Aohell

Beating Around the Bush

CBS News aired an interview between Bob Schieffer and President George W. Bush. Unfortunately, I wasn't invited to provide my insightful commentary and razor-sharp observations.

So, here's the next best thing. I'll post Bush's comments in italics, followed by my comments. Not everything he said was comment-worthy, so I'll skip over the parts where he talks about his dad and stuff like that. I'll also remove sections of Bush's comments that don't really impact the gist of what he's saying. I'm not going to talk about Bush's style of delivery or malapropisms, as I find that inappropriate to the conversation at hand. Let's consider the policies above the presentation. Heck, I'll even polish up Bush's comments so we can focus on what's really important: the agenda of the executive branch of the United States of America.

ON HAMAS: "... they've got to get rid of that arm of their party which is armed and violent, and secondly, they have got to get rid of that part of their platform that says they want to destroy Israel. And if they don't, we won't deal with them.... Aid packages won't go forward. Well, that's their decision to make... we won't be providing help to a government that wants to destroy our ally and friend. I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you don't renounce violent aims. The other thing that's interesting about the elections, though, that I found fascinating is that it reminded me that the elections are window panes into the actual condition of society.... In other words, a lot of us were assuming that maybe life was this way or that way, and all of a sudden the people showed up to vote and said we want something different, we want good, honest government; we want people to listen to our needs; we want people to provide services so our families can grow up and be prosperous."

Yes, Hamas ran on a law and order ticket and won big. They got rid of an entrenched corrupt lot and are ready to turn the system on its ear. This has to be scary to any Republican or Democrat. Bolivia's coca-farming president is making waves, too, so one hopes the masses rise up and send home the entrenched aristocracies. Nice dream, that. But, yes, Hamas was elected democratically. It's proof the Arabs do embrace democracy and want it very much. The fact that they plan to use it to run Israel to the wall and stick it to the US is where the goal of making countries friendly to the US through more democracy breaks down. Looks like one can have a pro-US regime or democracy, not both.

OK, back to Hamas being violent. We all know Hamas wants to do to Israel what Israel's been doing to the Palestinians for 50+ years. The US will cut off aid to a Hamas-run Palestine if they don't renounce that platform. The EU's said as much, as well. But Hamas has ties to Hizbollah and Iran and might also pick up funding from disgruntled anti-Zionists from around the Arab and developing world. Hamas has floated the idea of building a Palestinian army, perhaps one with some air defense capability for the next time Israel sends in an attack chopper to fire a few rockets into an apartment block where they suspect terrorists to be located. That's the real threat to Israel: a hostile Palestine not restricting terrorists based within its territory that can also enforce its borders and airspace to keep out or, more likely, delay Israeli retaliatory incursions.

The deeper problem is that time is on the side of the Palestinians. They outnumber the Israelis and, unless the Israelis engage in actual hardcore genocide, will eventually remain standing in superior numbers when the Israelis finally run out of bullets. That's why Israel initiated the peace process and why Sharon didn't abandon it, much as he hindered it with his policies. Israel left Gaza the same way it left Lebanon, and Hamas may be speculating the West Bank could be returned in much the same manner. If Hamas thinks it can succeed without American and EU help, the same way Hizbollah succeeded in Lebanon, then it'll keep the violent plank and damn all.

The question I'd like to ask Bush is, "Will the US consider deploying forces to directly aid and protect Israel from Palestinian actions?" or "Will the US tolerate Israel using nuclear weapons against a hostile Palestine?" Of course, the US neither confirms nor denies that Israel has nukes, so I'd like to ask that last question partly for shock value alone. Which leads us to another issue...

ON IRAN: "The Free World cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, not just the United States, but those of us who value freedom, and that is why our strategy is to present and hold together a united front to say to the Iranians your designs to have a nuclear weapon or your desire to have the capability of making a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. It's very important that we speak to two groups: One is the government, and also the people. And in speaking to the people, my message is this: You know, we're not going to tell you how to live your life, but we would like you to be free. We would like you to be able to express yourselves in the market, in the open, without fear of reprisal. We want you to be able to vote and elect. To the government, our message is, is that if you want to be a part of the family of nations, give up your nuclear weapons ambitions. Now, one of the things we have done is they have said they want to be able to have a civilian nuclear capacity, we want to be able to have our own nuclear power plant, and we've said we understand that. But because you're a nontransparent government, because you've openly stated your desire to destroy one of our allies, that you should be able to have a plant, but the uranium for running that plant will come from Russia, and Russia will provide the fuel, you will burn the fuel, and Russia will collect the fuel under IAEA safeguards."

Iran later backed away from the Russian plan, but Bush is clear: The US will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. Or any more of them, if they've already clandestinely acquired them from the former Soviet Union. Bush went on to say that sanctions and military force remained options he'd consider against Iran after the US and its allies "exhaust all diplomacy".

Bush's comments about Iranian democracy sound odd in light of the fact that the Iranian election was pretty much like the Palestinian one. The "wrong guy", as far as US interests go, got elected and is now rallying the population to pursue policies counter to those of the US. The head of Iran is another guy who upset the apple cart in his nation and plans to raise a little hell with the powers that be. If Pakistan is any guide, the people of Iran would love to have their nation get nuclear weapons. Nukes are a status symbol, a sign that your nation has arrived. A sign that the US can't unilaterally invade your nation without risking losing a huge number of troops and/or civilians in a nuclear strike. Nukes mean your nation can't be pushed around. It can have a cold war with its neighbors and do all kinds of James Bond type stuff, but it can't be invaded or bullied. The same way two guys with AK-47s on the street have to respect each other or die, nuclear-armed nations have to be respected.

Is Bush's allowance for a military option credible? Not at current US troop levels, unless he plans on a nuclear attack on Iran, which would be an absolute disaster. Should he introduce a draft, that would also be a disaster of a different sort. Short of war, the US is left with only a few other options, to paraphrase Sir Humphrey Appelby from Yes, Minister. The US can't cut off diplomatic ties or cut off aid, because all that happened back in 1979. The US could lodge an official protest with the UN, which probably wouldn't go anywhere. The US could issue a statement deploring Iran, which would be ignored. Or, the US could do nothing at all, which would make them look foolish.

If, then, the US is backed into a corner and considers an attack on Iran, it'll have to start a draft, and it'll be the nation's poor who will go to Iran and do the garrison duty, complete with the death and injuries that go with it. Oil prices would spike and the US economy would splutter - possibly leading to a dollar crisis. If the US is not already overreached, action against Iran would do the job.

ON THE US BEING OVERREACHED: "Well, I would disagree with that. I think we've got plenty of capability, but the first option, of course, is to solve this problem diplomatically, and that's where we are working to do."

So help me, I want the translation in the subtitles at the bottom of the screen to say, "We're going to bring back the draft and plunge into Central and Southwest Asia."

ON WHY THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ IS LOSING IN POPULARITY: "My job is not only Commander-In-Chief but educator-in-chief. And I needed to say to the people, you bet it's tough. And the enemy is using their own weapon effectively, which is the destruction of innocent life... I think a lot of people are wondering whether or not we had a plan to win. Some people say we shouldn't have been there in the first place, and I understand that. Some people said, you did the right thing going in there, but I'm not so sure you've got the desire or the plan to win, and that's what I've been trying to articulate, is we do have a plan to win, and we are winning. And progress on the ground is beginning to back me up. I mean, the political process has been amazing when you think about it. These elections are truly outstanding."

I'll deal with this and then have Bush speak again. I'll also point out that Bush dismissed any connection with the government's admittedly poor response to Hurricane Katrina and a resultant lack of faith in the government's ability to effectively carry out its Iraq policy.

Bush praises the elections and cites progress on the ground as proof the US is winning the occupation of Iraq. I want to stress that it is not an actual war in Iraq, in spite of the violence. The US is supporting the government of Iraq, not warring against it. Therefore, it is an occupation, not a war. But is there really progress in Iraq? Yes, the government there is indeed increasing in its effectiveness in fighting the insurgents, but it is doing so through reliance on factional militias incorporated into the police and armed forces and secret police networks, almost identical to those that existed under Saddam Hussein. The Sunni areas are where the police and army of Iraq are weakest, which is why the crime and violence rage on there. But Sunnis in the Kurdish and Shia areas are living in a police state, and the Shia areas have taken on a definite conservative religious air, much like in neighboring Iran, but with higher rates of mosque attendance.

I'd have to disagree with the president's assessment of progress: the Iraqis elected a government friendly to the US only so long as the US serves its needs and which has proven to be every bit as brutal as Saddam Hussein's towards unpopular minorities. And while the Iraqi constitution protects minority rights, we all know a constitutional right is only as good as the government interpreting that right.

ON US TROOP LEVELS IN IRAQ: "... our troop levels are going down from about 168,000 to less than 138,000, and part of that is because our commanders are confident the Iraqis are going to be able to take more and more of the fight.... [in response to a question about a timetable for pulling out US troops] I can understand you wanting to ask that question and the American people want me to give the answer to that. I can't give the answer to that because I'm not the decider. What I can assure the American people of is that we've got a strategy to victory. We got a plan to see that the Iraqis take the fight. More and more Iraqis are taking the fight, and I'm going to listen to our commanders.... One of the interesting lessons from the Vietnam era was it seemed like to me that politicians all were making the decisions and not the commanders on the ground a lot of times, and I have vowed that the American people, and I will follow through on that if General Casey and the generals there in Iraq that will be making the decisions as to the troop levels... I would hope to say that we have fewer troops there over the course of the year."

I confess I'm a bit at a loss on how best to tidy up the President's comments here, particularly the Vietnam one. Be that as it is, it sounds like he wants to have a reduction in the total troop level by the end of the year, but is reluctant to put his commanders in a position that is militarily untenable. This is at odds with the original invasion plan in which the politicians insisted on a lower troop level than originally requested, which quite likely resulted in a rapid descent into chaos for Iraq. Leaving aside the question of whether or not Iraq should have been invaded, the military community was nearly unanimous in judging Iraq should not have been invaded with so few troops as the US deployed. Order broke down and the US did not have enough men on the ground to stop the situation from deteriorating.

All right, so he's leaving war up to the generals, in spite of what Clemenceau said. He claims to have learned from Vietnam, but I have to question that lesson: It was clear in the war that the commanders in the field did not have accurate data on the Viet Cong or NVA regulars in South Vietnam. They were as clueless at times as their commander-in-chief. This happens in wars and other conflicts. The responsibility of the elected government is to be "the decider", a role Bush abrogates in his statement above. Whether it's a decision to withdraw, as JFK made, to escalate troop levels, as LBJ made, or to reduce troop levels while expanding the scope of the conflict, as Nixon made, it's up to the president to make the big decisions.

I'm sorry, I'm with Clemenceau: War is too important to leave to the generals. Unfortunately, I also feel war is too important to leave to the Bush administration, but that's the situation the US is in.

"I would like to get troops home, but I don't want to get them home without winning, and the definition of winning is a country that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself, and a country which will not become a safe haven for the terrorists. The terrorists have made it abundantly clear they want to drive us out of Iraq so they can have a safe haven from which to operate-- that would be Mr. Zarqawi-- and that's why it's very important for us not only to train the Iraqis, but to stay on the hunt for these people."

This is not something I accept as genuine. Yes, the Shia and Kurds will wipe out any al-Qaeda among them, but they're perfectly willing to harbor terrorists for their own cause. The Kurds in Iraq would love to have their countrymen in Iran, Turkey, and Syria join with them in an oil-rich state. The Shia are hostile to every other Gulf state except Iran. The US is picking and choosing whom it labels as a terrorist, but even so, there's an indefinite timetable on pacifying the Sunni center of Iraq. The British left a bomber wing in Iraq until they were kicked out forcibly in the 1950s - a presence measured in decades, not years. Is the US headed down the same path?

I will pass over Bush's ability to hunt for terrorists. I will instead let Osama Bin Laden speak for himself on that count.

ON EAVESDROPPING WITHOUT COURT ORDERS AND OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES: "I don't think a president can order torture, for example. I don't think a president can order the assassination of a leader of another country with which we're not at war. Yes, there are clear red lines. The extent to which a president, during war, can exercise authorities in order to protect the American people, and that's really what the debate is about. I made the decision to listen to phone calls of Al Qaeda or suspected Al Qaeda from outside the country coming in or inside the country going out because the people, our operators, told me that this is one of the best ways to protect the American people. And it wasn't an easy decision to make, but as I thought through the decision-making process, I asked a couple of questions: One, do I have the authority to do it? In other words, will I just act without determining if I have authority. And so, in other words, I was convinced by the legal department of the White House and the Justice Department that I did have the authority, and we looked at it very carefully. And secondly, I wanted to make sure that civil liberties were guarded. In other words, that by unleashing this program there wasn't checks and balances on--inside the NSA so that they would circumvent my order, which was listening for phone calls outside the country and in vice versa; in other words, not listening to the phone calls within the country. It is important that this program go on. I understand the debate, and I understand the need to make sure people discuss and debate whether or not I have got the authority to do it, but as I told the American people--and I can't tell you how strongly I feel about this--if somebody is talking to Al Qaeda inside the United States, we need to know why, and that's what this program is aimed to do.... I asked the people designing the program. I said, how come we can't use the [existing] procedures, and they said it won't work. It doesn't fit in with what Mike Hayden described as "hot pursuit." I have looked at this program from all angles, and my dilemma and my problem is I can't explain to you how it works in order to justify your question without telling the enemy what we are doing. And this debate is an interesting debate. I'm troubled by it only because the enemy listens, and they see what we are doing, and these are smart people, and they will adjust. And one of the interesting questions about this whole debate is whether or not people think we are at war or people think this is kind of an isolated group of people that may or may not hit us.... Perhaps because I remember my words going to Congress just saying I'm not going to ever forget what took place, and I will use all the power and my authority within the Constitution to protect the American people, but I view this situation we're in as war, and therefore I must protect the American people with the tools available to me."

All right, I allow there are people who desire - justified or not - to kill lots and lots of American citizens, preferably in America. These are Bad Men and, yes, I do not want any of them to kill me or those I know and love. I don't even want them to kill people I don't know or love. I'm against killing, make no mistake on that.

So how do I stay safe from the Bad Men when my government is provoking them to extreme anger? By surrendering my civil rights? Well, I'm not really surrendering my civil rights: the COINTELPRO project from the Vietnam Conflict era proved that. My civil rights exist at the pleasure of the sitting president and his executive branch officers and if one of them - any of them - chooses to negate my rights in a particular case, my ability to fight city hall is limited to nearly nil. True, the odd case does eventually make its way up the legal ladder to the Supreme Court, but all the while, the victim of the roughshod government remains in jail or, more likely, watched and harassed. Bush's move on civil rights just means the already remote chance I could fight a rogue government legally has been made that much more impossible.

The US is experiencing an Imperial Presidency, and has been experiencing one since at least Woodrow Wilson's administration, if not also at times previous to it. The inalienable rights Jefferson enumerated in the Declaration of Independence are no more guaranteed by the sitting president's administration than they were by another George... King George III.

ON THE US AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE: "I'm against a huge gas tax. Secondly, I agree... that we have got to become independent from foreign sources of oil. In other words, we have got to wean ourselves off hydrocarbons. And the best way, in my judgment, to do it is to promote and actively advance new technologies so that we can have different driving habits. For example, there is--I'm a little hesitant because I don't want to tell you what's in the State of the Union, let me put it to you that way.... I agree with Americans who understand being hooked on foreign oil as an economic problem and a national security problem. I couldn't agree more. For example, I'm convinced with more research we'll be able to develop additional ways to make ethanol. There is about 4.6 million cars in America now that are flex-fuel cars. They could either use regular gasoline or fuel derived from corn. I'd like, for example, to not only advance that technology of deriving fuel from corn, but also deriving fuel from waste materials, and I'm convinced we could do that with a good push, a technological push. In other words, I want to see different kinds of cars on our road that don't require (sic) upon crude oil from overseas, but we have got a serious problem, and now is the time to fix it, and I'm going to address it again at the State of the Union."

Translation: The agricultural subsidies already going to Chevron and other Big Oil companies are going to get more massive. Also look for huge amounts of pork to head over to General Electric and other nuclear reactor companies for hydrogen-cell research - it's the reactors that will make all that hydrogen, don't you know.

For the waste fuels, I wonder if he's referring to biodiesel. That's a ground-level solution that could actually work, but which would break the back of the Big Oil companies. Watch for environmental concerns on biodiesel to creep into the picture, which would necessitate many billions' worth of safety and cleanup procedures, so the Big Oil guys would still be the only energy players.

America's energy problems are not limited to foreign oil dependence. They're also due to an oligarchical energy sector with massive political influence, subverting and corrupting the political process for their gain. But given that the US bases in Afghanistan follow the proposed pipeline route across that nation and that the current president of Afghanistan is a former Unocal employee and a whole lot of other Big Oil-related coincidences, I doubt seriously America's other energy problem will be dealt with, which means the first one, foreign oil dependence, will remain an issue for years to come.

ON THE REPUTATION OF THE US IN THE WORLD: "There is no question that Abu Graib pictures not only--we were disgraced, and I know it caused a lot of people that want to like us to question whether they should, and equally important it gave the enemy an incredible propaganda tool. No question. That's why it was important for us to investigate, to expose, and to hold people to account so people see there was a consequence for the behavior.... The actions we take in our own country or elsewhere help define America to others, and that's why it's important for us to constantly remind people that we have got a wonderful heart and we are a compassionate nation. Our HIV/AIDS initiative on Africa is saving lives, our anti-malaria initiative on Africa is saving lives. We feed more of the hungry in the world. I mean, we are doing marvelous things, and it's while we address and deal with issues like Abu Graib, at the same time we have always constantly got to tell people, we care about them, we're not going to impose our form of American-style democracy on you, but we want you to be free, and where you hurt we want to help. And a classic example of that is what took place in Pakistan. When the United States military, upon notification that there was a need for help as a result of the earthquake, moved choppers and aid and equipment and food and tents in and saved a lot of lives, it's by far the best public relations we had in that part of the world in a long period of time. And so, you're right, we need to be conscious about our public diplomacy not only in how we behave at home but our ability to be able to sell that which we are doing around the world."

Sorry, Mr. Bush. The world does not believe the Abu Ghraib scandal was properly investigated. Only small people took the hit for it. The higher ups, and we all know higher ups were involved, escaped public censure because of either their wealth, position, or connections. There was no consequence for those who ordered it, only for those who carried out the orders. You previously criticized Iran for not being transparent: Abu Ghraib and the eavesdropping issue leave those charges squarely in your face. You have met the enemy and he is us, to tip one's hat to Pogo Possum.

And, yes, there is good news in Pakistan over the earthquake relief. The bad news is it got blown all to hell when the US fired rockets into a northern Pakistani village, hoping to kill a few terrorists, but instead destroying innocent families.

Yes, there is good news in Africa over how diseases are beaten back. The bad news is that gets shot up every time a major oil company hires local cops or soldiers to shoot up protesters around its polluting rigs and refineries.

The US continues to turn a blind eye to major heroin traffickers in the world in return for their not opposing the US occupation of parts of Afghanistan. The US continues to turn a blind eye to Israeli nuclear weapons and torture prisons. The US itself is guilty of creating legal ambiguities to torture and abuse people without a trial. The Bureau of Indian Affairs continues to hold out in the Cobell v. Norton case to the tune of $17.2 billion dollars of money stolen from Native Americans.

The US government does not behave well at home or abroad. As long as Bush tries to sell the Pollyanna stuff, I'll be here to ask something real be done about the rest of the sorry state of affairs.

America remains an undemocratic nation that holds out the possibility of smiting its foes with nuclear weapons, in the last stages of changing over from a supposed republic into a real imperium.

War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. Look into Bush's comments and you'll see Orwell's sentences, in so many words.

This all comes back to democracy: America is in no position to produce a Palestinian surprise, where the people rise and vote out the gang of corrupt politicians in the back pockets of oligarchical corporations and aristocratic money men. Therefore, Bush's supporters will blindly see only what he wants them to see and I will remain in my prison, whose bars are made only of the ignorance and apathy of others.

Forward this and discuss it: set me free with education and enlightenment and, in doing so, set yourself free.