Dear Sen. Obama: Why I Can't Vote For You -- Reason #2: I Opposed The Iraq War, But Not Like You

Dear Senator,

I bid you peace.

You and I are nearly the very same age; I am your junior by only a few weeks. So, like you, I know the sort of military and international anxieties American youths felt growing up in the 1960s and 1970s. In fact, I may even understand them better than you, since I did not live abroad, as you did, for any of my childhood.

With that said, you and I both opposed the Iraq War. I surely did. But you and I were against it in two very different ways.

In 2003, when the Iraq "War" began, you were a mere state senator in Illinois, which means you were essentially no closer to understanding the conflict than the average citizen, and I am an average citizen (actually, I am a below-average citizen). My opposition to the conflict was rooted in Just War Theory, latent Christian pacifistic ideals to which I held, and the belief that the Islamic terrorist threat was capable of being addressed on diplomatic terms. But my opposition was also rooted in humility: I COULD NOT know what the President of the United States, his cabinet, and his closest handlers, knew. In short, I was self-aware enough to know my limitations. I would defer to the professionals, those who were "inside."

Hence, my opposition to the war was by definition, if you will, open to change. I was willing to learn; to adapt to "conditions on the ground." After all, I was not elected president, nor was I privy to all those things that American presidents are privy. Nor was I ever in a position to treat my opinions as absolute. How could I be? What, pray tell, did I know?

But you, dear sir, have even recently admitted once again that you have been utterly consistent about Iraq being the wrong war. Let me return to this in a second. First, I have this to say about myself.

It was not until I learned of the "Iraq Liberation Act" signed in 1998 by Bill Clinton in which he called for regime change in Iraq that my heart and mind began to change (sometime after the start of the 2003 invasion). Perhaps the shock of 9/11 had dulled my senses; perhaps I had forgotten even recent history. Perhaps I forgot such things as those outlined here:

• In 1980, President Jimmy Carter created the Carter Doctrine. That Democratic Party leader's doctrine said, in part, that the United States would use military action to protect the nation's interest in the Middle East and Persian Gulf.
  
• In 1991, George H. W. Bush, following the Carter Doctrine, led Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm to protect American interests in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia by reversing Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait.
  
• In 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore's campaign for president against rival George H. W. Bush included broad and damning criticisms of Bush's bungling of the first Gulf War. Both Democrats argued that Bush had coddled terrorists; that Bush had failed his country and the world by not removing the regime of that "grave threat," Saddam Hussein.
• Once Bill Clinton won the White House, it was his administration that ramped up sanctions and military actions against Iraq. Clinton would handle Hussein: he would either be replaced or contained. (Moreover, I like to remind people what they have forgotten, namely, that there was virtually not one single day from 1991 to the end of the Clinton administration's final term, or more than 8 years, that the US was NOT in some type of military conflict with Iraq. The current "war" is not 5 years old, but 17.)
  
• During the entirety of the Clinton administration, the US flew more sorties against Iraq than were flown during the first Gulf War. And let us not forget the two major operations run in 1996 and 1998, Operation Desert Strike and Operation Desert Fox, respectively.
• In 1998, Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act calling for regime change in Iraq.
• In 1998, Osama bin Laden issued his infamous fatwa against the United States, calling for the death of Americans everywhere. Bin Laden's biggest grudge? The continued abuse and oppression of the Iraqi people by the Clinton regime. (I like to remind people that the fatwa was issued under the Clinton administration.)
  
• In 2001, the fatwa of Osama bin Laden was dramatically obeyed on September 11.
• In 2002, as the 9/11 Commission was about to interview Bill Clinton's national security advisor, Sandy Berger, Mr. Berger went to the National Archives and stole allegedly original documents. Curiously, the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Berger had not stolen original and unprotected materials. He was fined $50,000, sentenced to 2 years probation, and had his security clearance revoked for three years. (A mere wrist slap.)
• In 2003, George W. Bush, following the Carter Doctrine and Bill Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act, began the invasion of Iraq.
• In 2007, former American member of the UN Iraq Weapons Inspection team, Scott Ritter, a popular (among the left) Bush critic and critic of the Iraq War, told Laura Knoy on New Hampshire Public Radio that the Clinton administration continously suppressed the findings of the weapons inspectors (the inspectors kept reporting that there were no weapons), because Clinton was concealing a "regime change" strategy under the cloak of weapons inspections. Ritter said that if the news of the Iraqi government's compliance with the demolition of weapons caches were published, the Clinton plan to remove Hussein would be doomed, as compliance meant reducing sanctions and penalties against Iraq.
  

You see, then, Senator, that there was much to remember about the Iraq "war", such things that are not one whit becoming to Democrats. In fact, the timeline is really something Democrats have every reason to want to forget. But the important thing I learned was that Iraq was deemed a central war front by Osama bin Laden himself. George W. Bush and his minions made no such declaration; Iraq was never a "distraction" to the greater war on terror. Osama bin Laden defined the front for America, as did both the Carter Doctrine and the Clinton Iraq Liberation Act.

My agreement with you today might be that what is debatable is actually the invading of Iraq. But when both the Carter and Clinton legacies seem to point in the direction of that very act, and when we have seen rather incredible success in a country your own party had declared lost and mired in civil war (where'd that war go?), I have to admit that I may have had things mixed up when I opposed the war. Don't get me wrong. I don't like war; I am not particularly bellicose. But that is just me: I will never stand in the way of those who freely choose to defend themselves in ways I may dislike.

Yet here's my larger criticism, and it is rather plain: You ran for president knowing that a wild success in Iraq would be disasterous for your candidacy. You went into this whole thing knowing that a glowing end to the Iraq conflict, one that ended in greatness and fanfare during George W. Bush's tenure, would diminish your alleged "prescience" tremendously. You persistently "stayed the course," following your own "the-war-was-wrong" narrative. You even demonstrated an incredible reluctance to admit your own myopia and fallibility regarding the "surge," which John McCain practically designed. The best you could do was to decry it with praise: saying that it succeeded beyond anyone's wildest expectations meant simply that everyone was wrong. That sort of praise, of course, is not an admission, but it is protection. Such protection though is rather thin, for your position and posturings have left me with an incredible insecurity: knowing as you did that a success in Iraq would hurt you, I can't help but think that you HAD to have rooted against it, at least secretly. My sad cynicism is indeed so very sad that I am even willing to consider the possibility that you worked to undermine the war's success at every political turn. How could you possibly hope for something that could be to your ruin? What evidence is there that you ever REALLY did fight on behalf of the war; what evidence is there that you did not root against it?

I spoke with a friend who is seeking reelection to the NH legislature (his wife and mine are quite close). He is a liberal Democrat and one of your supporters. He shared how discouraged he is by the constant breaks in the legislative calendar and the leadership shake-ups that occur any given year. Continuity and consistency, he averred, were tantamount to creating decent domestic policies. And he agreed with my observation that America's penchant for changing its top leaders so frequently, every four years (or eight), meant that American foreign policy can be rendered feckless, appearing incoherent, contradictory, and capricious as the country goes this way, then that way, and then a completely different way, all within perhaps a decade. The world's calendar is not often ours.

So, in light of the fact that we have before us gargantuan struggles both foreign and domestic, and in light of the fact that you have shown me that you've not one tidbit of competence in such grave matters (you've given me no idea or resumé by which I can determine how you will decide or even IF you can make a decision), I cannot vote for you when America is at war and in crisis. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds; but a wise consistency is the very marrow of excellence. America needs someone who could not ever have generated in even one voter the thought that a candidate for president may have hoped against the war efforts of his or her own nation. This country needs someone who has a proven record of decision-making, not dream-making. Since the only clear decision you have made is to run for office; and though it is not even clear your decision was even your own and not one made by a committee of your ambitious backers, I conclude, again, that I cannot vote for you.

Of course, I've already said this five times. Forgive the redundancy.

Peace this night, and always.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

On 9/11: Rosie O'Donnell and Building 7, Imploding

It may very well be true that we in fact battle against those in high and lofty places, but it is clearly not true that those who sit in such esteemed heights are one whit lofty. Take Rosie O'Donnell, for example. There is nothing particularly outstanding about this woman; there is nothing that would lead any of us to think that she is even particularly gifted. When I think of Rosie, I think of luck more than I think of brains, talent, or even brawn. One wonders where Ms. O'Donnell might be without her connection to Madonna, that diva known widely around the world for her nice, tight, erudite acumen.

In the truest expression of the spirit of this age, Ms. O'Donnell brings to us her perspective on the World Trade Center "attacks" of September 11, 2001: the buildings did not fall according to the laws of physics (or something like that). Instead, it appears that the buildings were felled by internally-placed explosive devices (not that Ms. O'Donnell knows much about internally-placed explosive devices [Sorry. Dreadful joke].) But we can at least find humor in the seriousness of this comedienne; the court jester is earnest. Of course we all know what trouble there is in being earnest, but we shall leave that for another time.

At issue, or so Ms. O'Donnell points out in her blog entry, wtc7, is the curiously aberrant collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. Conspiracy theorists and other 9/11 "scholars," you see, have pointed out that the building could not have collapsed on its own footprint because the fires afflicting it, which have been officially cited as cause of the collapse, were not symmetrical. In other words, for a structure like Building 7 to collapse so perfectly into itself by fire, the fire would have to be evenly distributed throughout the steel-framed building.

Also at issue are assertions that fires of the sort that ripped through the building could not melt steel framing. Add to this reports that witnesses saw plumes of smoke billowing out from the building during collapse, plumes allegedly compatible with detonations, and then blend in some emergency radio comments transmitted during the day, and, well, you've got a major conspiracy.

I will not venture into the science here, though it seems that even a lay person could come up with some pretty compelling explanations. What I would like to focus on is the simple fact that the building collapsed at 5:30 pm, more than eight hours after the very first whiff of jet fuel wafted over Church and Liberty.

And I also want to point out, if but for a second, that not a single person was killed -- or even reported injured -- when that building finally fell.

_________________
What Manner Of Conspiracy Is This?

Let us ignore the fact that if 9/11 occurred at all like it is suggested in the paranoid internet documentary, Loose Change, (see this, or this) then we're dealing with a conspiracy that included hundreds, if not thousands, of people. This requires us to suspend our adherence to what we know to be the cardinal law of crime: If you want secrecy, do your dastardly deeds alone. I think we would all agree that if O. J. Simpson had 1,000 accomplices assisting him with his wife's beheading, he would be serving time in San Quentin right this minute.

We can suspend or accept all the truisms and facts we want, but we cannot suspend the very real fact that this conspiracy proves only one thing: What a lousy conspiracy this is.

Let me ask you: If you have rigged a building with bombs intent on killing and maiming as many people as possible, why would you choose to detonate those bombs when everyone was safely away from that building? How is it that you could only manage to generate a great cloud of dust and a silly conspiracy theory? Why, pray tell, would you not drop the building when its occupants were spilling onto the streets, or when tens of thousands of people stood on the pavement looking skyward? How, too, do you broadcast your intent so blatantly; how is it that the fire department was able to declare that the building was going to collapse and that everyone should clear the area? And how do you manage to drop the building when nary a newscaster had his or her camera trained on the area?

Ah, perhaps there is a reason for such bungling. Perhaps the charges failed to go off at the proper time; perhaps there was a problem. Fair enough, we might conclude, but then we have to ask how it was that the bombs could be later detonated so sequentially, if, as everyone knows, ALL THE ELECTRICAL POWER was shut off for hundreds of city blocks.† Did some stealthy crew spool out wire disguised as a fire hose; did a crew spend some 8 hours (climbing over rubble, too!) reconfiguring the schematics -- and the scheme -- so that the buildings could be plunged down manually?

Really, the view from Rosie's high seat is breathtaking.

__________________
Let us ignore the fact that over 210 acres of debris fell from the sky that September morning. Let us forget that when those first buildings fell in Manhattan, they did so with such force that seismographs moved in Maine. Let us forget that the World Trade Center plaza was built on fill; let us forget that the entire plaza was built over six floors of malls, restaurants, garages, and subway tunnels; let us forget that the ground moved like jelly. Let us forget that each of the buildings was designed to implode by architects who knew that someday the buildings might need to be removed. Let us forget that jet fuel burns away nearly instantly; that fires burned bright that day from gases released from countless carpet fibers, sheets of paper, plastics and woods and varnishes; that fires, drawing torrents of rushing air through narrow passages like elevator shafts, will generate heat aplenty, heat like a blowtorch, local and lethal to flesh, bone, and steel.

Let us forget all this and ask the simple question: Why drop Building 7 at all, and why at 5 o'clock at night?

_______________
Why, Of Course! (Or is that "way off course?")

According to Ms. O'Donnell, there is an answer to our question: the collapse of Building 7 was meant not to destroy people. It was meant to destroy evidence. You know, papers, files, tapes, you know the deal. Come on, you know! Data was destroyed, data that would NOT AT ALL BE DESTROYED IN A COLLAPSE!

Isn't it the case that FIRE destroys the very things Ms. O'Donnell would have you believe were ruined in an intentional implosion (one that could have easily smothered the very fires that would be most effective in destroying incriminating evidence)? It seems obviously true that fire is a vandal's best friend. Why implode? Ah, we'll never know.

And, lastly, who is it that is (most likely) responsible for this great conspiracy? That's right. George W. Bush.

(Alas, not that anyone has ever wondered if the Clinton Administration could have orchestrated 9/11. I mean, it is clear at the very least that the 9/11 attacks were being planned well before George W. Bush stole the presidency. Clinton minion Sandy Berger scooted off with what from the National Archives?! Never mind.)

Here's the fact about 4 planes crashing on the American landscape that fateful day in 2001, written in language Ms. O'Donnell will understand: Bush flied, people died.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

†Perhaps the building was rigged with bombs set to trigger with a mere cell phone call, or some other remote device. That cell coverage was gone in Lower Manhattan is well-known, so we'll have to rule that out. But even if the building was detonated via remote switches, we must ask how it is that the master-minds would have been comfortable with their plan: In the fiery chaos of 9/11, a series of linked bombs could have been -- and surely must've been -- compromised. This problem remains even if we accept the idea that the bombs were on a timer: surely some part of the layout of bombs had to be damaged by fire and debris. But if we admit this, then we admit that if only some bombs detonated, they would have done so asymmetrically. If that is the case, how could asymmetrical detonations cause a building to fall straight down if we have already concluded that only symmetrical explosions could have that effect?

On Politics: The Voice Of Scott Ritter, The Iraq War, And Culpability

Scott Ritter, the former Marine and UN weapons inspector, was in town the other day, and I missed him. But I did not miss his interview with Laura Knoy, New Hampshire Public Radio personality and host of "The Exchange." And it was good that I did not miss it, for Mr. Ritter stated something so rarely heard that it is nearly heroic in its startling frankness.

Some readers here know that I have long held that the Iraq War is really -- at the very least -- now 17 years old. The Iraq conflict has roots in the first Bush administration; that administration led a large coalition of military forces into Kuwait and southern Iraq in Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Recall that part of the first George Bush's military stategy was to enlist world support by promising that the US and its allies would not enter Baghdad to depose Saddam Hussein. Of course, George Bush the First was defeated by a little known governor from Arkansas, Bill Clinton, in 1992; that popular Democrat would oversee the bombing of Iraq and enforce the near-draconian economic sanctions against that poor country for 8 years. Besides at least two military operations led against Iraq by President Clinton -- Operation Desert Strike (1996) and Operation Desert Fox (1998) -- President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act (1998), which called for "regime change" in Iraq, and he was the commander in chief when Osama bin Laden issued his death to "all Americans" fatwa, the very fatwa that led to the horrific and devastating attacks of September 11, 2001.

Excuse the history lesson, but it is imperative I repeat all this again -- and again. This morning, for the 1000th time, I read another letter to the editor in which it was stated, with all the pompous certainty of a sage on a cliff-top, that there was no connection at all between Iraq and 9/11. Of course, readers of this blog know that in fact there was a causal connection between those two things - a nation and a fateful day: Osama bin Laden attacked the US on 9/11 for its continued oppression of Iraq. He said so himself.

But that is not what is so enlightening in the refreshing (though incomplete) words of staunch Bush AND Clinton critic Scott Ritter. Unfortunately Ritter fails to make this simple connection between Iraq and 9/11; he is perhaps blinded to it by all the absurd rhetoric proffered by nearly everyone calling themselves liberal or Democrat. Even a couple of days ago, US Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), said from the Senate floor -- with all the finality of a renegade scientologist -- that America "in truth, [is] fighting a war with no cause." Cheered as a hero by her fans, Ms. Murray can only receive from me a sighing jeer, for she knows not what she is saying at all. (A war with "no cause?" Perhaps Ms. Murray can enlighten us all to the nuances of her ontological theory on causeless actions as a keynote speaker at the next DNC convention.) Perhaps the blindness of Ms. Murray has blinded more folks than Scott Ritter, but that is beside the point. The point is that Mr. Ritter debunks with one fell swoop the idea that the current Iraq conflict is "Bush's War."

Here is what Mr. Ritter said on Wednesday during a live interview on NH Public Radio. I have transcribed it directly from the NHPR website's podcast feature found at this link. Note that the context is Mr. Ritter's conviction that the United States is poised to begin aerial assaults on key Iranian targets; Mr. Ritter was in New Hampshire promoting his forthcoming book, Target Iran.

[minute 14:16]

Laura Knoy (LK): You said that your concern started under the Clinton Administration. Just briefly, Scott, what were your concerns back then about US Middle East policy?

Scott Ritter (SR): Well, in particular about Iraq, the main concern was that we had a policy of regime change disguised as a policy of disarmament that --

LK: So regime change has been on the books for a while, it’s not just President Bush?

SR: Absolutel-- it’s been, it’s been ingrained in American policy objectives in the Middle East for decades now.

LK: And with Clinton, you said that it was a policy of regime change disguised as inspections. Can you just briefly explain what you mean there, because, again, I don’t think some people would know what the connection is.

SR: After the First Gulf War, the United Nations at the behest of the United States imposed economic sanctions on Iraq that were linked to Iraq’s disarmament obligation. The deal was if Iraq disarmed, the sanctions would be lifted. From an American policy perspective, the sanctions were about the containment and destabilization of Saddam Hussein until which time he could be removed from power. Inspections work if they help push that policy along by showing that Iraq is not in compliance. The danger comes when inspections start to show that Iraq is complying, and that’s what we were starting to do as inspectors; showing that Iraq was disarmed: We [the inspectors] became the threat to US policy. So the US interfered with the inspection process to denigrate what we were doing in order to continue the policy of sanctions-based containment leading to regime change. The Clinton Administration always talked about supporting the inspectors, supporting disarmament, but that wasn’t their policy. Their policy was regime change. The inspections actually became the enemy. We saw this with Bush in Iraq leading up to the war, where we had inspectors on the ground contradicting every piece of information the CIA put out about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. If we were truly concerned about disarmament, we would have let the inspectors do their job. The policy was regime change.

LK: And now make the connection with Iran, again: inspections as a cover for the real goal which was regime change.

SR: It’s the exact same pattern played over again. The case for military intervention is being made based on a weapons of mass destruction-type threat being brought out from Iran, in this case nuclear weapons. We have inspectors on the ground; their reports are published at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s website accessible by everybody. Read the technical reports; the IAEA clearly states that there is no evidence whatsoever coming from their work that sustains the allegations that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program --

[emphasis added, as was link to IAEA]

While Mr. Ritter fails to make the Iraq/bin Laden/9-11 connection I have repeatedly made here, he nevertheless jars the New Hampshire audience with his blunt words: Bill Clinton was NOT trying to appease and contain Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The Clinton theoria was inspections; but its praxis was always regime change. And THAT is why Osama bin Laden issued his death decree to all Americans during Bill Clinton's presidency: Clinton was unduly oppressing the Iraqis not because he wanted them to disarm, but because he wanted something more.

And that is why I believe the revisionists who deny this real and indisputable connection are treasonous. They may love their country -- whatever national ideal it is they adore -- but they are undeniably traitors of the truth.

By the way. When did Scott Ritter resign as a weapons inspector? That's right. In 1998, the year the proverbial crap hit the Clinton fan. And this Wikipedia entry (we are all aware that Wikipedia is not infallible) is great reading, especially in light of current political posturing and campaigning:

On September 3, 1998, several days after his resignation, Ritter testified before the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services and the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."

During Ritter's Senate testimony about the inspection process, Senator Joseph Biden [D-MD] stated "The decision of whether or not the country should go to war is slightly above your pay grade." Senator John McCain [R-AZ] later rebutted by stating that he "wished that the administration had consulted with somebody of Ritter's pay grade during the Vietnam War."

The adage is true. You can't make this stuff up at all.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

There Is No Bias:saiB oN sI erehT

George W. Bush is your worst enemy; we all know that W stands for Warmonger, and that hidden in his first name is a slightly twisted ogre. Bush the Menace.

Or so says Newsweek.

Shake your head to clear your eyes, if you must, as you look at Newsweek's newest cover: that is Bush the Bellicose glaring Middle-Eastward, eyes like warheads aimed at the Persian Prince of Peace.

One thing I am certain of is this: that in Iran, Newsweek's headline is not "The Hidden War with Iran." Instead, the Tehran edition is headlined thusly: "The Hidden -- and not so Hidden -- War with America." Wait. No. Scratch that. How foolish of me. Newsweek has it right: 'Tis Bush who has been boasting about his nation's great fate; about the absurdity of the Holocaust and the porcine Jews† who hold the earth enslaved by a mythology that fuels Zionism's many fires. 'Tis Bush who wants to usher in the New Age of the 12th Imam, a caliphate and an Eden somewhere between the Tigris-Euphrates and the edges of the earth. The four angels guarding the ancient gates of Eden are relieved of their weary duty; all through Persia run rivers of gold rhetoric, and there waters are Mahdi: peace is indeed rolling, like the thunder of nuclear detonation. And Bush shall lead us home: he is the Bush that burns with war and never leaves.

Alas, again, I am mistaken, even delirious. My first response to the Newsweek cover was utterly errant. It is not the crazed man to the left who is warring against you, me, the very foundations of Western thought. No, it is Bush. The man on the right. You know, the wrong man on the Right; the Christian Right, all broken and jumbled up, full of petty menace, and all very wrong.

Newsweek and MSNBC, allies under the same Great Peacock, can't expect us to divine -- without their journalistic help -- that Mr. Ahmadinejad, ever speaking in gracious and dulcet tones, is a man of peace with sober eyes and waiting smile.

Perhaps the 12th Imam is that man from Illinois, who has fallen from the sky. His name means "blessed."

Peace.

BG

†This is not to be construed as an anti-Semitic slur on my part. I aim to faithfully and sardonically report Mr. Ahmadinejad's attitude.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

¶ Of The Day

A new Contratimes feature? Maybe. But today I submit the first ever Paragraph, or ¶, of the Day.

Check this out from today's Washington Post editorial, "Congress's Iraq Quagmire":

ON TUESDAY nearly every member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee warmly endorsed Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, and a number wished him success or "Godspeed" in his mission. Yesterday some of the same senators voted for a resolution that opposes the increase of troops for Gen. Petraeus's command -- even though the general testified that he could not accomplish his mission without the additional forces and hinted that such a resolution could encourage the enemy. Such is the muddle of Congress on Iraq: A majority may soon go on record opposing the new offensive in Baghdad even while encouraging the commander who leads it. [Emphasis added solely to incite incredulity everywhere]

Such fun!

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Jamie Glazov & Dinesh D'Souza On Islam, 9/11, And The Radical Left (Updated)

We all hear a lot about "dialogue" and "debate"; about talking together through difficult issues. Currently we are hearing this sort of rhetoric coming from the "new" US Congress; some of us Episcopalians in New Hampshire are STILL waiting for the great dialogue promised three years ago by our controversial bishop.

I must say that the sort of dialogue exemplified between Jamie Glazov and Dinesh D'Souza in their two-part conversation at FrontPageMag is reassuring and inspiring: here are two thinkers, conservative and academic, who disagree profoundly. And yet there is a gentlemanly quailty that prevails throughout; and there is no shortage of interesting parries and thrusts. Both men score points; and I give the win to Mr. Glazov. Part of that small victory, unfortunately, comes as a result of Mr. Glazov slipping into a monologue for which, it appears, Mr. D'Souza is absent. But that hardly matters, since Glazov is amazing on his own.

This really is an excellent series. Take time to read it if you are at all interested in Mr. D'Souza's thesis that it is American liberalism, the radical leftist sort, that led to 9/11 and America's current standoff with Islam. Mr. Glazov issues a very serious and compelling challenge; Mr. D'Souza makes a few worthy rebuffs. Part 1 is here, and Part 2 is found here. From Abu Ghraib to sexual immorality, from Moses to Muhammed, this series offers key insights.

And make sure you take time to read Mr. David Forsmark's challenging review of Mr. D'Souza's new book, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left And Its Responsibility For 9/11.

Peace.

BG

More Awards; The Empty Keg Award For Story Of The Year, 2006

In keeping with my promise that I shall list my awards for best and worst of 2006 (categories determined on a whim), I would like to announce the winner of the monumental -- and very first -- 2006 Empty Keg Award for Story of the Year. It is a simple award, and it is thoroughly a disappointing one. After all, what could be more disappointing than an empty keg?

Sadly, I have no idea to whom I should give this fine honor. For it has two distinct winners, and yet both stand at opposite ends of the story. On the one end is the main stream media in America (and its European counterpart), while on the other is the Bush Administration. The former deserves accolades for wresting away and gaining control of the most important story of our time; and the latter deserves the award for letting the media get away with it. The story? Well, that is simple: The story is the genesis of the Iraq Conflict. And the Empty Keg goes to all those who repackaged history, who accepted that history, and permitted that history to become normative. Just read this clip from a recent CBS News/60 Minutes interview with President George W. Bush (the president was interviewed by reporter Scott Pelley at Camp David):

PELLEY: You know better than I do that many Americans feel that your administration has not been straight with the country, has not been honest. To those people you say what?

BUSH: On what issue?

PELLEY: Well, sir . . .

BUSH: Like the weapons of mass destruction?

PELLEY: No weapons of mass destruction.

BUSH: Yeah.

PELLEY: No credible connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

BUSH: Yeah.

PELLEY: The Office of Management and Budget said this war would cost somewhere between $50 billion and $60 billion and now we're over 400.

BUSH: I gotcha. I gotcha. I gotcha.

The sentence in bold is highlighted as a perfect exemplar of the Great Revision. To which, incredibly, the president says, "Yeah."

For sheer fun, for the jolly folly of it all, let me remind readers that A) there was not one minute from 1991 to March 2003 that the United States was not in military conflict with Iraq; B) that President Bill Clinton received during his term in office news of a fatwa - drafted by Osama bin Laden in 1998 - which called for death to Americans everywhere; C) that the fatwa placed America's continued oppression -- directed by President Clinton -- of Iraq and the Iraqi people as the primary reason Americans should be killed; D) that in 1998 President Bill Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act calling for "regime change" in that tired country; E) and that the United States was attacked by Osama bin Laden in 2001 as a direct result of its bellicose posture towards Iraq (throughout the 1990's, the Clinton Administration bombed Iraq nearly every other day).

Thus, two things: The Iraq/September 11 connection is a causal one; and is so utterly credible it is incredible that anyone could be ignorant of this fact; and secondly, it is despicable that these historic facts have been permitted to drift into oblivion by the press and the president. And these are not the only facts in the case!

Nevertheless, because we at Contratimes have been wide-eyed and unblinking as we watched propaganda attain the status of absolute truth, we can with clarity of mind and soul pronounce that the 2006 Empty Keg Award for Story of the Year is well-deserved by many who walk this planet. I think the Empty Keg Award should be passed around like the Stanley Cup: first, it should go to the editorial offices of the New York Times, then to Keith Olbermann, and then to the White House. And I am sure Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean will want to share it with their many fellow revisionists.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

For some further commentary regarding Iraq, 9/11, and the 9/11 Commission Report, go here. Then there is my incomparable "Adam and Eve Must Have Been Neo-Cons."

American Moral Imperialism, And Its Western Allies

Only a fool would try to impose democracy on a backward nation. Only a dunce would attempt to impose Western democratic values on a country steeped in tribal strife. Only idiots would think a place like Iraq could ever be Westernized, even civilized.

But apparently it is sagacious to expect that an Iraqi criminal justice system executes its convicts humanely; it is couth and cool to demand that Iraq accepts that even the death penalty is barbarism.

Oh, the tedium of it all. America is grotesque for attempting to Westernize Iraq; while America's many critics laud themselves for attempting to Westernize Iraq. Once again, I am dulled by paradox. But something an Army major told me only days ago gives me some bearing in the whirling, conflicting rhetoric tossing so many of us to and fro. I will speak of that in a moment.

It is clear that the videotape of Saddam Hussein's hanging makes many of us squirm. The cold and impersonal gallows (the very ones Hussein used to execute prisoners); the chatty guards; the informality and undignified quality of it all; all of these combined to make Western observers faint. "Death with dignity" was not merely tossed aside, it appeared to many observers that Iraqis lack such a moral category.

Ever quick with voice and pen, Western human rights groups swiftly charged that Hussein's hanging was a "war crime." Italy, no doubt influenced by the enclave of the Holy See within its borders, called such violence barbaric, a charge that might be entirely true. But what is striking is that such rhetoric comes from people dripping with Western, even Christian values. These are critics quick to proclaim Iraq a lost cause spiralling into civil, tribal war; a place where Western values cannot be imposed; a place where such values might not ever even simply evolve. And yet Iraq should be more squeamish, less violent; in short, Iraqis should behave like Parisians, Londoners, and San Franciscans.

But lost on too many is the glaring fact that Iraq elected a government, forged a constitution, constructed a judiciary, and held a lengthy trial against Mr. Hussein. True barbarism would not have tolerated this for one second; barbarians would have lopped Mr. Hussein's head -- and perhaps other extremities -- from his body within hours of his capture. Instead, Iraq showed a restraint not often seen in that country for decades; and for this they are rebuked by the morally superior consciences of Europe, Washington, Manhattan.

While enjoying a bonfire at a party two nights before Christmas, I had a conversation with an Army major who had fought in Baghdad during its liberation in 2003. When US military personnel were working security in that city, the major revealed, Iraqis would be caught attempting to steal gas.

"We would take their gas cans and punch holes all through them," the major told me. "We'd tell them that they'd all get gas and there was no need to steal, and then we'd send them on their way. The Iraqis saw us as weak for doing this; but Americans would see this as a sign of strength. But it wasn't strong to the Iraqis at all. They would respect us if we had beaten them for stealing; but then, if we did that, we'd have their respect but not the respect of the people here in the United States. So we were constantly battling between whether we wanted the Iraqis to respect us, or the Americans."

Telling stuff, indeed. What is moral to American and Western sensibilities may be seen as immoral in Iraq; our strength is to them nothing but moral weakness. Moral authority that is couched in grace is not one whit authoritative to many in the Muslim world, or so suggests my friend the major.

But what astonishes me most in all of this is how aggressively the critics of "American imperialism" attempt to export American morality. It is its own form of imperialism. Curiously, either they do not see it as such, or they do not care to see it as such.

I guess it all matters on doing whatever is opposite of George W. Bush and his minions, dunces that they are.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Just Getting Old

I try to be thoughtful. Certainly there are a few of my readers who believe me to be anything but, and there is nothing I can do to prove otherwise. I haven't the energy to presume infallibility, or eternal clarity. I can only aspire, to dream, even to hope. But today is an exception, or so I sense in my gut; for my thoughts are all scattered about.

It may be very much the case that Saddam Hussein needed to die. It has been a long battle with his obdurate spirit, with his intractable ways. Lord knows that had Mr. Hussein shown a smidgen of humility, had he simply opened his country -- without games and shenanigans -- to the West for free and unfettered inspections, the Invasion of Iraq would not have ever occurred. Lord knows that there were countless murders under his regime: he even committed murder in the street when he was young, well before he came to power. He murdered members of his own family though he had promised them no harm. He was anything but charming.

Considering all that (and there is much more to consider), it nonetheless comes as a shock to wake up to news that Mr. Hussein is dead; that he has been hanged during the Muslim call to morning prayer.

Surely my sentiments are born out of my being too Western, or too effeminate, or too squeamish for such news. Surely I am too weak, too soft and pampered, to accept this sad tale. But the fact is that I do accept it. I just don't do so with any sort of elation or any sort of repose. This news comes as a harsh fact. It comes as a sort of spiritual blunt trauma to the soul. One is not to rejoice at the death of one's enemies.

Some of you may recall my argument against the death penalty (at least as it would be enforced in the United States). Some of you may also recall my reaction to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Today, in the quiet of this morning, I am reminded of those somber thoughts. And I am also reminded of what an emergency room doctor said to me when I had an ankle injury (peroneal subluxation) she was misdiagnosing right before my eyes. She told me: "No, no, no. There's no tendon there. You're just getting old."

She was wrong about the tendon.

Peace, somewhere, for but an hour.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Come Unto Me, All Ye Who Are Heavy Laden (with explosives), And I Will Give You Rest

They are neighbors. They pass each other on the street; they breath the same dusty air. And yet … and yet.

This morning, a large crowd -- men and boys searching for work -- gathers together to fight despair, anxieties subsiding a bit in such company. There is strength in numbers, target strength.

Suddenly, a wave of optimism, some cheering, some shouts of incredulity. Hope. "Follow me, I'll hire you!" The group moves this way, then that. Men press forward to get a chance at something. They gather round a minivan, a truck. Some get in.

"Yes! Yes! I have work for you! I will hire you. Come, come closer."

In a sadistic suicide flash, 60 people are dead. Over 200 are wounded. Shiites, the poorest, lay bleeding in a Baghdad street, their ears deafened by the sound of more bad news. All in a day's work.

These are the people we all hope to help in a very different way than the man with the van full of lies. Sadly, near yet another crater in the ground, day laborers will indeed gather for work, their compensation coming in bits of flesh. They pray for peace with their neighbor and yet only find a piece of their neighbor.

It is, really, a job that cannot possibly be done in a day.

(Today, prayers for lost sons, husbands, fathers, wives, mothers, daughters, and hope.)

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Baghdad, Suicide bomber, Peace, Day laborers, Iraq

Building Better Brain Bombs

[Every once in a while I post an essay that is really a reply to something that happened off-stage, so to speak. This is one of those moments.]

The other day I received an email from someone who felt that she knew me, my opinions, my own sense of what is true, right, wrong. I shall name no names, and I shall give nothing away here. But the writer suggested that I was being, well, dishonest; and if not dishonest, I was being inaccurate, even, perhaps, revisionistic. What startled me most, of course, was the intimation that someone I barely know knows me better than I know myself. And what I apparently did not know without the help of this particular interlocutor is that I have always supported the Iraq invasion spearheaded by George W. Bush.

It's curious what people claim to know. I can assure you that my wife took this bit of news as a surprise; she recalls trying to get me to change my mind about Iraq, insisting, for example, that I should read Why We Fight by Bill Bennett (she insisted again Friday night that I need to read it). I have not read that undoubtedly fine work, largely because I already have far too much to do as I promote war at every turn. But what I think is clear is that people mistake my strident defense of President Bush as somehow support for everything he stands for; but my defense is really a critique of the junk hurled his way. I have never been pro-war, but I have been very much anti-crap. And I believe this fact with all my heart: the leftists are the revisionists when it comes to the genesis of the Iraq invasion.

Some people cannot believe that Michael Richards is not, in fact, Jerry Seinfeld's fictional neighbor, Kramer; Mr. Richards created such a convincing character one is tempted to conclude that he and Kramer are identical (how jarring it is to learn that they are not). Great actors who loathe serial killings nonetheless convincingly portray serial killers. Great novelists who are anti-war nevertheless portray war in all its brutal accuracy, even without having actually served a moment in battle. Great defense lawyers posit great apologies on their clients' behalf, leading jurors towards a "not guilty" verdict that the defense lawyer himself would not ever reach. You get the point. Merely because I have argued against the arguments proffered against the war, it does not follow that I am for the war. I am merely against bad arguments.

I would urge readers, who are interested in my feelings about the war against Islamic fundamentalism, to read what I believe is my definitive statement as presented in my series, "The Most Important Question: On Inevitability And The War On Terror." Readers will discover what I believe is really at stake; and readers will note, too, that I was far ahead of the pretentious and leftist billionaire George Soros, underwriter of the Democratic National Committee, who -- in a silly essay I discussed here -- called for a change in metaphor when discussing the war on terror. (And as for the attempts by linguist George Lakoff to redefine the Iraq War as an occupation, see my comment #2 at MadMike'sAmerica in this thread.)

I have been quite consistent in challenging bad arguments. I have challenged the idea that pacifism is strictly forbidden in Christian orthodoxy. I have challenged the idea that peace is attainable in "Oscar Wilde, Seinfeld, And Peace That Eludes." I have challenged arguments that suggest that only liberal dissent is deemed unpatriotic. I have criticized arguments that the war in Iraq is a quagmire, or that its difficulty proves its foolishness, or that American troops would fare better with more armor. I have criticized Madeleine Albright. In fact, I have criticized many things here. But I have never opined that I support war.

Sadly, my critic(s) will probably not read my definitive series "The Most Important Question", no matter how much I implore them to. Nor will they probably bother to read my lengthy but sincere letter to America, drafted mere days after 9/11 (and posted at a new Contratimes auxiliary), to judge its consistency with the series mentioned above. They are free to define me as they deem most expedient for them. I offer no definitions about their personal beliefs, since I hardly know these folks. I shall respectfully leave them alone.

Lastly, the emailer described me as a bomb thrower. You know, a sort of intellectual terrorist, a kind of Molotov cocktail-tosser in the brain. I stand, apparently, in the same company as Ann Coulter or, well, no one else. My rhetoric is shaped merely to detonate in the midst of irrefutable logic (or so it is suggested).

I find the 'charge' amusing.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes -- All Rights Reserved.

When (Presidential) Character Is Assassinated

[Phew! I am back from a rather lengthy walk into waters I have not waded in since 1998. I will spare you the details. But I believe it all is ended (or ending) rather well. I mean, at least no one got hurt.

But there is something odd about a debate, really. It sure sharpens the mind, but does it do the cosmos any good? I mean, not a person will have changed his or her mind in the debate I just had elsewhere, right? Is there anything gained in such strivings other than to hone one's argument?

I can't answer this.]

[Added, 12.4.06: Just take a look at this Paul Krugman column (of The New York Times) and the subsequent comments thread. Emblematic? Perhaps. Eye-opening? You bet. Relevant to what follows? Indubitably.]

Today I think about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. You know who he was: that brilliant and lovely Christian scholar and theologian who was executed by the Nazis for his role in a failed assassination attempt of the Führer. I think about him because President Bush is in Jordan as I write.

You see, we have heard much rhetoric in this country (the United States) and the world that President George W. Bush is "worse than Hitler." He is the "most dangerous man on the planet." One world leader (so to speak), Hugo Chavez, has referred to Bush as Satan, and this as Chavez pretended to sniff the "sulphur" left by President Bush at the podium of the United Nations. Even officials of Venezuela have publicly declared that to call President Bush a Nazi is to disrespect real Nazis. Here's what Chavez and some of his countrymen said about the President after the midterm elections earlier this month (reported by FoxNews):

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez thinks the thumping Democrats gave the GOP isn't nearly enough punishment for President Bush.

He's calling for "the most severe sentence this planet has to offer" against the man he calls a "genocidal president."

This as Venezuela's National Assembly unanimously passed a resolution demanding that President Bush explain what it calls the "self-inflicted attack on the World Trade Center."

Venezuela's Foreign Affairs Commission took a different tack— it is calling a government-sponsored exhibition showing President Bush dressed as a Nazi storm trooper "unfair".... Unfair to the Nazis. A spokesman calls Hitler "a babe in arms compared to Bush."

And this is merely the rhetoric coming from a leader in the West. Think of what it is being uttered in the Middle East.

Now, sadly, many people believe this all to be true. I know a woman who lives nearby who has pasted to the bumper of her Volvo wagon "Bush/Cheney '04: Sieg Heil!" So I do not need to go far to find such nasty rhetoric. I am surrounded by it, and I am in New Hampshire. But if this all comes so easily to so many people, then it must be asked with all due candor: Should President Bush, since he is "worse than Hitler," be assassinated? Why, or why not?

I think of President Bush, and I strain myself to recall a single time I have heard any "hate speech" come out of his mouth. I don't know if I have even heard him besmirch his enemies: I beg readers to find one public slur the President has uttered against Hugo Chavez, for example. What about a particular race -- has the President slurred any racial group? Has he spoken genocidally?

What I believe is poised to happen, merely by the force of rhetoric released in the world and, most importantly, in this country, is the assassination of President Bush. He is the most endangered man on the planet. Sadly, it will be millions of his own countrymen who have stigmatized him as the anti-Christ. I would not be surprised to learn that someone outside this country felt that, in killing President Bush, the assassin was helping to deliver America from tyranny.

Today, the most hated man in the world is travelling through volatile regions. In this he shows incredible courage and, yes, leadership. His detractors claim the President and his family have not paid any price in the President's sending of troops to Iraq. But I have shown in this blog already that such claims are foolish and empty. The President invaded Iraq for this noble (but arguable) reason: freedom produces peace. He believes freedom and democracy are our best commodities to share with others; and that peace and democracy make great allies. Ironically, the President is trapped in paradox: the man who most vociferously spoke for freedom is the least free person in the world. George W. Bush, even if he is never assassinated, will NEVER be free again, nor will his family: they are surrounded by a prison wall of protection from which they will never emerge. And this because the President believes in freedom, democracy, and the liberation from tyranny. He has already paid an unbelievably high price. And the fomenters rage.

The rhetoric of the leftists in this country, rhetoric that has not once been softened or rebuked by Democratic leaders like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, is as acid and dangerous as Hugo Chavez'. And to think most of the leftists in this country voted for members of the Democratic Party a few weeks ago. Just ask yourself how many times you've heard a single Democrat go out of his way to denounce these hideous assaults on the President. What Democrat has defended Bush's honor, his integrity? (Joe Lieberman? the senator many Democrats denounced as well?) Let it be stated that the leftists believe Bush and Cheney are evil, evil incarnate. Let it be also stated that the many people who believe 9/11 did not happen as we know it did, actually believe George Bush and his minions orchestrated that awful attack; and let it be stated that these conspiracy-theorists also voted against Republicans a few weeks ago.

Thus, let us not be surprised to hear the worst possible news: The President of the United States, along with our Vice President, have been attacked. After all, there are people right next door to us who believe these men are worse than Adoph Hitler.

Why should I write this? Because I am begging everybody to stop sowing hate. And I am thinking that Bonhoeffer was very right about Adolph Hitler, and that Bush's haters are very wrong about him.

May nothing evil befall any President who chooses to preside over the United States. I am praying that no horrors shall come upon President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or any world leader. But what good are prayers when there are so many fomenters out and about, telling us that one simple man is the world's biggest problem?

Peace and safety to President Bush. May there be an end to hate speech. May there be no assassinations anywhere, or at any time.

Peace, I beg.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Bush, Chavez, Diablo, Assassination, Hitler, Bonhoeffer, hate speech, krugman

Preservation And Defense

Not long ago, two old farmers - a brother and sister - moved out of their family farmhouse: the last two surviving members of the Welch family had stayed at home as long as they could. They were each nearly a century old when they died a few miles down the road, beneath the flourescent light buzzing over a nursing home deathbed. But before they left this life, they bequeathed their farmhouse, and all of the surrounding land, to a conservation group: the old siblings did not want their legacy to fall into enemy hands.

Adjacent to the Welch's homestead, just east of the old rooming house, stood a clutch of barns. Inside one barn could be found the initials, carved into pine or painted in stove black, of every farmhand that passed through the farm dating back to 1865. It was clear that not a few workers took jobs at the farm several years in a row; others would be off to fight in some great war, never to return. There were chains and old scythes hanging in rusted silence; there were old tins on the wall; a set of old oars stood in a corner, crossed. It was a hall for the silent past, but a past that was not so silent if one but listened.

After the old couple died, I would walk the forsaken farm, taking pictures here and there. The photo above was taken along the northern wall of the old house, just off the ell. I could not help but take the photograph -- with the old lamp and bulb, the paper-wasps' nest tucked beneath the shade, the flecked paint, a lonely window and the ghostly imprint of old shutters -- all calling me to remember. But what seems silent is not at all; and what seems old is still rather new: the tap of hands on a window flung open, the smell of fresh paint on a horsehair brush, the piquant air of harvest. I hear children nearby, the shouts of farmhands heading to town with a wagon-load of milk; or the muted thud of boots beneath a dim lamp during heavy snows.

The conservation group which inherited the land, in response to fears and anxieties and sundry other modern maladies, decided that the best thing for the preservation of the old regime was for the new to vanguish the past. So the fire department was called. The volunteer fire corps practiced in the light of burning barns. They rescued smoke and soot. They aimed their hoses only after all memories had disappeared in the heat of a spark fanned bright by legal arson. Later, a bulldozer would level the old farmhouse. Soil was pushed here and there beneath the row of singed catalpa trees; a little monument was erected to remind stray visitors of the monuments that were burned and buried.

Occasionally I return to the old Welch farm. Nothing much remains, of course, but a few flecks of paint, a shard of glass, an ember pressed into soot. And the wasps nearby.

Peace.

Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Talking Their Language: John Kerry Tells A Joke With "Nuance"

I had not heard the story until today. I read about it in the recent column of Chicago Tribune essayist John Kass, and it sheds light on John Kerry and his Ohio loss in 2004. Kass reflects on that exciting time, just before Americans rushed the polls to cast their vote for President; Kass muses about sundry Kerryisms that may have not played well in the American heartland:

My absolute favorite Kerryism was the time he tried to sound like Jethro Bodine from the old "Beverly Hillbillies" TV show.

That's the one that cost him the presidential election in 2004, by losing him Ohio.

He dressed up in hunting gear so new there must have been tags hanging from the ankles. He had a shotgun, since the symbolism was about manliness, as he moseyed into a general store with several TV news cameras.

Kerry would purchase a hunting license and go hide in a field and let a guide shoot some geese, which another aide would carry so the senator could have the benefit of the symbolism without the responsibility of goose blood.

But first he needed the license. Yet instead of asking for one in a normal voice, Kerry inexplicably decided to use country dialect.

"Kin ah git me a hunting license here?" said Kerry, the country man.

The folks in the general store were frightened to hear an odd twang emanating from Kerry's Boston adenoids. Perhaps he thought that they weren't highly educated, and so he had to talk "their language."

One wonders whose language John Kerry was speaking on Monday when he said the following to a college crowd at Pasadena City College in California:

"You know education, if you make the most of it, and you study hard, and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Oops. Ouch. Bing, bang, bomb.

I recall John Kerry supporters in the last election cycle describing the Massachusetts senator as being more "nuanced" than his opponent, George W. Bush. And the quote above shows that they were absolutely right. The only real question, though, is how much nuance is good for the Democratic Party. For a prima facie viewing of Kerry's remarks, uttered, as they were, to college kids in the inner city (Pasadena City College enrollment data shows that minorities comprise 70.3 percent of the 25,000 students enrolled there; I found the data here; hispanics and Asian minority groups are ably represented), it is evident that most reasonable listeners would conclude that Mr. Kerry is saying that the dumb student ends up stuck as a soldier in Iraq. His juxtaposition of you (one would assume he means "you who are listening and are in school") with "smart" and "stuck" would indeed led credibility to the wild theory that Mr. Kerry is warning students that those who do not fare well in school end up as cannon fodder.

But we KNOW Mr. Kerry is too nuanced for such a misleading and unfortunate suggestion. What nuanced listeners realize, of course, is that Mr. Kerry is suggesting that if you are a poor student, like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld, then you WILL become stuck in Iraq. Of course, one wonders what Mr. Kerry might mean comparing his scholarly achievements with Mr. Bush's, since I showed last year that Mr. Kerry is a certain victim of his own rather average gossip.

It is all, in Mr. Kerry's own words, the result of a "botched joke." OK. That's fine. But it is also about an administration ripping Mr. Kerry's words out of context -- a city college full of minority kids most "vulnerable" to military recruitment (or so it goes) -- and distorting them for political ends, or so Mr. Kerry asserts. Odd that he should not have taken the high road here, bolstering his broad mythology, arguing that he is that man of the people who speaks their language with nuance and subtlety.

HERE'S SOME SUBTLETY

During Mr. Kerry's appearance on the Imus in the Morning program a few minutes ago, Mr. Kerry said two things that all of us have heard too often. In fact, we have heard them often enough to know that there is nothing in them.

In defending himself from charges that he insulted American troops, he said that the real insult is Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld, you see, should apologize for getting America stuck in Iraq, Mr. Kerry said; for it was Rumsfeld who "did not send enough troops [to Iraq]."

Later in the interview, Don Imus remarked that it was not just the White House that was damning Mr. Kerry's remarks. Even Sen. John McCain jumped into the fray with these not-so-subtle words:

“The suggestion that only the least-educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq is an insult to every soldier serving in combat today.”

In reply to Imus' little bomb, Mr. Kerry said that though he considered Mr. McCain a friend, he found McCain's comments unfortunate. "But the fact is," Mr. Kerry went on (I paraphrase), "John McCain has been a cheerleader for a failed policy, and McCain wants to put more troops in Iraq, as many as 100,000 more, and I do not believe we should do that because we do not even have that many troops, and more troops would attract more jihadists and terrorist attacks, resulting in more American military deaths."†

Now, I know you think I am making this all up, but I am not. Mr. Kerry is so nuanced that he believes Donald Rumsfeld should apologize for NOT sending more troops into Iraq, and Mr. McCain should apologize for wanting to send more. This paradox is a typical Democratic message; it says two contradictory things and pretends that people do not notice the absurdity.

Of course, this is all nuanced language, HIGHLY nuanced, the parlance of parlors in Beacon Hill. It is misunderstood, you see, by all us dolts who did not do well in school.

Peace.

†(UPDATE ADDED at 11:24 EST: If you would like to read what one decent guy thinks about the whole thing involving Kerry, and if you would like to hear Mr. Kerry's Imus comments for yourself, go to this blog for both.)

(PS. Thanks to blogger Amy Kane at Atlantic Avenue for finding the photo at the top of this post.)

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: John Kerry, Imus In The Morning, Kerry, Botched Joke, Iraq, Pasadena City College, minorities

Zacarias Moussaoui, Batman, And The Death Penalty

As the world watches to see whether America will issue the death penalty for Zacarias Moussaoui, the "20th hijacker", debate of the death penalty is once again center stage. Always eager for a good fight, I can't help but enter the fray. But in order to fully defend my position, I must invoke the help of the Dark Knight of Gotham, Batman. In the end, you shall see that my position will be that we either must kill vicious criminals, or we should let them go. And all this from a person who opposes the death penalty. Hold onto your hats: The roller-coaster you are on is called Paradox.

Specifically, to begin our ride I must invoke the climactic scenes of the 1989 Tim Burton film simply titled "Batman". Please recall with me what that engaging comic-thiller revealed to us (besides the fact that Jack Nicholson was predestined to be the Joker); that the Joker had cruelly and dispassionately killed Bruce Wayne's (Batman's) parents when Wayne was but a child. The set-up is powerful and stark, without subtlety: We demand justice, and so does Wayne. A predictable showdown occurs between Batman and the Joker atop a tall building; a fight ensues, the Joker realizing the reason for Batman's wrath just before he (the Joker) plummets to his death.

But holy penquin feathers, Batman! We are disappointed! Why? Because there is an essential element of justice that is lacking in this all-important climax. What is missing is self-consciousness: The Joker does not know, as he falls to his death, that he has lost and Batman has won; that injustice dies and justice lives on! How do we know this? We know this because, as the Joker begins his fall, he cleverly pulls Batman down with him (though the Joker has quite a head-start). But the Joker hits the pavement before he sees Batman make a dazzling self-rescue; and we, as viewers, are roundly disappointed, because we NEED to know that the Joker KNOWS of his abject defeat. To the Joker, Batman loses as well; the Joker laughs in the face of death, darkly gleeful that Batman is going down with him. For the viewing outsiders––the survivors, if you will––this is all utterly intolerable. Justice demands that the punished always lose. And yet at the end of that climactic scene, we hear a toy laughing from the jacket pocket of the dead-though-still-smiling Joker. The joke is on us.

Let us state the two possibilities about the after-life experience: Either there is consciousness after life or there isn't. If there is no consciousness after death, then there is no after-life experience at all: Death is nothing. Illustrative of this nothingness is something I learned when I asked a friend who was born without an eye what he saw: Was it just darkness? I asked him. No, he said, for darkness is a sensation. It's more like trying to see through the bottom of your foot, or out your elbow or back. There is just nothing. In other words, death without consciousness is as interesting as seeing, hearing and tasting with your shoulder blade; it is what your life was like before you were born, when you were less conscious than a stone.

And if there is a life after death, then we must immediately admit that we have entered the realm of religion: Science can tell us nothing about the beyond. There might be a heaven, there might be a hell; or there might be some self-less state of Being or a trolley full of souls heading toward reincarnation. But if there is consciousness after death, one might conclude that such consciousness includes knowledge that one is indeed dead.

Now, there is a problem with all of this; nay, there are several problems. For if there is no consciousness after death, then an executed criminal can never know he has died; he can never contemplate his having lost. For the dead criminal there is just nothing; there is no fear or remorse or contrition, and there are no tears. But most certainly there is no sense of death; there is no moment of helplessness, no loss of control. There is just ________. (There is even less than that.)

Hence, to kill a person in order to bring about justice fails miserably, like it did with the Joker, if the executed person cannot know they've been executed, cannot feel the pain of being severed from the living; cannot reflect on life without life. The death penalty thus fails, for it severs the criminal from pain (which we want to give him), and it separates him from the possibility of pain. In short, sending a criminal to the void is a gift to him: He is free from everything.

Hence, if there is no after-life, the only worthy punishment, the only place for remorse and pain and guilt to work their power, is on this side of the grave. The punishment is keeping a criminal alive.

I have heard or read, perhaps countless times, survivors of vicious crimes invoke the death penalty, that they want to see nasty criminals "Burn in hell"; that they'd "Let God deal with them", or that "The monsters should prepare to meet their Maker". Of course, all this might very well be true; there might be a God who metes out swift and thorough judgment on the murderous and depraved. But this is a religious idea. In fact, it could be argued that any capital punishment in America enfused with the idea of an after-life breaches the barrier erected between Church and State: An after-life is a religious and not a scientific or even secular idea. Thinking that death is the proper place to reform a criminal is a religious thought, not a legal or secular one. In short, the death penalty, though declared constitutional, may in fact contradict the US Constitution's First Amendment.

Just Deserts

So. What can I conclude thus far? I can conclude that executing someone based on the assumption that there is no self-consciousness after death (a good secular idea) emaciates justice, for justice demands self-awareness of guilt and just deserts: Death without self-reflection is liberation from justice. I can also conclude that executing someone in hopes of justice finding them in the after-life, perhaps in the court of God, is a religious idea that may violate secular proprieties; and that sending someone to God might also be a gift, for God, like Moussaoui's alleged God, might reward the executed with paradise.

With what then am I left? I am left with keeping a vicious criminal alive to punish him with the very secular and real justice of being conscious, of being alive in order to contemplate his doom and abject failure; to feel the loss of control every second of the day. There can be no greater torture for a murderer than to actually be––forever––a murderer; than to sit in a cell reminded in every instant of his mark of Cain. Life at least ensures the possibility of self-reflection, as it ensures that the criminal is not given the privileged peace of annihilation or the rewards of heaven.

But alas, we ride a crazy roller-coaster, and we find ourselves traveling upside down, forward, and yet, curiously we are moving backwards. For even those who oppose capital punishment (like the Roman Catholic Church, that great defender of human life, which opposes the death penalty with true Christian zeal), nevertheless embrace the death penalty. For imprisoning a particularly awful criminal for life (without the possibility of release) is just a different form of execution: It is just the slow execution of confinement. The life-sentence is just death by captivity. In fact, death by life-sentence might actually prolong a criminal's life, for he may be killed, if he were free, in a bar fight or car wreck. Life imprisonment is merely given the appearance of humaneness because it is slow. But the outcome is the same as any firing squad or lethal-injection; the prisoner dies at the hand of the State (it's just that the shackles are looser and there is no blindfold). There is no such thing as being anti-death penalty and yet pro-life sentences, for the two positions are identical in the final analysis. Time is the means to both ends, and there is nothing inherently just or humane in killing someone slowly rather than quickly. Death is death.

It seems, then, that the way out of the paradox is to let Zacarias Moussaoui, and others like him, free. But maybe not just yet. But if America executes him or locks him up it matters not: he will still die a martyr at the hand of the State. Somehow we need to find a way that does not give him and his ilk the gifts they desire.

Perhaps we need to get science to really do something scientific: Maybe we should keep bad guys alive forever, tormenting them every hour. Of course, that would be cruel. Too much like hell. We better not go there.

Really, what is needed is a dose of humility: What we are debating is how quickly the death penalty should be delivered. That's all. Moussaoui, in my opinion, should be given all the time he needs to reflect on his future.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: Moussaoui, death penalty, Capital Punishment

Weapons Of Miss Direction

New Orleans, Biloxi, the coast of Alabama. We think of you today. Blessings.

Miss Cindy Sheehan, whose personal life spins toward the soap opera-esque, has begged our attention, suggesting that people who support the fight in Iraq are "brainwashed." It is hardly an original observation she has offered. The "brainwashed" are everywhere: in churches, synagogues and mosques; on blogrolls and FoxNews; at NASCAR races and Toby Keith concerts; at symposiums on Intelligent Design.

But Miss Sheehan's observation is also reminiscent of something I would often urge my friends (and some students) to do when in the heat of a debate: Always be the first one to say "Well, I prefer to keep an open mind," thus securing for yourself a swift victory in the art of polemics. No one loses ANY argument if one secures the "high ground" of intellectual openness. Similarly, Miss Sheehan's observation is actually not so much an insult as it is a compliment–to herself. For she tacitly declares herself a member of the cognoscenti, the enlightened and clear-minded, the illuminati. The rest of us, well, we're just doltish cadavers with White-Housewashed brains, plodding like zombies toward the abyss. In contrast, if she is not all-knowing, she is at least complete and total in her understanding of foreign policy, war, and the clash of civilizations. All this with a round of applause from the prophet of perspicacity himself, Al Sharpton!

Of course, Miss Sheehan really wants us to lose our focus: she does not want us to look at the causes of the war; she wants us to look at the causes of her grief. And the causes of her grief are what she dismisses as the "false causes" of the war (see, she knows THE truth) which led to her son's death (who reenlisted for a return to Iraq, by the way, brainwashed as he was). That is why her question to President Bush–What "noble cause" did my son die for?– is so painful for her: Her mental advantage over the rest of us has determined that there is nothing for which her son died that could be considered noble. Her question to the president, in fact, is not really a question, as she has already found her answer. It is a rebuke, a declarative statement oozing with contempt and hostility: President Bush is a maker of zombies.

You of course already know the "causes" that are "false": weapons of mass destruction, Saddam's threat, Iraq's connection to 9/11, etc. Of course, each of these is viewed as false in the most logically fallacious way: If there is WMD, we will find them. We did not find them, THEREFORE there never were any WMD. It's like saying if there is a moon, I will see it when I look at the sky. I do not see the moon at this moment, therefore someone is lying about the moon. You see, the deficiency is not necessarily with the president and his minions. The deficiency may very well be with his critics. Their deficiency is due to a certain lack of humility; they lack healthy uncertainty.

So, in light of all this, I've spent some time just looking at the history of WMD inventories from Iraq. During my perusal, I discovered this interesting tidbit: in the mid-90s it was learned that prisoners were taken from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison (have you heard of that place?) and taken to facilities where chemical and biological weapons were tested on those prisoners. (Hillary Clinton referred to the US's prisoner abuses at the that facility as "atrocities". I wonder what word she'd use to describe the use of humans as lab rats?) [see entry for June-August 1995]

Anyhow, that tidbit is worth mentioning, considering how sensitive the left is about such bad things. But I also found interesting the inventory reports submitted throughout the 1990's (I believe there were five) provided by the Iraqi government which listed chemical and biological weapons, and agents for mixing such weapons, in quantities measured in thousands of metric tons. The Iraqis themselves (these are not the reports of "failed intelligence agencies" but Iraq officials, for you sceptics out there) declared that they had manufactured VX nerve gas (some reports say liters, others 4 to 400 tons), mustard gas, and other such pleasantries. (See the list near bottom of this link.)

And then of course there are the UNSCOM reports of inspectors personally destroying or witnessing the destroying of vast parts of Iraq's inventories; and that much of the inventories' whereabouts or alleged destruction could not be verified. From the same reports, one comment (among many) stands out:

"...Iraq's basic declarations of its holdings and capabilities in prohibited weapons areas have never been "full, final or complete", as required by the Council. Further, Iraq's failure to provide all of the materials and evidence required to fill in the gaps left by those declarations and its acts of unilateral destruction have significantly obfuscated the situation.

... If the Commission is to enter such reports credibly, where prohibited weapons have existed, it must be able to verify positively that they have been destroyed, removed or rendered harmless. Where items and facilities for the potential manufacture or constitution of such weapons existed or exist, it must be able to verify negatively that prohibited weapons are not being created. This is the standard that was envisaged by the Security Council and is the standard routinely applied in all comparable disarmament and arms control regimes." UNSCOM REPORT, APRIL 1998

Add to this the blatantly bizarre behavior of Saddam Hussein–welcoming inspectors promising full access, then shutting them out, and then his expulsion of just the American inspectors–and an objective observer must rationally conclude that WMDs were part of the Hussein arsenal. How else to explain to an outsider a leader who would permit the devastation of his regime and much of his country by an adversary who has given him 13 years to come clean and avoid conflict? Mere political posturing, mere bravado?

What I am saying is this: The outrage at the lack of WMD repeatedly voiced by critics of the war is demonstrably fallacious, and intentionally disregards history. When Iraq admits to WMD, when it submits inventories to the UN and those inventories are largely confirmed by inspectors (not always), then a logical person concludes that Iraq possesses WMD. That they no longer do possess them is irrelevant.

Of course, the other "false pretext" on which the war is allegedly based was that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. But, curiously, he demonstrably was a threat. Even on the most superficial level he was a threat to world peace. For when a regime gives the middle finger to international law (all the while promising compliance), ignoring 17 UN resolutions and corrupting a nobly-intentioned Oil-For-Food program, then the world is threatened. Why? Because it spits on international law, treating it like so much toothless nonsense. Moreover, Hussein's caprice destabilized the region: Does anyone believe Israel felt comfortable with Iraq being "governed" by such a double-minded man? And does anyone believe that Israel would be pulling out of the Gaza Strip with Hussein still in power in Iraq? Well, I don't believe it for a second.

Lastly, regarding the connection of Iraq and 9/11, I've already addressed that in Mr. President, What About This Draft?

It is evident that opposing the war is no longer a moral duty. It's become a sort of brand loyalty, even a commodity traded for commercial gain. People are circling around Miss Sheehan for financial gain and political notoriety; swirling in the maelstrom of book deals, magazine interviews, movie rights, radio and TV ratings. Soon, the tide will turn for or against the war depending on which viewpoint generates the most cash for vendors, publishers and ad agencies, though, as it stands, I am sure plenty of economic energy is generated in the heat-engine that is the Sheehan sideshow, with opposing sides entrenched against one another. But like Hurricane Katrina, this story will begin to break apart, finally drizzling out over New England. News crews will travel home, publishers will reconvene, and the next great moment will be awaited, signs and microphones and computer graphics in hand.

But right now, a huge portion of the media and its audience are being directed by a mother whose grief and anger are pointing in all the wrong directions; by a mother who wants to direct the president, and the country, on how to conduct a war on terrorism. Grief is horrible to observe; even harder to endure. But grief is not entitled to tyrannize either the news or the government. It is entitled to speak, to mourn, to wail and even scream. But it is not an oracle offering advice out of a morass (particularly an alleged one). Yes, praise the democracy where such voices are heard, respected, even highlighted. But woe to that country that succumbs to the manipulations of grief, elevating it beyond its proper place. For there are other, equally viable emotions, full of force and inspiration. For instance, what of a father's pride in his son's death while in valiant battle? Where are the TV crews and magazine reporters camped out with Miss Sheehan's soon-to-be ex-husband? Are not his emotions worth noting, worth bringing to the President's attention, worth reporting in order to inform the public about war?

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

The Most Important Question: Epilogue

In parts I and II of this series, I mentioned a belief in inevitability that runs through Islam; a theological concept of predestination. This article of belief is known as al-Qadar. Marxist- Communist doctrine is similar, claiming that the proletariat struggle against the bourgeoisie (with the proletariat's eventual overthrow of that bourgeoisie and the socializing of the means of production) is an inevitable process of history. Of course, this Marxist idea is a religious idea, as there are no logical or scientific proofs to Marxist idealism.

I was a bit heavy-handed, I think, in attributing by innuendo to all Muslims that all Muslims are quiet about terrorism, or are supportive of or comfortable with al-Qadar. There are problems in Islamic theological discourse between Muslim clerics, with sundry divisions, in ways familiar to those of us attuned to divisions in Christian theology. No one group is ever completely homogeneous.

Let me direct you to this interesting condemnation of Islam's old infatuation with suicide bombings. It is delivered by a Muslim cleric. Please take the time to read this speech reprinted at MEMRI. It is revealing (though there are problems with it). [Thanks to Frontpagemag.com for citing it.]

I will end my comments with this curious syllogism found at Answering Islam.org:

• (1) If A, then B. If Allah endorses Islam, then it should expand endlessly.
• (2) Not-B. But it is not expanding endlessly (see this analysis).
• (3) Therefore, not-A. Therefore, Allah does not endorse Islam.

In a technical sense, this is a valid syllogism, a modus tollens, though I find such syllogisms faulty. For this could be an equally valid modus tollens:

1. If my dog is home, the front door will be locked.
2. The front door is not locked.
3. Therefore my dog is not home.

But the syllogism about Islam raises an interesting point. If there is a God, and that God has established a religion, one would think that that religion would expand and not contract. Of course, Christianity's earliest writings predict a great apostasy in "the last days" from its own folds, but I do not believe Islam makes similar claims of itself. Islam is much more concerned about earthly terrority and holy sites than is Christendom: Visitation to such sites is one of the Five Pillars of Islam (Hajj). Much of Islam is fixed on earthly dominance and expansion, and thus is much more vulnerable to the problem raised in the syllogism printed above.

IRAQ CONSTITUTION

As you know by now, the deadline has passed in Iraq, and the Iraqis have not agreed upon a constitution. This news is only disappointing in the most superficial analysis. To me, the news is heartening and exciting. That one Iraqi lawmaker said that the constitution thus far drafted has been drafted "by the powerful people, and not by the people," is beautiful, for it reveals the depth of understanding some if not all Iraqis possess about the drafting of a constitution. Even some lawmakers have recommended that parts of the constitution be sent to the Iraqi people in a referendum. In that way, perhaps, the seminal elements of democracy will be fertilized even more. But what is heartening is that the process is taking time; even lots of time. Which proves, at the very least, that people are taking this process seriously, and are not rushing off pell-mell to take control of an ancient and vulnerable culture.

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.