Thursday, December 22, 2005
HOW CREEPY IS WIRETAPPING?
_________________________________________________________________________________
Breakfast with Bwana
DECEMBER 22, 2005
HOW CREEPY IS WIRETAPPING?:
When I wrote “In Defense Of Bush And Blondes” I said: “No, I have not lost my mind. But, never fear, I am working on it.” Well, I am pleased (?) to report success.
My “defense” of the wiretaps provoked much comment, some supportive, some not. The most pungent was this from (identity withheld) who wrote:
“… just because the worse hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t. I can’t think of a group of yahoos I’d trust LESS with this kind of power. These people have shown so little regard for truth, reasonable dissent, due process, civil liberties and most sadly for the basic tenets of the Constitution that I simply cannot believe that YOU OF ALL PEOPLE! wouldn’t be more horrified that they’ve broken the law simply because they believe the result of breaking the law is more significant than the act of abiding by the law in the first place.
‘The danger is always there that such means and powers can be abused. However, I don’t think that there is any chance that Mr. Bush will refuse to surrender the Presidency in January 2009 when his term is over. Neither do I perceive that in the year during which The New York Times sat on this particular story before finally going public with it, there has been any erosion of our liberties.’
“Oh come on. The CIA was monitoring a group of elderly Quakers in Florida who were worried about military recruiting in their local high schools. Bushie likely won’t declare himself dictator in ‘09, but let’s see how funny it is when they come knocking on my door because I jokingly refer to myself as a socialist. Or because I’ve attended a rally for gay rights. Or because I once voted for Ralph Nader.
“The other day ___ was talking about the “file” the ___ kept on __. That’s creepy – and I don’t relish the idea of this administration (or anyone else) keeping a file on me.
“Anyway, now you know that I do read these things!!”
Well, I responded that there has not been any violation of law shown, at least as of yet, and I do not see that any Constitutional violation is shown. I do understand that people on both sides have advanced arguments and contentions to support their respective positions. Also, I am grateful that s/he reads these “things.”
Let me take a look at this issue in a different way. First, though, I must say that although I share concerns about this President and this Administration – concerns enhanced by the news that former Attorney General Ashcroft allowed the FBI to conduct surveillance on “activist” groups – I would have that same concern about a “moderate” as well as a “liberal” President and his/her Administration. It seems to me that if I contend there is Presidential authority for – or desirable for the President to be able to order – surveillance, then it should not matter who the President is.
I take it as a given that every American, since 9-11 if not before, has expected that our government is keeping track of foreigners who may be plotting to join the ranks of “evil doers.” I also take it as a given that if the government knows or has reasonable cause to believe that someone within the US (a Timothy McVeigh type or a terrorist with links to al-qaeda or any other such group) is engaged in plotting to commit an act of sabotage or terror, then the government is keeping track of that too. The entire purpose of this “keeping track of” to me is prevention of the offending attack and the damage, destruction and death that would follow. And note that I distinguish between “foreigners” and people within the US only because domestic surveillance may require different rules. I use the word “may” because I really wrestle with the issue when dealing with suspicion of a “criminal offense” vs. a terrorist type of attack for which prevention rather than prosecution is the key.
Whether this kind of activity is being tracked inside or outside the US, I expect that whatever laws are in place for such monitoring will be followed. But, I also have in mind that this “keeping track of” is being done in good faith and because there is some good (or good enough) reason to be doing so. The definition of “good” reason or “good enough” reason, for me depends on the circumstances and the exigencies of the situation. Perforce, this type of surveillance is not “unreasonable.”
Now, if the President, or Vice or any of their creepy friends should decide to use the surveillance for some other purpose, for political advantage, to collect information on American citizens, or to abuse people, then clearly the same would be prohibited by the Constitution and also by many laws already on the books.
It seems to me that some sort of safeguards need to be in place to ensure that the system is not being abused and those safeguards need also to be of the type that will not compromise “necessary” secrecy.
From everything I know, if the results of surveillance are used for prosecution (different from prevention) then there is ALWAYS judicial review of whether the surveillance was unreasonable under constitutional standards or otherwise unlawful.
For me, the distinction between prevention and prosecution provides the answer.
Cheerz… Bwana Claus
_________________________________________________________________________________
Breakfast with Bwana
DECEMBER 22, 2005
HOW CREEPY IS WIRETAPPING?:
When I wrote “In Defense Of Bush And Blondes” I said: “No, I have not lost my mind. But, never fear, I am working on it.” Well, I am pleased (?) to report success.
My “defense” of the wiretaps provoked much comment, some supportive, some not. The most pungent was this from (identity withheld) who wrote:
“… just because the worse hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t. I can’t think of a group of yahoos I’d trust LESS with this kind of power. These people have shown so little regard for truth, reasonable dissent, due process, civil liberties and most sadly for the basic tenets of the Constitution that I simply cannot believe that YOU OF ALL PEOPLE! wouldn’t be more horrified that they’ve broken the law simply because they believe the result of breaking the law is more significant than the act of abiding by the law in the first place.
‘The danger is always there that such means and powers can be abused. However, I don’t think that there is any chance that Mr. Bush will refuse to surrender the Presidency in January 2009 when his term is over. Neither do I perceive that in the year during which The New York Times sat on this particular story before finally going public with it, there has been any erosion of our liberties.’
“Oh come on. The CIA was monitoring a group of elderly Quakers in Florida who were worried about military recruiting in their local high schools. Bushie likely won’t declare himself dictator in ‘09, but let’s see how funny it is when they come knocking on my door because I jokingly refer to myself as a socialist. Or because I’ve attended a rally for gay rights. Or because I once voted for Ralph Nader.
“The other day ___ was talking about the “file” the ___ kept on __. That’s creepy – and I don’t relish the idea of this administration (or anyone else) keeping a file on me.
“Anyway, now you know that I do read these things!!”
Well, I responded that there has not been any violation of law shown, at least as of yet, and I do not see that any Constitutional violation is shown. I do understand that people on both sides have advanced arguments and contentions to support their respective positions. Also, I am grateful that s/he reads these “things.”
Let me take a look at this issue in a different way. First, though, I must say that although I share concerns about this President and this Administration – concerns enhanced by the news that former Attorney General Ashcroft allowed the FBI to conduct surveillance on “activist” groups – I would have that same concern about a “moderate” as well as a “liberal” President and his/her Administration. It seems to me that if I contend there is Presidential authority for – or desirable for the President to be able to order – surveillance, then it should not matter who the President is.
I take it as a given that every American, since 9-11 if not before, has expected that our government is keeping track of foreigners who may be plotting to join the ranks of “evil doers.” I also take it as a given that if the government knows or has reasonable cause to believe that someone within the US (a Timothy McVeigh type or a terrorist with links to al-qaeda or any other such group) is engaged in plotting to commit an act of sabotage or terror, then the government is keeping track of that too. The entire purpose of this “keeping track of” to me is prevention of the offending attack and the damage, destruction and death that would follow. And note that I distinguish between “foreigners” and people within the US only because domestic surveillance may require different rules. I use the word “may” because I really wrestle with the issue when dealing with suspicion of a “criminal offense” vs. a terrorist type of attack for which prevention rather than prosecution is the key.
Whether this kind of activity is being tracked inside or outside the US, I expect that whatever laws are in place for such monitoring will be followed. But, I also have in mind that this “keeping track of” is being done in good faith and because there is some good (or good enough) reason to be doing so. The definition of “good” reason or “good enough” reason, for me depends on the circumstances and the exigencies of the situation. Perforce, this type of surveillance is not “unreasonable.”
Now, if the President, or Vice or any of their creepy friends should decide to use the surveillance for some other purpose, for political advantage, to collect information on American citizens, or to abuse people, then clearly the same would be prohibited by the Constitution and also by many laws already on the books.
It seems to me that some sort of safeguards need to be in place to ensure that the system is not being abused and those safeguards need also to be of the type that will not compromise “necessary” secrecy.
From everything I know, if the results of surveillance are used for prosecution (different from prevention) then there is ALWAYS judicial review of whether the surveillance was unreasonable under constitutional standards or otherwise unlawful.
For me, the distinction between prevention and prosecution provides the answer.
Cheerz… Bwana Claus
_________________________________________________________________________________
Monday, December 19, 2005
IN DEFENSE OF BUSH AND BLONDES
___________________________________________________________________________________
Breakfast with Bwana
DECEMBER 20, 2005
IN DEFENSE OF BUSH AND BLONDES:
No, I have not lost my mind. But, never fear, I am working on it.
Recently, I have received two not-so-dumb-blonde jokes. I guess it must be something in the American sense of caring for the underdog that we seem to find compassion for the dog that we’ve been kicking. Of course, it’s more fun to watch the Top Dog take a tumble. I mean, didn’t you enjoy Bubble-Boy Manning being sent off the field with a loss while the coach looked like he was back in Peyton Place … or wanted to crawl under a dung heap? And won’t you eventually enjoy watching the Miami team of 1972 that knifed through a passel of weakened and injured teams finally lose bragging rights? But really, who cares?
Getting back to the blonde “jokes,” they cast the blonde protagonist as the super-intelligent one-upsmanship-capable winner. If anyone wants to experience these thrills of agony and defeats of victory, send me an email and I’ll shoot you a copy.
So, I come to the defense of Bush. First, a disclaimer is in order. I really do think he is, so far, the worst President in our history. And, no, I’m not coming to his defense because I think he is monitoring my emails or my telephone conversations. My principal reasons for labeling him the worst President in our history have to do with his handling of taxes and the deficit, and for fostering a culture of religious exclusivity and hate while pretending to be tolerant. Of course, the war in Iraq and particularly the way in which it was “sold” leave me cold. But you know my feelings about that. Incidentally, I will mention that Tom Friedman of The New York Times wrote a couple of weeks ago, as I had several months ago, the same thought, that this guy has the chance to go down as our worst President ever. I mean, if it’s printed in The Times, it must be true, no?
On the other hand, if it turns out that he is not only right on the magnitude of the al quaeda threat, but also right on the outcome in Iraq, he may well go down as one of the greats. Before you scoff, think of Ronald Reagan and what his squashing of the Soviet Union meant for this country.
What prompts all this is my feeling that on 9-11, we realized that something new was afoot. If a plan as complex as we saw could be engineered to commandeer civilian jets and wreak the kind of havoc we had not previously known, what was next? It was not just the physical damage but the profound blow to our national psyche lulled into the sense that we were protected by the oceans, our defense infrastructure, yea, by our essential goodness.
On that day, it was important to realize that something new and different lay as a possibility, even a likelihood, before us. If the same kind of people who commandeered the jets could harness biological or nuclear weapons modalities, we had better wake up.
I think that President Bush gets this. In the last election, I was never clear that everyone else got that he got it.
So, I am not troubled by the latest “revelations” by The New York Times that we have had clandestine eavesdropping of international communications between what are described as people with known contacts to al qaeda and the people with whom they talk outside this country.
Yes, I am troubled by the potential for abuse and await an explanation as to why they did not go to court to get approval. On the other hand, the Constitution simply says that there shall not be an “unreasonable” search or seizure. It does NOT say that the President or whoever is conducting a reasonable search, has to go to Congress or the courts.
It seems to me not a great leap to say that if we know that al qaeda is out to get us and they have contacts in the US with whom they communicate, it would be pretty stupid not to listen in.
The danger is always there that such means and powers can be abused. However, I don’t think that there is any chance that Mr. Bush will refuse to surrender the Presidency in January 2009 when his term is over. Neither do I perceive that in the year during which The New York Times sat on this particular story before finally going public with it, there has been any erosion of our liberties.
If the Iraqi elections lead to a stable government that evolves into a sensible tolerant democracy, we might find an ally and the President’s dream scenario will have materialized. He will then be a hero.
But, that does not excuse that as he has all but admitted, the reasons for going into Iraq proved to be wrong.
For the time being, in this context, he is like the proverbial dumb blonde … not as dumb as he looks and quite a bit foxy.
I also want to mention that on December 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor was attacked in a sneak attack. It was 60 years plus until the next sneak attack. It would have been intolerable for this nation to conduct its affairs as a “closed” society for those 60 years. No matter how dumb or how foxy, we need to strike a proper balance between threat and risk.
Cheerz…Bwana
_______________________________________________________________________________
Breakfast with Bwana
DECEMBER 20, 2005
IN DEFENSE OF BUSH AND BLONDES:
No, I have not lost my mind. But, never fear, I am working on it.
Recently, I have received two not-so-dumb-blonde jokes. I guess it must be something in the American sense of caring for the underdog that we seem to find compassion for the dog that we’ve been kicking. Of course, it’s more fun to watch the Top Dog take a tumble. I mean, didn’t you enjoy Bubble-Boy Manning being sent off the field with a loss while the coach looked like he was back in Peyton Place … or wanted to crawl under a dung heap? And won’t you eventually enjoy watching the Miami team of 1972 that knifed through a passel of weakened and injured teams finally lose bragging rights? But really, who cares?
Getting back to the blonde “jokes,” they cast the blonde protagonist as the super-intelligent one-upsmanship-capable winner. If anyone wants to experience these thrills of agony and defeats of victory, send me an email and I’ll shoot you a copy.
So, I come to the defense of Bush. First, a disclaimer is in order. I really do think he is, so far, the worst President in our history. And, no, I’m not coming to his defense because I think he is monitoring my emails or my telephone conversations. My principal reasons for labeling him the worst President in our history have to do with his handling of taxes and the deficit, and for fostering a culture of religious exclusivity and hate while pretending to be tolerant. Of course, the war in Iraq and particularly the way in which it was “sold” leave me cold. But you know my feelings about that. Incidentally, I will mention that Tom Friedman of The New York Times wrote a couple of weeks ago, as I had several months ago, the same thought, that this guy has the chance to go down as our worst President ever. I mean, if it’s printed in The Times, it must be true, no?
On the other hand, if it turns out that he is not only right on the magnitude of the al quaeda threat, but also right on the outcome in Iraq, he may well go down as one of the greats. Before you scoff, think of Ronald Reagan and what his squashing of the Soviet Union meant for this country.
What prompts all this is my feeling that on 9-11, we realized that something new was afoot. If a plan as complex as we saw could be engineered to commandeer civilian jets and wreak the kind of havoc we had not previously known, what was next? It was not just the physical damage but the profound blow to our national psyche lulled into the sense that we were protected by the oceans, our defense infrastructure, yea, by our essential goodness.
On that day, it was important to realize that something new and different lay as a possibility, even a likelihood, before us. If the same kind of people who commandeered the jets could harness biological or nuclear weapons modalities, we had better wake up.
I think that President Bush gets this. In the last election, I was never clear that everyone else got that he got it.
So, I am not troubled by the latest “revelations” by The New York Times that we have had clandestine eavesdropping of international communications between what are described as people with known contacts to al qaeda and the people with whom they talk outside this country.
Yes, I am troubled by the potential for abuse and await an explanation as to why they did not go to court to get approval. On the other hand, the Constitution simply says that there shall not be an “unreasonable” search or seizure. It does NOT say that the President or whoever is conducting a reasonable search, has to go to Congress or the courts.
It seems to me not a great leap to say that if we know that al qaeda is out to get us and they have contacts in the US with whom they communicate, it would be pretty stupid not to listen in.
The danger is always there that such means and powers can be abused. However, I don’t think that there is any chance that Mr. Bush will refuse to surrender the Presidency in January 2009 when his term is over. Neither do I perceive that in the year during which The New York Times sat on this particular story before finally going public with it, there has been any erosion of our liberties.
If the Iraqi elections lead to a stable government that evolves into a sensible tolerant democracy, we might find an ally and the President’s dream scenario will have materialized. He will then be a hero.
But, that does not excuse that as he has all but admitted, the reasons for going into Iraq proved to be wrong.
For the time being, in this context, he is like the proverbial dumb blonde … not as dumb as he looks and quite a bit foxy.
I also want to mention that on December 7, 1941, Pearl Harbor was attacked in a sneak attack. It was 60 years plus until the next sneak attack. It would have been intolerable for this nation to conduct its affairs as a “closed” society for those 60 years. No matter how dumb or how foxy, we need to strike a proper balance between threat and risk.
Cheerz…Bwana
_______________________________________________________________________________
ON FLAG BURNING AND WARRING ON CHRISTMAS
___________________________________________________________________________
Breakfast with Bwana
DECEMBER 19, 2005
ON FLAG BURNING, and WARRING ON CHRISTMAS :
When I first arrived in this country, Lyndon Johnson was President. Growing impatience with an unpopular war built to a crescendo. Media coverage, technologically retarded by today’s standards, brought that war and those protests into our living rooms as never before.
One form of “protest” was burning the American flag. I remember my first reaction was one of outrage. When I saw the American flag being “desecrated” in other ways, I was offended and would often shake my head at the lack of respect and indeed, the stupidity of it all. In a sense, I felt that one should be proud of the American flag and NEVER let one’s political views be turned against that symbol of the nation. Of course, I have to confess that my views were somewhat colored by the realization that people had been deported from Kenya merely for criticizing the President, then Jomo Kenyatta, and burning a Kenyan flag was likely to get you jailed and beaten.
In time, my views have changed. While I personally find it abhorrent to desecrate the flag, I have no problem with other people’s exercise of their “right” (or perceived “right”) to burning symbols … or symbolic burnings.
This nation is strong enough to have its flag burned not only by foreigners, but by its own citizens. Remember when the King died and they would say “The King is dead. Long live the King?” I think we can say “That flag is burned. The FLAG flies on.”
Some people … the right wing fundamentalist yahoos, for the most part … will say that we have simply become numbed into accepting conduct that is wrong. This is the same argument they make about how the “gay lifestyle” and “gay culture.”
My response is that when the Constitution gives someone the right to freedom of expression or freedom or religion (or no religion) we need to make sure we are not numbed to the fact that the Constitution is our first defense against numbness. Ultimately, what difference does it make that some nut burns a flag? Or perhaps, he or she is not a nut and has a legitimate beef, the flag being a means of getting attention.
Just as some in this country rail against the emergence of anything they oppose as being evidence of a malignant cultural shift, many people outside the US decry the perfusion of the so-called “American culture” and western materialism into their countries. This is not just the cry of Islamic fundamentalists, it is heard in Canada, Britain, India, Australia, virtually everywhere.
Yet, the right wing yahoo fundamentalists denounce these “foreigners” for lopsided reasoning, the same kind of reasoning they use at home.
So it is with this nonsense about a war on Christmas. Ever since I was a kid, we wished everyone Merry Christmas (or Happy Christmas). Why? Well, for the simple reason, that it was Christmas.
It seems to me that much of this started with the entirely correct and oft-heard lament that Christmas was becoming too commercialized. The response of the right wing yahoo fundamentalists was to hijack the debate and turn it into an opportunity to advance their cause. The noble notion that the season celebrating peace and goodwill should be the focus of the holiday over commercialism should not evoke protest. But, when the right wing fundamentalist yahoos say that the true spirit of Christmas is to promote their religion, we should all take heed.
I remember their shouts that this is a “Christian nation.” When I commented to some friends that this was wrong, they said “No, this is a Christian nation.” I asked my friends, one a Catholic and the other an Episcopalian: “Do you realize that the people – the fundamentalist right wing nuts – who say this is a Christian nation do not include you or any Hispanic or Black person in their definition of ‘Christian?’” The silence was as palpable as quiet gets.
Enough said.
It is not surprising that the reaction of non-Christians to this attempt to hijack Christmas, a hitherto common holiday season for all, into some notion of exclusivity, should have been to take offense. Yet, there are now other characters in this debate and they want to treat the use of the word “Christmas” itself as inappropriate. Whether this comes from Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or atheists, it is just as offensive for them to say that Christians cannot celebrate Christmas, as it is for the right wing yahoos to say that this is a Christian nation.
For me the message of this season remains, as it was when I was a kid, one of inclusion.
Our nation is strong enough for people to wish each other Merry Christmas and no one should feel offended by that.
In fact, while the Constitution forbids government from establishing a religion, or from mandating prayer in schools, it also guarantees that people have the right to say “Merry Christmas.” See, it is your constitutional right to say “Merry Christmas.”
For me, it is also okay if you want to wish me Happy Eid (Eid Mubarak) or Happy Diwali (Shubh Diwali) or Happy Channukha (Octet for Dreidl) or Happy Kwanzaa (Salaama Kabisa) or Sunny Winter Solstice (May your days be longer).
Merry Cheerz and Happy Bwana Days to all!!
____________________________________________________________________________
Breakfast with Bwana
DECEMBER 19, 2005
ON FLAG BURNING, and WARRING ON CHRISTMAS :
When I first arrived in this country, Lyndon Johnson was President. Growing impatience with an unpopular war built to a crescendo. Media coverage, technologically retarded by today’s standards, brought that war and those protests into our living rooms as never before.
One form of “protest” was burning the American flag. I remember my first reaction was one of outrage. When I saw the American flag being “desecrated” in other ways, I was offended and would often shake my head at the lack of respect and indeed, the stupidity of it all. In a sense, I felt that one should be proud of the American flag and NEVER let one’s political views be turned against that symbol of the nation. Of course, I have to confess that my views were somewhat colored by the realization that people had been deported from Kenya merely for criticizing the President, then Jomo Kenyatta, and burning a Kenyan flag was likely to get you jailed and beaten.
In time, my views have changed. While I personally find it abhorrent to desecrate the flag, I have no problem with other people’s exercise of their “right” (or perceived “right”) to burning symbols … or symbolic burnings.
This nation is strong enough to have its flag burned not only by foreigners, but by its own citizens. Remember when the King died and they would say “The King is dead. Long live the King?” I think we can say “That flag is burned. The FLAG flies on.”
Some people … the right wing fundamentalist yahoos, for the most part … will say that we have simply become numbed into accepting conduct that is wrong. This is the same argument they make about how the “gay lifestyle” and “gay culture.”
My response is that when the Constitution gives someone the right to freedom of expression or freedom or religion (or no religion) we need to make sure we are not numbed to the fact that the Constitution is our first defense against numbness. Ultimately, what difference does it make that some nut burns a flag? Or perhaps, he or she is not a nut and has a legitimate beef, the flag being a means of getting attention.
Just as some in this country rail against the emergence of anything they oppose as being evidence of a malignant cultural shift, many people outside the US decry the perfusion of the so-called “American culture” and western materialism into their countries. This is not just the cry of Islamic fundamentalists, it is heard in Canada, Britain, India, Australia, virtually everywhere.
Yet, the right wing yahoo fundamentalists denounce these “foreigners” for lopsided reasoning, the same kind of reasoning they use at home.
So it is with this nonsense about a war on Christmas. Ever since I was a kid, we wished everyone Merry Christmas (or Happy Christmas). Why? Well, for the simple reason, that it was Christmas.
It seems to me that much of this started with the entirely correct and oft-heard lament that Christmas was becoming too commercialized. The response of the right wing yahoo fundamentalists was to hijack the debate and turn it into an opportunity to advance their cause. The noble notion that the season celebrating peace and goodwill should be the focus of the holiday over commercialism should not evoke protest. But, when the right wing fundamentalist yahoos say that the true spirit of Christmas is to promote their religion, we should all take heed.
I remember their shouts that this is a “Christian nation.” When I commented to some friends that this was wrong, they said “No, this is a Christian nation.” I asked my friends, one a Catholic and the other an Episcopalian: “Do you realize that the people – the fundamentalist right wing nuts – who say this is a Christian nation do not include you or any Hispanic or Black person in their definition of ‘Christian?’” The silence was as palpable as quiet gets.
Enough said.
It is not surprising that the reaction of non-Christians to this attempt to hijack Christmas, a hitherto common holiday season for all, into some notion of exclusivity, should have been to take offense. Yet, there are now other characters in this debate and they want to treat the use of the word “Christmas” itself as inappropriate. Whether this comes from Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or atheists, it is just as offensive for them to say that Christians cannot celebrate Christmas, as it is for the right wing yahoos to say that this is a Christian nation.
For me the message of this season remains, as it was when I was a kid, one of inclusion.
Our nation is strong enough for people to wish each other Merry Christmas and no one should feel offended by that.
In fact, while the Constitution forbids government from establishing a religion, or from mandating prayer in schools, it also guarantees that people have the right to say “Merry Christmas.” See, it is your constitutional right to say “Merry Christmas.”
For me, it is also okay if you want to wish me Happy Eid (Eid Mubarak) or Happy Diwali (Shubh Diwali) or Happy Channukha (Octet for Dreidl) or Happy Kwanzaa (Salaama Kabisa) or Sunny Winter Solstice (May your days be longer).
Merry Cheerz and Happy Bwana Days to all!!
____________________________________________________________________________
Thursday, December 15, 2005
LOOKING OUT FROM INSIDE THE CARAPACE - THE WHEELS ARE OFF THE PACE CAR
_______________________________________________________________________________
Breakfast with Bwana
__________________________________________________________________________________
DECEMBER 15, 2005
LOOKING OUT FROM INSIDE THE CARAPACE
THE WHEELS ARE OFF THE PACE CAR:
My Republican friends – yes, I have many who are both, friends and Republicans – accuse me of getting perverse pleasure from picking on the President. Funny thing is, my Democrat friends used to say the same thing when Clinton was President! I can protest until I’m blue in the face that for the satirist in me, fair game is fair game and there’s nothing fair about it. It’s just the fare for my game. They don’t get it.
Actually, in this case, I am more interested in the prospect that the President seems to be realizing that, after all is said and done, God had nothing to do with his becoming President and, most likely, she did not and does not really care.
But, it’s hard to realize such things when one’s cocoon is also one’s carapace. Even the series of recent rah-rah speeches have been delivered in another kind of carapace … one military academy to another … one fort, another base … an aircraft carrier deck … occasionally, a right wing yahoo stronghold. One should not be surprised at enthusiastic applause when the Commander-in-Chief speaks at military gatherings. I mean, if I worked at a company and the CEO came in and said something idiotic, I’d applaud anyway. Why, if I had worked at GE and they showed a video of Jack Welch and Susie Leftover (or whatever her name is) in the GE Imaging Studies boardroom, I’d have applauded that too. Jeff Immelt must have applauded a lot to win out over the guys now running Home Despot and a host of other companies.
Permit me a minor digression. For my Republican friends who have been misled by the title of this piece into thinking that “carapace” has something to do with NASCAR, please get a Funk & Wagnalls. Say it fast: “Funk’nWagnalls” and you’ll get the idea. Say it fast enough, and the wheels come off. Say it soft, and it’s almost like racing. The NASCAR thing … another carapace of sorts … is a pace car.
So, anyway, Prez has been doing his speech-making routine – you know, make basically the same speech six times. Whatever happened to the old adage that if you repeat something three times, people will believe it? Well, let’s give him credit for trying. He’s up to six times and although it hasn’t worked, he is an enthusiastic sort, isn’t he? Some of the bravado and braggadocio are gone, but the there seems to be a new realism setting in.
Yesterday’s speech was outside the usual carapace, but only slightly. Three fourths of the cocoon – Rummy, Condi and Chertoff – were present. CHEstpaiNEY, trying to catch his breath, was in an undisclosed location and still SOB (short of breath). The White House Press Release notes that the speech was delivered at the The Woodrow Wilson Center, in the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. Undoubtedly, history will record that it was given from the Donald Rumsfeld Lectern, spoken into the Condoleeza Rice Microphone, and read from the Michael Chertoff Teleprompter.
The President’s strangulating grip on his own self-righteously evident truth is slowly devolving into a soft grasp on reality. But, you have to be alert to catch the subtle loss of his pet squeeze. First, he said: “In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front -- and over the last few weeks, I've been discussing our political, economic, and military strategy for victory in that country.”
Notice the Bushian slip (yes, it’s related to the “Freudian” slip, but since born-again Methodists don’t have dirty thoughts except about bombing the hell out of the enemy, a new term is in order) that Iraq is “now” the central front. Never mind that a front is a front and not a center. I’ll take “central front” to mean the “center of the front.” I’ll also take “now” to mean “not then.” It is heartening though that, at long last, we have a political, economic, and military strategy for victory.
Keep in mind though that people in carapaces often have convincing conversations with themselves.
Next the President said: “September the 11th also changed the way I viewed threats like Saddam Hussein. We saw the destruction terrorists could cause with airplanes loaded with jet fuel -- and we imagined the destruction they could cause with even more powerful weapons. At the time, the leaders of both political parties recognized this new reality: We cannot allow the world's most dangerous men to get their hands on the world's most dangerous weapons. In an age of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.
We removed Saddam Hussein from power because he was a threat to our security.”
This is the first Bushian slip admitting that September 11 caused some change in his thinking about Saddam Hussein. Although we know of the reports that within days of that fateful attack, the President was asking if Hussein could be linked to 9-11, the Administration has steadfastly denied that they sought to manufacture a linkage between the Iraq of then and Al-Qaeda.
Well, now we have direct evidence of backwards reasoning. But then, think about it this way, Saddam backwards is “Mad-ass” or something close enough, so, what the heck, let’s not take a chance. There’s no percentage in getting your rear end caught in a mushroom cloud wringer now, is there? And if the events of 9-11 were mad-ass in the extreme, well then the connection to Mad-ass is not that far-fetched. Especially, not far-fetched if you are reasoning bass-ackward (or is it bush-ackward)?
And, the President also said: “When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As President, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq -- and I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that.... Given Saddam's history and the lessons of September the 11th, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat -- and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power. We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator; it is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in its place.”
Okay, so we have come full circle from denial to admitting that the intelligence was wrong. Eventually, somebody will recognize that a decision made on a false premise cannot be justified by recasting the premise into something it never was. But the first step is looking at the view from within the carapace and seeing that one of the wheels has fallen off. My Republican friends seem to believe that the President is riding in an 18-wheeler than can continue on 17, and my Democrat friends seem to hope that it is a tricycle that cannot afford to lose a wheel. All I know for certain is that SOB is not riding that scooter any more.
But, you know what troubles me is not the President’s latest ad lib but the failure to acknowledge that more than faulty intelligence was involved. We now know that al-Libi (Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi) was the apparent source of the President’s pre-invasion claims that Madass was training Al-Qaeda operatives in the use of biological weapons. Of course, now that he acknowledges there were no biological weapons, it should follow that Mad-ass could not have trained people to use something that did not exist. But, it’ll take time for such a complex concept to sink in and gel.
You will recall that al-Libi (and no, my Republican friends, he is not related to al-gore) is the guy who claims that his “revelations” about these connections were squeezed out of him while he was being tortured – after he was rendered (I assume that’s the correct word for when one is the object of a rendition) for interrogation by the Egyptians. On the other hand, “rendered” evokes images of being boiled in hot water until you lose a lot of fat. Gee, I’ll have to write about that torture stuff one of these days.
While I am heartened by the President’s slowly evolving ability to grasp what happened – he now takes responsibility, I cannot emphasize more strongly that what really troubles me is that the entire military campaign was based on the statements of one captured Arab that Madass was training Al-Qaeda operatives. Am I missing something or is it just common sense that you don’t go off to war based on what one guy – a fellow you have never met before until you just captured him recently – says?
Unlike some of my Democrat friends, I have been hesitant to say that the President personally misled us into war. I have always said that he made the wrong decision. He has not quite come to saying that much although, for the first time, he admits that the information on which the decision was based, was false.
It is difficult to understand how so many players in the Administration – Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, to name a few of the biggies – could have gone off on an oratorio-like chant about WMD without the President’s involvement as the composer Handel of this particular messianic work. But, I suppose it is possible that he thought these people were being directed by God and doing her work.
There is hope though. Well over a year ago, I wrote a piece saying that it was time to withdraw from Iraq in a sensible way – by moving to the periphery. Congressman Jack Murtha has prompted discussion about withdrawing and the President has suggested that US troops should be pulled back from the cities. Maybe, just maybe, Carl Rover has been reading Breakfast.
Cheerz….Bwana
_________________________________________________________________________________
Breakfast with Bwana
__________________________________________________________________________________
DECEMBER 15, 2005
LOOKING OUT FROM INSIDE THE CARAPACE
THE WHEELS ARE OFF THE PACE CAR:
My Republican friends – yes, I have many who are both, friends and Republicans – accuse me of getting perverse pleasure from picking on the President. Funny thing is, my Democrat friends used to say the same thing when Clinton was President! I can protest until I’m blue in the face that for the satirist in me, fair game is fair game and there’s nothing fair about it. It’s just the fare for my game. They don’t get it.
Actually, in this case, I am more interested in the prospect that the President seems to be realizing that, after all is said and done, God had nothing to do with his becoming President and, most likely, she did not and does not really care.
But, it’s hard to realize such things when one’s cocoon is also one’s carapace. Even the series of recent rah-rah speeches have been delivered in another kind of carapace … one military academy to another … one fort, another base … an aircraft carrier deck … occasionally, a right wing yahoo stronghold. One should not be surprised at enthusiastic applause when the Commander-in-Chief speaks at military gatherings. I mean, if I worked at a company and the CEO came in and said something idiotic, I’d applaud anyway. Why, if I had worked at GE and they showed a video of Jack Welch and Susie Leftover (or whatever her name is) in the GE Imaging Studies boardroom, I’d have applauded that too. Jeff Immelt must have applauded a lot to win out over the guys now running Home Despot and a host of other companies.
Permit me a minor digression. For my Republican friends who have been misled by the title of this piece into thinking that “carapace” has something to do with NASCAR, please get a Funk & Wagnalls. Say it fast: “Funk’nWagnalls” and you’ll get the idea. Say it fast enough, and the wheels come off. Say it soft, and it’s almost like racing. The NASCAR thing … another carapace of sorts … is a pace car.
So, anyway, Prez has been doing his speech-making routine – you know, make basically the same speech six times. Whatever happened to the old adage that if you repeat something three times, people will believe it? Well, let’s give him credit for trying. He’s up to six times and although it hasn’t worked, he is an enthusiastic sort, isn’t he? Some of the bravado and braggadocio are gone, but the there seems to be a new realism setting in.
Yesterday’s speech was outside the usual carapace, but only slightly. Three fourths of the cocoon – Rummy, Condi and Chertoff – were present. CHEstpaiNEY, trying to catch his breath, was in an undisclosed location and still SOB (short of breath). The White House Press Release notes that the speech was delivered at the The Woodrow Wilson Center, in the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center. Undoubtedly, history will record that it was given from the Donald Rumsfeld Lectern, spoken into the Condoleeza Rice Microphone, and read from the Michael Chertoff Teleprompter.
The President’s strangulating grip on his own self-righteously evident truth is slowly devolving into a soft grasp on reality. But, you have to be alert to catch the subtle loss of his pet squeeze. First, he said: “In the war on terror, Iraq is now the central front -- and over the last few weeks, I've been discussing our political, economic, and military strategy for victory in that country.”
Notice the Bushian slip (yes, it’s related to the “Freudian” slip, but since born-again Methodists don’t have dirty thoughts except about bombing the hell out of the enemy, a new term is in order) that Iraq is “now” the central front. Never mind that a front is a front and not a center. I’ll take “central front” to mean the “center of the front.” I’ll also take “now” to mean “not then.” It is heartening though that, at long last, we have a political, economic, and military strategy for victory.
Keep in mind though that people in carapaces often have convincing conversations with themselves.
Next the President said: “September the 11th also changed the way I viewed threats like Saddam Hussein. We saw the destruction terrorists could cause with airplanes loaded with jet fuel -- and we imagined the destruction they could cause with even more powerful weapons. At the time, the leaders of both political parties recognized this new reality: We cannot allow the world's most dangerous men to get their hands on the world's most dangerous weapons. In an age of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.
We removed Saddam Hussein from power because he was a threat to our security.”
This is the first Bushian slip admitting that September 11 caused some change in his thinking about Saddam Hussein. Although we know of the reports that within days of that fateful attack, the President was asking if Hussein could be linked to 9-11, the Administration has steadfastly denied that they sought to manufacture a linkage between the Iraq of then and Al-Qaeda.
Well, now we have direct evidence of backwards reasoning. But then, think about it this way, Saddam backwards is “Mad-ass” or something close enough, so, what the heck, let’s not take a chance. There’s no percentage in getting your rear end caught in a mushroom cloud wringer now, is there? And if the events of 9-11 were mad-ass in the extreme, well then the connection to Mad-ass is not that far-fetched. Especially, not far-fetched if you are reasoning bass-ackward (or is it bush-ackward)?
And, the President also said: “When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As President, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq -- and I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that.... Given Saddam's history and the lessons of September the 11th, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat -- and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power. We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator; it is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in its place.”
Okay, so we have come full circle from denial to admitting that the intelligence was wrong. Eventually, somebody will recognize that a decision made on a false premise cannot be justified by recasting the premise into something it never was. But the first step is looking at the view from within the carapace and seeing that one of the wheels has fallen off. My Republican friends seem to believe that the President is riding in an 18-wheeler than can continue on 17, and my Democrat friends seem to hope that it is a tricycle that cannot afford to lose a wheel. All I know for certain is that SOB is not riding that scooter any more.
But, you know what troubles me is not the President’s latest ad lib but the failure to acknowledge that more than faulty intelligence was involved. We now know that al-Libi (Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi) was the apparent source of the President’s pre-invasion claims that Madass was training Al-Qaeda operatives in the use of biological weapons. Of course, now that he acknowledges there were no biological weapons, it should follow that Mad-ass could not have trained people to use something that did not exist. But, it’ll take time for such a complex concept to sink in and gel.
You will recall that al-Libi (and no, my Republican friends, he is not related to al-gore) is the guy who claims that his “revelations” about these connections were squeezed out of him while he was being tortured – after he was rendered (I assume that’s the correct word for when one is the object of a rendition) for interrogation by the Egyptians. On the other hand, “rendered” evokes images of being boiled in hot water until you lose a lot of fat. Gee, I’ll have to write about that torture stuff one of these days.
While I am heartened by the President’s slowly evolving ability to grasp what happened – he now takes responsibility, I cannot emphasize more strongly that what really troubles me is that the entire military campaign was based on the statements of one captured Arab that Madass was training Al-Qaeda operatives. Am I missing something or is it just common sense that you don’t go off to war based on what one guy – a fellow you have never met before until you just captured him recently – says?
Unlike some of my Democrat friends, I have been hesitant to say that the President personally misled us into war. I have always said that he made the wrong decision. He has not quite come to saying that much although, for the first time, he admits that the information on which the decision was based, was false.
It is difficult to understand how so many players in the Administration – Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, to name a few of the biggies – could have gone off on an oratorio-like chant about WMD without the President’s involvement as the composer Handel of this particular messianic work. But, I suppose it is possible that he thought these people were being directed by God and doing her work.
There is hope though. Well over a year ago, I wrote a piece saying that it was time to withdraw from Iraq in a sensible way – by moving to the periphery. Congressman Jack Murtha has prompted discussion about withdrawing and the President has suggested that US troops should be pulled back from the cities. Maybe, just maybe, Carl Rover has been reading Breakfast.
Cheerz….Bwana
_________________________________________________________________________________
