that the average American is exactly a high wattage bulb, but just how stupid are the people in Kirkuk? Check this out:

"In northern Kirkuk, eight people were killed and 80 wounded by shots fired in the air during celebrations of the capture, said hospital official Shehab Ahmed."

I'm sorry, I know that's offensive. But give me a friggin break. Lemmings have better odds. That's like fish in a barrel shooting themselves. Maybe we could drop some leaflets out of Rumsfelds's plane, next time he swoops in. A nice, simple, catchy rhyme:

I shot a bullet in the air
And it came down I knew not where.
But something killed my neighbor Fred
By blowing off part of his head.

That's why I get the big bucks folks. I'm here at Erik's Drive-in Supper Club almost nightly. Hold your fire, and don't forget to tip your waitress.
Peace.

Yahoo! News - Captured Saddam Faces Strict Gravity

The good news: Saddam was captured. The bad news: Osama's heading to Iraq

Now that Saddam Hussein is in custody, we will learn the extent to which his continued freedom has fueled the ongoing violence in Iraq. There will be daily revelations by the coalition and the Iraqi Governing Council, keeping the fact of his confinement in the news, especially as his pretrial and trial for war crimes proceed.

This is great news for Bush, of course, not only as a public relations coup, but because it may cause the Iraqi resistance to diminish over time. But not entirely, because, apparently, al Qaeda is on the way.

It's better Saddam was captured now, rather than six months from now, since by election time much of the bounce Bush receives will have dissipated as the expected infighting between Iraqi factions escalates and al Qaeda joins the fray. Bush's failure in the war on terr'r will be revealed for the fraudulent warmongering that it is.

I hope.

The pallor of the press

With the ink not yet dry on the report of the Pentagon's investigation of Halliburton for overcharging the US on gasoline purchases, Bush demands repayment and touts that this development shows how diligently his Defense Department is monitoring the Iraq reconstruction contractors. The WaPo, supposedly a watchdog of the administration, reports the foregoing today as if it's the entire story.

But of course it isn't, and WaPo knows it. California Congressman Henry Waxman has been complaining for months about the gasoline overcharge only to be rebuffed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Reports of Waxman's claims were even published in WaPo, but no mention is made in today's story of the earlier charges and their denial.

The inference, of course, is that Bush and his cronies are dutifully minding the purse, when the opposite is true. They're pulling their hands from the cookie jar only when mommy catches them--and then claiming they were only counting the cookies.

This can be expected. But it's not expected that the press would let them come away from the report looking like auditor-heroes.

There's bad news and there's bad news

The failure of the summit of the European Union to reach a compromise on a constitutional provision dealing with voting power could have disastrous effects on the viability of the EU, particularly as it nears the date when a large bloc of east European nations is about to join. The deadlock pits France and Germany, in particular, against Spain and Poland, the former wanting a voting system that takes into account their greater populations (like our House of Representatives) and the latter wanting to stick with the method that counts each nation's vote equally (like our Senate). (A note: The split parallels those nations' attitude toward the US invasion of Iraq. Coincidence?)

This failure affects the US directly, it seems to me. A robust EU, with a strong economy, a large and vocal population, and political influence could operate as a counterweight to the US in world affairs, could contain the out-of-control pickup truck that Kyle describes below. Without it (witness the recent war in Iraq, where it was split severely on the advisability and propriety of US policy) our nation can blunder on with impunity.

Some say the Cold War was less dangerous than now because the two blocs contained each other. I'm not certain of that, but I am certain that with Bush at the wheel and no cops on patrol, get the hell off the road!

Boomerang Boneheads

I can't agree that this is the most ugly event in American history. I think the Civil War will always hold that title. But Jan 2001 to the end of the Bush fiasco may go down in history as a close second. We are living in a time of insanity. This Administration is a big menacing pickup truck, tearing across the ranch and loosing lug nuts and hubcaps in every direction. How long before we're running on the rims? Are we now?

I don't think George W. Bush is really at the wheel at all. I think he's sittin' on the hood, takin' potshots at trees and hollerin' at the cattle. So who's drivin'? Beats me, but that ol' rattlesnake Rumsfeld has run roughshod long enough. Time for that boy to turn in his spurs.

"It is equal to live in a tragic land to live in a tragic time."
--Wallace Stevens

Bush's "peurile taunts"

WaPo's essay about the substance of my "Bring 'em On Redux" post says it all. The "incoherence" of Bush's handling of "postwar" Iraq (in addition, of course, to his monstrous invasion in the first place) has finally gained some traction.

Maybe the Bush-lovers don't care how many young Americans die in Afghanistan and Iraq, or how many Afghanis and Iraqis are killed by our troops. Maybe they don't care how mad it is to try to impose our version of democracy on a populace that yearns to govern itself, in its own way. Maybe they don't care how many tax dollars are burned up in support of our supposed war on terr'r. But this, by God, they care about: Fraud, corruption and waste of our tax dollars.

Here's what I think. This Halliburton/BKR overcharge issue is going to open up the entire question of the misuse of our money in Iraq, the failure to use Iraqis and their business for rebuilding, the skimming of dollars for unnecessary bureaucracy and paperwork, etc. I think we have a real scandal in the making, which, together with the rebuff Bush gave to France, Germany, Russia and Canada in the rebuilding contracts, could turn the tide against this most ugly event in American history.

Time for a bit of Humor?

Care to end your worried week on a light note? Here are a bunch of signs spotted at the peace march in Washington in January. And if you get to the bottom and go to page 4, there's a handy list of the differences between the US Govt and the Terr'rists. It helps to be able to keep them straight.Topplebush.com Humor section

And remember, It takes a worried man to sing a worried song.

"Bring 'em on" redux

From The Independent:

Bush laughs off critics of 'spoils of war' bidding
George Bush poured fuel on the flames of the Iraq contracts dispute yesterday with a sneering dismissal of a suggestion by the German Chancellor that the decision to bar Germany, France Russia and Canada from bidding might violate international law.

"International law? I'd better call my lawyer," the American President joked in response to a reporter's question at the White House.

The lunatics are running the war on terr'r

We drop bombs on kids in Afghanistan (again). We spend millions of dollars to train Iraqi troops, only to have one-third of them desert before they see duty. We announce that the upcoming contracts for "rebuilding" Iraq will be delayed, after massive complaints about the Pentagon's decision to allow only coalition countries to bid on them; on the next day, we ask the same countries we excluded to forgive Iraq's debt to them. We direct the Iraq ministry to stop tallying the country's war dead.

Meanwhile, our dead are piling up, killed by "toy cars, Coke cans and animal carcasses."

A diversion

Even I, an inveterate Bush-bashing websurfer, need an occasional vacation, and so I surf over here, where all is revealed.

Many of you have already found the site, I'm sure. Those of you that haven't--enjoy. But don't forget to come back here if you can pull yourself away.

Consider the source

It's arch-conservative, Bush-backing William Kristol, in a WaPo column--and he lucidly points the way to a Dean victory over Bush in 2004. He doesn't wish it, of course, but he demonstrates that it could indeed happen.
Read it and rejoice!

I persist in doubting the obvious

The latest madness: The Pentagon (Wolfowitz) has determined to exclude from bidding on Iraq reconstruction contracts any companies from nations that didn't support our invasion, most notably, by name, France, Germany and Russia. Part of the payback that Colin Powell warned them about.
I am amazed, again, again, at the audacity--the unvarnished, arrogant exercise of power--of this Administration.
I am amazed even more that I am amazed. I feel like the Jewish family in prewar Germany who kept saying, "It'll blow over," "They don't really mean it," and "They wouldn't dare." Well, next time I doubt, even for an instant, the utter evil of these madmen, please, somebody, hit me over the head with something--preferably soft, however, like a paperbackcopy of Mein Kampf.

An afterthought: Shouldn't the Iraqis have something to say about this?

Just Another Day of Capitalist Empire

Let's see.
Halliburton just got another $1 billion extension in its Iraq "reconstruction" contract--the third delay, to the dismay of its competitors who are still cut out of bidding.

The US Army is using Israeli special forces to train our troops in counterterroism tactics in Iraq. That's sure to calm Islam's doubts about our intentions.

The US Army is launching a massive assault in Afghanistan to dislodge the re-emerging Taliban forces.

The "Coaltion forces" in Iraq have jailed unfavorable locally-elected officials and are keeping them incommunicado in prison, unavailable for interview even by the network media, such as Sixty Minutes.

The Pentagon is seeking to establish new military bases in India and Pakistan to establish positions closer to "unstable areas."

Meanwhile, the dollar slides to new lows against foreign currencies, so that it now takes almost $1.225 to buy a euro. One effect of this 40% gain in the cost of foreign currencies is, of course, to imprison Americans here. No escape to Europe, the Far East, Australia--anywhere--at these rates.

A strongman with a moustache

A leading Australian newspaper predicts this develpment: The abandonment by the US of the creation of a "democratic" regime in Iraq in favor of rule by a single leader or group of tribal chieftans, a la the British means of imperial dominion. The "realists" in the Administration have taken charge over the Wolfowitzers, and have decided upon a course that will cause us to withdraw our troops "with dignity" to avoid the constant killings and yet maintain control over Iraq's resources.

It'll be amusing to observe Condi and the gang at work, shifting the rhetoric and with it the public's expectations, here and in Iraq.