I've finally decided it's time to write about Bush, Iraq and other political QUAGMIRES (love that word).
It requires energy and discipline to take all the emotion, facts and history (some spun, some not) and distill it down to a simple, readable blog entry. Hence the delay in tackling this topic. Or topics, I should say, since the mere mention of Bush in itself can lead to thousands of pages (and indeed has, based on the bookstore shelves).
I'm interested that a New York Times article today included this tidbit:
While calling Mr. Tenet "a very entrepreneurial, gutsy guy who has worked very, very hard," Mr. Lehman [Republican 9/11 committee member] accused the agency of "smugness and even arrogance towards deep reform" and warned Mr. Tenet: "There are going to be some very real changes."
Looking beyond the paper "Islamic Extremist Learns to Fly" that was presented to Tenet and his deputies in Aug, 2001; forget that Bush was on vacation for that entire month of August and received a briefing about likely terrorist attacks; and that the Clinton Administration, in a special report warned that FAA security needed an overhaul (and later a special commission warned specifically that terrorists might use a plane as a bomb); nevermind that a plot was discovered in the Phillipines in 1995 that outlined crashing a plane into key targets (including the CIA HQ), leaving all that aside...
How is it that Congress is just now determining that the CIA needs a complete overhaul?
How is it that just now we are asking, publically, what really happened and which agencies/departments/branches of government dropped the ball?
How did we expect to really fix the problem of our deep vulnerability to attack without knowing exactly what went wrong?
How is it that the leader of the "free world" doesn't have the guts to say, "The buck stops here." and admits that tax cuts were his first priority after he got the Supreme Court to nod him into office, not national security.
So here we are, finally getting some answers. No safer than we were 2 years ago, but many less freedoms.
I went to NYC a few weeks ago. Did you know the Statue of Liberty is still closed to the public? How safe are we if we can't even protect an old statue on an ISLAND?
I hear that this whole surealistic time has been written about. I never read the book, but intend to. I hear in it, people don't fight for their freedoms, they willingly give them up. Why? So they will be "safe", so the things that go bump in the night won't "get them". They desperately want their leader to protect them, and will give up anything to be safe.
Sounds a bit too much like people who went along with the Nazis, come to think of it.
These last weeks we've also gotten a glimpse into the mercenary population that is employed by our government (and the presidential contractors - including Haliburton) to protect key resources in Iraq. Amazingly, these men get paid $500 per day to do this dangerous work. Our soldiers might make that much in an entire month's pay. How is it that we are paying, even if indirectly, for this kind of "protection" in Iraq?
Maybe a better question is: did we ever really need protection from Iraq?
And it's corollary: Did we need to use a sledgehammer or a scalpel to solve the very real problem that we (U.S. and Americans) have become the most popular targets of the most radical and dangerous terrorists ever known.
Sadly, I came across this Headline in NYT the other day:
Hostage Was Working in Iraq to Aid His Struggling Family. It reminded me of the extreme classism of our military forces. Middle class kids aren't the backbone of our deployed soldiers, poor kids are. Middle class kids are in college or flunking out, or working in great summer jobs.
Michael Moore spoke recently and said he's discovered that only one member of congress has a child in Iraq. One.
Sound familiar, history buffs? Remember when the royal class could pay peasants to fight for them, say in the Crusades? Hmmm, interesting to contemplate the link between the Crusades and terrorism circa 2004.
But that's a topic for another day.
p.s. This San Diego article found today, an important summary of why the situation has gotten worse in Iraq by someone who is extrememly well qualified to judge.
I have extraordinary respect for our military leaders, including Wesley Clark, and have no problem with the use of force to defend ourselves. (Remember, I was the one who wanted to fly fighter jets and spent 4 years in AFROTC in college trying to get there.) I do have a problem with leaders who reach for a big stick without regard to lives sacrificed (ours and the "enemy's"). I resent a president who is to the presidency what Clarence Thomas is to the Supreme Court (unqualified). And I abhor simplistic solutions to very complex problems.