Our Current President -"OCP" - Phase 1

The disputed 2000 election of a Republican president and undisputed majorities in the House and Senate set the nation on a very different course at the beginning of this century. This post is the first of several in which I will attempt to analyze the changes in Our Current President (OCP), George W. Bush, since he first took office as the former Governor of Texas and George Bush, Sr.'s son. When he first ran for Governor, his claim to fame was for his work in "the awl bidness,"and as part owner of the Texas Ranger's baseball team. He was relatively unknown at the national level, and had campaigned as a Washington outsider. After the inauguration those in power perceived a Conservative mandate to govern. First efforts included tax cuts for the rich, the rise of special interest influence in Congress, and the acendancy of a new Right Wing moralistic social agenda.

Pre-9/11 stance of OCP: George W. Bush did not come across as particularly competent or powerful during that initial year and a half of governing. He was relatively invisible after the Supreme Court declared him President. During that time I felt it could be characterized overall as his "Not-Clinton" phase. However, 9/11 did not happen in a vacuum. During the transition period between administrations there had been warnings about terrorism. Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke had tried to convey their concerns about al-Qaeda. Time Magazine's article (8/4/02), "They Had A Plan," discusses in depth what the administration was thinking about al-Qaeda before the attack. To quote,

By last summer, many of those in the know—the spooks, the buttoned-down bureaucrats, the law-enforcement professionals in a dozen countries—were almost frantic with worry that a major terrorist attack against American interests was imminent. It wasn't averted because 2001 saw a systematic collapse in the ability of Washington's national-security apparatus to handle the terrorist threat.
The winter proposals became a victim of the transition process, turf
wars and time spent on the pet policies of new top officials. The Bush Administration chose to institute its own "policy review process" on the terrorist threat.

September 11, 2001: The fundamental change in the internal reality of OCP was from living in relative peace to being utterly at war. Within a few days he saw himself as the commander in chief. We saw a confident decisive leader in a hard-hat standing on a pile of rubble "rallying the troops."

But to the casual observer it did not look that way at the beginning of the tragedy. The President seemed remarkably detached at first. The Center for Cooperative Research website is compiling a Timeline about the actions of OCP on the fateful day. To quote:

Bush's actions on September 11 have been the subject of lively debate, mostly on the internet. Details reported that day and in the week after the attacks—both the media reports and accounts given by Bush himself—have changed radically over the past 18 months. Culling hundreds of reports from newspapers, magazines, and the internet has only made finding the “truth” of what happened and when it happened more confusing. In the changed political climate after 9/11, few have dared raise challenging questions about Bush's actions.

Post-9/11 stance: In a subsequent timeline compiled by PBS, "Post-9/11 Timeline," there are clues about what changed in OCP (my thoughts in italics preceed the dates). I quote from a few of the article's paragraphs about specific significant dates:

OCP did the next logical thing, with wide approval, and well within limits. America went after the Taliban in retaliation, whose support allowed al Quaeda, the perpetrators of the attack to be based in Afghanistan. October 7, 2001 - The U.S. begins bombing Afghanistan. In a televised address, President Bush tells the nation: "On my orders, the United States military has begun strikes against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and military installations of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. These carefully targeted actions are designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime."

OCP, within six weeks, had made it into the Global War On Terrorism. There is no mistaking the threatening words. No nation is immune. Neocon dogma begins to appear in public. November 21, 2001 - Speaking at a Thanksgiving dinner for troops and their families at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, President Bush states, "Afghanistan is just the beginning on the war against terror. There are other terrorists who threaten America and our friends, and there are other nations willing to sponsor them. We will not be secure as a nation until all of these threats are defeated. Across the world and across the years, we will fight these evil ones, and we will win."

For OCP a lot has happened to convince him to adopt the neocon's plan to go to war with Iraq, that had been put forth almost immediately after 9/11. From around Thanksgiving of the previous year to this time in the spring, the intelligence is in, Congress has been handled, the UN has had its chance, and now it is up to us, "The Coalition of the Willing." March 18, 2003 - In a televised speech, President Bush gives Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq, or the U.S. will begin military action "at a time of our choosing."

OCP, the Commander in Chief, is now fully at war with Iraq, not al-Qaeda. That will come later as they come from all over the world at our invitation. I believe that he believed that we could eventually "fight them over there, rather than over here." March 20, 2003 - 90 minutes after the 48-hour deadline expires, at 5:30 am local time, explosions are heard in Baghdad. President Bush announces that he has ordered the coalition to launch an "attack of opportunity" against specified targets in Iraq. Troops from the United States, Britain, Australia, and Poland invade Iraq. Bush sends a letter to Congress, saying that he has determined that further diplomacy will not protect the U.S., and that the U.S. is "continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

OCP thought he could finish his father's war, show the world how powerful is our military, drive out the Baathists, establish a base for spreading the inevitable democracy in the Middle East, and the terrorists would all lose heart, give up, go home, and leave us alone. March 22, 2003 - "Shock and awe" airstrikes on Baghdad continue.

The next post in this series will examine in more depth the period of September-December 2001. What were the forces driving the switch from peace to such widespread war, on "terrorism," the tactic? What went on in December, which is when I believe OCP really got on board with the neocons?

Tags: Bush administration 9/11 terrorism Iraq war al-Qaeda

My "creative" post today at Southwest Blogger is about stardust, technology and touch.

Martin Luther King, Jr., a man of peace

"I want to say one other challenge that we face is simply that we must find an alternative to war and bloodshed. Anyone who feels, and there are still a lot of people who feel that way, that war can solve the social problems facing mankind is sleeping through a great revolution. President Kennedy said on one occasion, "Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind." The world must hear this. I pray to God that America will hear this before it is too late, because today we’re fighting a war." --Martin Luther King, Jr., Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution.
Via a Yahoo search, this quotation was found at the site of Dr. King's "Papers Project": The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute which is located at Stanford University in California. Info about the King Center in Atlanta is linked to this post's title above.
Today, you might have the day off. This official federal holiday was first observed in 1986. And it has taken a while for the word to get around. According to Wikipedia,

At the White House Rose Garden on November 2, 1983, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed a bill creating a federal holiday to honor King. It was observed for the first time on January 20, 1986. On January 18, 1999, for the first time, Martin Luther King Day was officially observed in all fifty U.S. states. The day is marked by demonstrations for peace, social justice and racial and class equality, as well as a national day of volunteer community service.
On January 16, 2006, Greenville County, South Carolina, will be the last county in the U.S. to officially adopt Martin Luther King Day as a paid holiday. Although the day is a federal holiday and a state holiday in all states, it is usually not observed by small private companies except for banks.

This year's theme is: Remember! Celebrate! Act! A Day On, Not A Day Off!! Here is something you can do. The Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial Project Foundation is raising money to build a King memorial in Washington. The Project was officially launched when President Clinton signed authorizing legislation on November 12, 1996. A couple of years later, John Carter testified before the memorial oversight committee that,

“We now have an opportunity to break the trend of memorials to war and erect a monument which delivers a message of lifelong peace in our land. A memorial which embodies not just the image of Dr. King, but the image of America, which is often called the melting pot of the world.”

A preliminary design by Roma in San Francisco has been approved. Federal matching requirement means that the fund now needs $4,000,000 more.

This post started with a quote from Dr. King about the importance of peace. He was opposed to the war in Vietnam. Today we are still at war, though not the same war, of course. And there is an ironic twist to all this. There was some unfinished business, from the the military's point of view. A man still needs to be punished for standing for peace instead of war. According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram,

A desserter from the Vietnam has been apprehended and is now in federal prison. In November 1969, McQueen left Camp Lejeune, N.C. He never went back. "I just decided I didn't want to be a part of killing anybody," McQueen said. "That's about as plain as I can say it."
But now, after more than 36 years on the lam, McQueen is behind bars on a federal warrant for military desertion. On Thursday, Fort Worth fugitive officers arrested McQueen after receiving information from the Marines that he was living, with his girlfriend, in southwest Fort Worth. Military officials say McQueen's true name is Ernest Johnson Jr.

Tags: Martin Luther King, Jr. MLK holiday peace movement memorials Marines

My "creative" post today at Southwest Blogger is a poem I wrote some years ago about war.

The soul of the Middle East

The Soul of the Middle East: (title link is Google search for soul+Middle+East)
"What a presumptuous subject, for a female blogger living in the Southwestern part of the United States, to choose," one could say. How would anyone like me ever begin to understand anything about the subject? I speak none of the languages nor have I ever traveled there. But I have had an enduring fascination with the region for some decades, long before our nation got so involved.

Most of us have so little personal experience that we are culturally ignorant. I have eaten at an "Egyptian" restaurant. About.com writer Saad Fayed provides a little list of favorite Mideastern foods, all of which I have tasted.
It seems to me that the leaders of our nation are having a difficult time understanding, as well. If we really understood we would not have made so many serious miscalculations in our foreign policy decisions about the Middle East.
Information is power, as the cliche goes. Understanding what is going on in the Middle East is a challenge for the average American, because the mainstream media is not very well versed on the subject. However, regular reading from the top two U.S. newspapers, who have Middle East Sections, would be a good place to start. Here are links to those specialized sections in The Washington Post and The New York Times. Both papers have significant bureau presence in the region, a very expensive proposition, by the way.
Two additional papers from which I receive regular and essential news feeds are The BBC Middle East section, and Aljazeera in English. Those two perspectives are invaluable for any kind of broader understanding of what are often vastly differing views of reality. They clearly have their own biases, but so does the media here in the USA. And I just discovered another excellent resource through my googling, the Asia Times Online - which has a good Middle East section. The Middle East lives next door to South Asia, which is contiguous to Asis proper. A huge majority of the world's population resides in India and China, both of whom are part of our global economic system.
The world of blogging offers another resource for gaining understanding of that far-away region. Blog communities TPMCafehas a section called America Abroad, focused on foreign policy. And the DailyKos tag, "Middle East" returned 14 pertinent posts within the past month. I have a diary at that site and my own post, "Middle East Fascination drew 18 comments, the most I have has since beginning the diary. So the interest must have been there for a few "Kossacks."
One if the most widely read individual bloggers on the subject of the Middle East is Professor Juan Cole, who writes Informed Comment. And it is a well informed blog. Americablog posted a link to Crooks and Liars recently about how difficult it might be to be a Muslim living in the United States.
In conclusion, Fayrouz Hancock blogs regularly and wonderfully at Iraqi in America. And "Riverbend" is the widely admired writer of Baghdad Burning. Reading these two Iraqi-born women is essential to understanding the soul of the Middle East in my opinion.

Tags: Middle East Foreign Policy newspapers political blogs

Today's post at my "creative" blog, Southwest Blogger is fun puzzle that will mess with your head.

Iran-again it is all about oil

Germany, France and the United Kingdom have been right in the big middle of the nuclear saber rattling situation in Iran for two and a half years. But these talks seems to have gone as far as they can. A joint statement was issued by the Foreign Ministers of the three EU nations, along with The EU High Commissioner Representative, Javier Solana, after a meeting to consider what to do, is now calling for the United Nations to step in. To quote the BBC,

EU calls for UN action over Iran
Western powers suspect Iran's nuclear ambitions are not peaceful Foreign ministers from the UK, France and Germany have said the time has come for Iran's nuclear issue to be dealt with by the UN Security Council. They called for an emergency session of the UN's nuclear watchdog, which can refer Iran to the council and lead to possible sanctions. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice backed the move, saying Iran had crossed an "important threshold". Iran, which resumed nuclear research this week, said it was not worried. And UN Secretary General Kofi Annan told the BBC Iranian officials had told him they remained interested in serious and constructive negotiations".

The Iranian President is saying that this will make no difference in their plans, according to the New York Times,

Iran will not abandon its nuclear program even if the United Nations nuclear watchdog refers it to the Security Council, where it could face punitive measures, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in a rare news conference on Saturday. He insisted that Iran had the right to a peaceful nuclear program and that "no excuse could deprive the country from this right."
"They keep on threatening us that we have to either accept what they say or they will send us to the Security Council," he said, referring to the United States and other Western nations that, through the International Atomic Energy Agency, have been pressing Iran not to resume any nuclear activity. "The Security Council is not an instrument for you to pressure us with," he added.
"They have the right to make comments. We follow our national interests within the framework of international regulations and have the leverage to defend our interests."

As it happens Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel was in town for a visit this week, just in time for a little huffing and puffing on the part of Iran. And now, of course the United States is taking an interest, as well. The two leaders seem to agree that Iran's actions cannot be tolerated. But there seems little od significance to be done, since Iran's oil supplies seem to be vital to much of the rest of the world. To quote from a NYT article,

President Bush and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, meeting for the first time since Mrs. Merkel took office last month, promised Friday to step up pressure on Iran at the Security Council to abandon nuclear activities that could be part of a weapons program. But at a news conference at the White House, Mr. Bush declined to predict what sanctions might be imposed on Iran if the Security Council took up the issue in answer to a referral by the International Atomic Energy Agency. . . Underscoring the fluid nature of the diplomacy, a number of countries - including China, Germany, France and Japan - also signaled that they were reluctant at this stage to endorse sanctions against Iran, which has 10 percent of the world's oil reserves and the second largest gas reserves, after Russia. China, which imports 300,000 barrels of oil a day from Iran, is the most hesitant about sanctions. . . Iran, for its part, threatened to halt intrusive, voluntary international inspections of its nuclear facilities if it was referred to the Council, although it pledged to continue to allow regular inspections under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The three big EU powers have been handling what the United States should have handled all along in Iran, except that we were otherwise occupied in Iraq. Experts have yet to agree whether that war was all about oil or not. But think about it. Would we still be involved up to our armpits in Iraq is it were not for their large strategic supply of crude oil?

And now that we need the rest of the world again, because we simply cannot handle this by ourselves, our current president is behaving much more deferentially that in recent years. He has a secretary of state who is much more involved. The war has not been a cakewalk in Iraq, and finds that the U.S. is having to behave again like a member of the family of nations. It is amazing to me that it Iran's blustering and threats to force a more rational assessment of international reality.

Atrios posted a brilliant piece about the politics of Iran today. Great analysis!

Tags: European Union EU Middle East Iran foreign policy

Southwest Blogger, my "creative" blog, posts today about fires in the Southwest.