It might be time now to really do some thinking about the past year’s election, now that the anger has subsided a bit. What was really going on in the election was a conflict between two differing views of reality. Many pundits said that George W. Bush got elected on moral values. This is a part of the truth. In fact, this nation is divided between two differing camps, each with a differing set of values, visions and assumptions about how the world works.

Having read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance years ago, I was trying to explain to a friend today what it was about. I realized that I didn’t remember it very clearly and finding it on my bookshelf today, I decided to read it again. Some books are worth reading more than once. This one is worth rereading repeatedly. Over ten years ago, I loaned my first copy to someone and never got it back, so I went and bought another just to have it on my bookshelf. I began reading this new copy for the first time.

I came across a passage in it that is relevant today as it was when it was written. It is about conflicting visions of reality, one of which was based in the sixties hippie movement. Here it is:

"That’s the dimension [John]’s in. The groovy dimension. I’m being awfully square talking about all this mechanical stuff all the time. It’s all just parts and relationships and analyses and syntheses and figuring things out and it isn’t really here. It’s somewhere else, which thinks it’s here but’s a million miles away. This is what it’s all about. He’s on this dimensional difference which underlay much of the cultural changes of the sixties, I think, and is still in the process of reshaping our whole national outlook on things. The names "beat" and "hip" grew out of it. Now it’s become apparent that this dimension isn’t a fad that’s going to go away next year or the year after. It’s here to stay because it’s a very serious and important way of looking at things that looks incompatible with reason and order and responsibility but actually is not. Now we are down to the root of things."

"What we have here is a conflict of visions of reality. … That’s really why [John] got upset that day when he couldn’t get his engine started. It was an intrusion on his reality. It just blew a hole right through his whole groovy way of looking at things and he would not face up to it because it seemed to threaten his whole life style." Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Robert Pirsig, pp. 53-54.

While the conflicting visions of reality described by Pirsig in the book are different from those espoused by the Democrats and Republicans in the election over the last year, they are related and the conflict is similar. Pirsig says that the cultural changes of the sixties were here to stay. In fact, since he wrote the book, those cultural changes have become the culture for half of America. It has been a growing cultural perspective for the last 40 years and has permeated American society, mostly in urban areas and among the educated middle and upper classes. Much of the growth of conservatism over the past twenty years can be explained as a reaction among rural and traditional Americans to the growth of this new cultural perspective, not as the remnants of the old conservatism that the hippies protested against.

Aside from how these differing views came to be, the important thing to realize is that they are conflicting views of reality and seem to have little common ground. This is a dangerous and unfortunate situation for American society. Because the one’s vision of reality is an intrusion on the other’s reality, they each seem to threaten the other’s whole life style.

We need to get past this illusion and find the common ground between the red camp and the blue camp. As Lincoln put it, a house divided against itself cannot stand. America has some profound challenges ahead of it and must face the challenges united, not as a slim majority ruling over an equally sized minority.

This and the next three posts are from a friend of mine. I have always respected his thoughtful approach to issues and his compassion for others and society as a whole. While this essay is long, it is well researched and well-thought out. It is worth the read. It reminds me of the quote by Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time. "

Griff originally wrote it with all sorts of formatting that helps reading, but blogger doesn't work very well on internet explorer on a macintosh, so I cannot add back all his formatting. I wanted to get this out before the election so people could see it.


Hello fellow voter. My name is Griff, and I live in Portland, Oregon, though I grew up in Youngstown, Ohio, and have lived in Virginia and Michigan along the way.

I am writing to try to help make some sense of some things regarding the election next week, both for myself and maybe for somebody else. I should say from the start that I strongly oppose the reelection of George Bush. I have my reservations about John Kerry, but those don't hold a candle to what I feel is the appalling and frightening record of the Bush Administration. I have come to where my objections to the current administration are so wide and numerous that I can hardly even keep track of them in my own head anymore.

Thus I decided to try to organize my thoughts. At the same time, with family and friends in both Ohio and Florida (the two states that may well decide this election) I thought I could help the cause by giving some other fellow voters something to chew on.

In Oregon we vote by mail exclusively, and we have a robust intitiative process, so we get huge books of material to read for every election, and i value those dearly. i feel best when i have read the opinions of those both for and against every measure and candidate ... those I agree with and those I don't.

In that spirit, I hope you will be willing to forward this to others that might find it helpful, whether you agree with me or not. I have tried to be as honest and fair as possible, and to write and research with integrity, though I have no intention of being "impartial."

I believe that the Bush Campaign relies on so much smokescreen that they think no one can ever find their way through it. As I have tried to see through the smoke & deception, I have been staggered by the depth of it all. I think the best I've been able to do is construct representative examples of the administration's methods and strategies. i hope this is helpful.

__________________________


Dear Mr. Bush & Co.

I strongly oppose your reelection for three primary reasons:

1) I believe you have proven yourselves the most deceitful, dishonest, and disingenuous administration I've ever seen.

2) I believe you are jeopardizing our safety and security with a clumsy, belligerent, and inept foreign policy that does not respect statesmanship, international law, or the vital support of allies.

3) Your reckless fiscal policy has erased over a decade of very difficult and bipartisan work to overcome the federal deficit. This is an irresponsible course that we will pay for for decades or generations to come.


Below I will address the first two of these only.


A) HONESTY, DISCLOSURE AND INTEGRITY.

You have built nearly an entire presidency of one simple idea: "if we say it enough, and stand by it with conviction, then it will be true."

but many of us beg to differ.


The Scientific Community Calls You Out

Please recall the days when scientists were censored and punished for proposing the earth is round. This suppression was based on religious grounds, as the flat earth model was central to the theology of the time, and the church and state were inextricably intertwined. Now, certainly, no one today would propose that belief in a spherical earth is heretical. No, the science was not the problem, but rather, the dogmatic religious conservatism, unwilling to seek, face, and embrace a richer understanding of God's creation with honesty.

On February 18, 2004, over 60 leading scientists–Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents–signed [a public statement] voicing their concern over the misuse of science by the Bush administration.

This statement came from the Union of Concerned Scientists, a non-partisan group representing esteemed scientists from many disciplines.

The UCS states "When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies. - From Union of Concerned Scientists statement. 2/18/04

According to CNN on 2/19/04:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's administration distorts scientific findings and seeks to manipulate experts' advice to avoid information that runs counter to its political beliefs, a private organization of scientists asserted on Wednesday.

The Union of Concerned Scientists ("UCS") contended in a report that "the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented."

"We're not taking issue with administration policies. We're taking issue with the administration's distortion ... of the science related to some of its policies," said the group's president, Kurt Gottfried.

I want to reiterate that point ... this group is not "taking issue with administration policies. We're taking issue with the administration's distortion ... of the science related to some of its policies."

In other words, these distinguished scientists are not objecting because they have different opinions about what policy choices we should make. They are objecting to dishonesty and manipulation in the decision making process itself. It would be very different if the administration was approaching the issues with integrity and genuine concern for relevant evidence, and if they were candid about the process. Then some scientists might agree with the decisions and others might not (and the same for the larger public), ... that's part of Democracy ... we have honest debate and then those empowered to do so make policy choices based on the information gleaned from that debate. But that's not what's happening here.

How does this work? There are many ways. This statement from the UCS gives some examples, including federal advisory committees being stacked with unqualified representatives from regulated industries, and suppression of studies that do not support administration policies.

According to the UCS, for instance, in November 2002, an advisory committee of the Center for disease Control ("CDC") was considering whether to make federal standards for lead poisoning more stringent, a move opposed by various affected industries. A few weeks before the scheduled meeting, the Bush administration stacked the committee with members opposed to the change in standards. Now in order to do that, the administration had to dump or turn away highly qualified experts that were recommended by the CDC, according to standard procedure. The move included dismissing a leading expert and researcher who had been on the committee for four years, as well as rejecting the recommendations of the CDC staff. "According to Dr. Susan Cummins, who chaired the CDC’s lead advisory committee from 1995 to 2000, this was the first time an HHS secretary had ever rejected nominations by the committee or CDC staff." The replacement members included two appointees with financial ties to the lead industry, including at least one that other experts describe as holding a "'fringe' view in his field (far from even the normal extremities of mainstream expert scientific discourse)." "As one medical researcher explains it, Banner’s position either ignores or willfully misreads some four decades’ worth of accumulating data on lead exposure in children." But the one clear commonality among the "replacement appointees" was that the administration was certain they would oppose the changes in standards. It didn't really matter to the administration whether they were actually qualified or not, or whether they had a conflict of interest or not ... it only mattered that they would support the administration's position.

Science cannot effectively operate under such conditions.

Now, the UCS acknowledges that, "researchers may well reasonably debate whether the government should tighten its standard for lead poisoning. The public needs and deserves such an informed debate. In this case, however, the Bush administration effectively denied the public an informed policy recommendation by tampering with the integrity of the advisory panel nominating process."

This approach flies in the face of scientific integrity, and even political integrity. In the end, science is only one factor in making policy decisions, to be weighed along with many others, including economic impacts, ethics, etc. But while it is perfectly legitimate to consider the impacts of environmental policy on industry, for instance, it is not legitimate not try to distort the scientific information that is designed to inform that policy decision with the best information available.

As George Bush Sr. has said, "Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now, more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance." - President George H.W. Bush, April 23, 1990

But with the current administration "we’ve seen a consistent pattern of putting people in who will ensure that the administration hears what it wants to hear," says Dr. David Michaels, a research professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at George Washington University’s School of Public Health and former assistant secretary for environment, safety and health at the DOE during the Clinton administration. "That doesn’t help science, and it doesn’t help the country."

As Russell Train, former EPA Administrator laments, "In all my time as EPA administrator, under both Nixon and Ford, I do not recall ever receiving even a suggestion, let alone an order from the Whitehouse as to how I should make a regulatory decision. How times have changed." (quoted from a 2/18/04 National Public Radio ("NPR") story on the UCS statement).

You can check out this whole UCS statement, the signees, and other examples at:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1320.


For a related story:

Tue Jun 22, 9:40 AM - Chicago Tribune


By Jill Zuckman Tribune national correspondent

Forty-eight Nobel laureates denounced President Bush on Monday for "compromising our future" when it comes to scientific research and the environment, and said Sen. John Kerry "will restore science to its appropriate place in government and bring it back into the White House."

The star-studded scientific endorsement for Kerry came on a day when the presumptive Democratic nominee stood in Civic Center Park and told several hundred rain-soaked voters that the way to build the economy is to invest in science, technology and higher education.

"We need a president who will once again embrace our tradition of looking toward the future and new discoveries with hope based on scientific facts, not fear," said Kerry, vowing not to let "ideology and fear stand in the way."

Many scientists have complained that the Bush administration has filled science advisory panels with conservative ideologues rather than individuals with sterling scientific credentials.

In an open letter to the American public, Nobel Prize winners including Caltech President David Baltimore and cancer researcher Harold Varmus said "the Bush administration has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important to our collective welfare."

__________

Now Mr. Bush, the reason I've started out talking about science is that it is an ideal illustration of the willingness of your administration to distort facts for political ends. While you seem willing to do this on any and all fronts, it is most clear and apparent in the realm of science, specifically because of the stark contrast with the scientists' dedication to actual facts, research, and evidence. We all know that we can find an "expert" to say anything we want to support, but that doesn't make it a legitimate or realistic debate. As your administration has systematically positioned itself against mainstream science, substituting "fringe" opinions, in so many areas (climate change, forest management, endangered species, clean air, mercury emissions, health education, mining, breast cancer, etc. etc.) it becomes ever clearer that you are really not concerned with facts, research, or science, but driven only by half informed ideological dogma.

B) Iraq: Misleading a Nation to War

In the build-up to your invasion of Iraq, we can see so many examples of this same sort of strategy that it's nearly impossible to even catalog them all. But since we were talking about science, let's just start there.

Many citizens and, especially, Senators have indicated that the potential threat of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program was the most significant factor in their reluctant support for the "preemptive" invasion of Iraq. So what evidence did you offer of that nuclear program to convince the American people of the threat?

The single most persuasive piece of evidence you offered at the time was the purchase by Iraq of some unique aluminum tubes. You explained to us that these tubes were secured by Iraq to use for centrifuges in their nuclear weapons program. However, as we have since learned, there was actually a substantial debate among government experts as to what these tubes were really for. There were CIA analysts who believed the tubes were for centrifuges. However, there were also experts at the Energy Department, in fact the most knowledgeable experts in the country, who believed the tubes were unsuited for centrifuges, but rather, were likely for combustion chambers for slim rockets fired from launcher pods. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency had examined tubes of identical specifications in Iraq in 1996 that were actually being used as conventional rocket launchers. Based on their analysis, "the Energy Department experts ... concluded that using the tubes in centrifuges 'is credible but unlikely, and a rocket production is the much more likely end use for these tubes.' "Yes, it was theoretically possible [to use the tubes for centrifuges], but as an Energy Department analyst later told Senate investigators, it was also theoretically possible to 'turn your new Yugo into a Cadillac.''' Similar conclusions were being reached by Britain's intelligence service and experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body."

Now this point was very important to your case for an Iraqi threat that would justify an invasion. It was clear to you and everyone else that support for the war was reluctant and that you would have to have a viable and convincing case to get support from Congress and the American People. Furthermore, as Dr. David A. Kay, the chief American arms inspector after the war said, "remember ... the tubes were the only piece of physical evidence about the Iraqi weapons programs that [you] had.''

Now this sounds a lot like some of the scientific issues we looked at before. You have a specific agenda, and the science does not really back up your agenda. So what do you do? Well you ignore, or even bury the science that doesn't support you, of course, and focus only on those opinions that bolster your position.

So, more than a year after the department of Energy started telling your administration that it was unlikely these tubes were for a nuclear program, you stood before the U.N. and said Iraq had made "several attempts to buy high strength aluminum tubes to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon." Now I can see how you might have still thought this was a debatable issue. But you didn't say that. You just said it was true, even though the best science at the time said otherwise. In other words you selectively chose to go with science that you wanted to be true, rather that being honest about finding out what was actually true.

What Condoleeza Rice said, though is even more deceptive. A few days before you spoke to the U.N., she actually said, "We do know that there have been shipments going into iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to ... high quality aluminum tubes that are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs; centrifuge programs. We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. " -Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor, September 2002

It's hard to even believe that! She actually said these tubes were "only really suited for ... centrifuge programs." Even though the Energy Department experts; the best experts in the country, had been saying for over a year that the tubes were not suited for centrifuges, but were well suited for conventional rocket launchers! Still she said otherwise.

Of course, this is not just a matter of opinion ... as to which theory was better. It's not a subjective matter like which are better ... peas or carrots? that's a matter of taste. The question of the aluminum tubes is much more objective than that. Now, of course, we know that those tubes were NOT for a nuclear program, never were, and in fact, Iraq had had no nuclear program for over ten years. Indeed, the tubes were for conventional rocket launchers, just like they said.

That's the problem when you disregard, ignore, or bury to best evidence, of course, ... is that you're unlikely to have your view born out when the facts come in. Now even the best scientific theories may be disproven, but you're really on thin ice when you just try to ignore the evidence and make up what you want.

Again, remember what those scientists were saying. We may or may not agree as to the ultimate policy choices, but that's not even what we're talking about. This is about refusing to even enter into an honest debate ... or to be truthful or accurate in your representation of information. If you had wanted to be honest, you would have thoroughly investigated and apprised yourself of the various theories on these aluminum tubes, then told the public "there is some debate about what these tubes are for." You could have said, "some believe they are for (permissible) conventional rocket launchers, but others fear they may indicate an ongoing nuclear program." You could even have said, "we don't feel like we can take the chance that they might be part of a nuclear weapons program, and believe we must err on the safe side." Now all that would have been truthful and honest. Then the American people would have had accurate information and perspective on which to base our opinions, as would the Congress. But that's not what happened. Instead you chose to present a one sided distortion of the information, because you feared that a truthful disclosure would have weakened the case you wanted to make.

But the American people deserve more respect than this. We are not stupid. We are perfectly capable of "handling truth" ... even when it's a little complicated. It's not your job to pursue your own agenda, and release information only as it will mold our opinions in support of that agenda. No! It's your responsibility to be straight with us ... to lead us, not to lie to us. Misleading is not the same as leading. When others see the wisdom in your approach to problems and circumstances, and come to trust you and follow you with confidence, you are "leading." When you misrepresent the problems and circumstances to convince others of the wisdom of your approach, you are not leading but "misleading." In this way you have indeed proven yourself a great national misleader.

Now that we've got many more facts, and we've learned that those aluminum tubes were not for centrifuges or any nuclear program at all, now that we've gone ahead and invaded a sovereign nation and started a war that has cost over 10,000 lives based on misinformation, now Condoleeza is backtracking. Now, regarding her earlier statement, she says, ""The intelligence community assessment as a whole was that these were likely, and certainly suitable for and likely for his nuclear weapons program." - From ABC's This Week - 10/3/04. Now even this is debatable ... considering the Energy Department analysts, some of whom had been building and working on centrifuges for decades, were clearly indicating to the contrary. But, even if we give the benefit of the doubt, and say Condi weighed all the opinions and analysis, and came to buy into the centrifuge theory as the most credible, that's still a long way from saying the tubes are "only really suited" to nuclear weapons programs. Either she was "telling tales" or she didn't know what the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Energy Department knew.

And this brings me to another, larger point. Frankly, I don't care a whole lot whether Condoleeza Rice was outright lying, was creatively deceiving by half-truths and ommission, or was actually completely in the dark. I mean, she is the National Security Advisor for Pete's sake! It's her job to know these things. If she's going to go on National Television and tell the American people that Iraq is buying aluminum tubes that are "only suitable" for development of nuclear weapons, then surely she has the responsibility to check the story out first. That doesn't just mean asking the first person who will say what she or the President wants him to say. That means actually asking questions, hearing dissent, digging under the surface, and challenging the analysis she receives. The excuse of "bad intelligence" just doesn't fly here. It wasn't bad intelligence at all, it was a question of the analysis of perfectly good intelligence (in fact we had actually captured a shipment of the aluminum tubes and had the opportunity to study them extensively).

I mean this was not a small issue. This was, perhaps, the single most important issue of "National Security" at the time. This analysis was to be the central justification for an unprecedented unprovoked invasion of another sovereign nation. It was the basis for estimating whether an declared enemy might have nuclear capabilities. You'd think that she could actually check it out ... thoroughly! You'd also hope that she would represent it truthfully to the American people.

But as far as I can tell, one of three things happened here ... either:

1) Condoleeza Rice understood the debate between the CIA analysis and the Energy Department Analysis and willfully and blatantly misrepresented the information to the American people or

2) She assessed the analysis by the Energy Department to be so unlikely that it was not even worth considering (in spite of the facts that it was proffered by the leading experts in the field, and that this analysis is the one that was actually most accurate), or

2) The National Security Advisor was oblivious to vital and pivotal information on the most important issue of National Security facing the country, in spite of the efforts of those trying to communicate that information to her.

I'm not sure which of these is more frightening.

If she lied outright, then we must remove her immediately, as anyone that would so boldly lie to the nation about such a grave and monumental concern certainly cannot be trusted as a servant of the people.

If she assessed the most accurate analysis of this vital issue, as well as the opinions of the most expert analysts, and assessed them to be inconsequential, then her judgment is so horrible and lacking, then she certainly cannot be trusted with our national security, and she must be removed.

If she was oblivious to the most relevant analysis of this most vital situation, then she is utterly irresponsible and incompetent to protect our national security, and must be removed.

This is a conclusion I come to often when trying to understand how this situation, and this war developed. I feel like the administration is playing a shell game with us ... and it can be a very effective distraction, until I realize that ALL THE SHELLS ARE EMPTY!


_______________

I should mention that you actually gave two pieces of "supporting evidence" for Saddam's nuclear program. The other clue was the uranium Iraq supposedly tried to buy from Niger. Of course this story has been completely debunked even more emphatically than the lies about the aluminum tubes ... to the point where the CIA was actually telling you this story was make believe - and you included it in the state of the union anyway!!! ... but i think that's been examined and exposed enough.

(check out: NY Times
July 6, 2003
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

What I Didn't Find in Africa
By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th

Ultimately, what is most important is that you convinced enough people to believe in a non-existent Iraqi nuclear program to get the support you wanted ... and that's what you were after. As usual, the actual truth of the situation just didn't seems to matter.


More War Stories

In the last several months, reports from two very important investigations have been completed, and released. The first was the report from the 9/11 Commission (Officially the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States"), and the second was the Duelfer Report, released in early October.

The 9/11 Commission, "an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks." It's process and results have been widely praised as a triumph of genuine inquiry and non-partisan cooperation, and the commission released it's unanimous report in July of 2004.

The Duelfer Report is the culmination of approximately 17 months of investigation led by Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq. Duelfer was appointed by the President to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, and this "investigation represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war," according to the Washington Post (U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons, Thursday, October 7, 2004; Page A01.)

The report had many striking conclusions. It said, for instance, that Saddam Hussein was extremely focused on getting the international sanctions that had saddled Iraq since 1991 lifted. To that end, the report paints a picture of back room wheeling, dealing, and influence peddling with a network of businesses and nations around the world to illegally bypass the sanctions, secure banned goods, and also to get the sanctions officially softened. It also indicated that Hussein still had a strong wish and intent to restart at least some of his WMD programs if the sanctions were lifted, and that this was a major motivation for his wanting to get out from under the sanctions.

On the other hand, The Duelfer Report concluded that within a couple years of the first Gulf war (1991), Iraq has dismantled most or all of its WMD ("Weapons of Mass Destruction") programs. By the time the U.S invaded Iraq, stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons were destroyed and there were no mechanisms in place to rebuild or restock them. There had been no nuclear weapons program for some years, and there were no specific plans to restart one. Apparently, the sanctions that had been in place since 1991 were effective in shutting down Hussein's WMD programs, while also crippling Iraq's economy.

Meanwhile, (a few months earlier) - the 9/11 Commission Report had also had some significant findings. Here is an Excerpt:

Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi Intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United


They way I read it, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, Osama Bin Ladin was living first in Sudan then in Aghanistan when he had contact with Iraqi officials. For a while Bin Ladin was actually helping out some forces opposing Saddam, presumably because Bin Ladin fundamentally opposes secular regimes, but Sudan convinced him to cut that out. At some later point officials from Sudan set Bin Ladin up to meet with Iraqis, and they met once. Bin Ladin asked them for some favors, and they didn't respond, and they didn't call him back. Later, there are some reports of contact between Iraq and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but it's not clear what those were about. However, the Commission's summary of this line of evidence is that there's nothing to show that al Qaeda and Iraq ever had a cooperative relationship.

Of course the 9/11 Commission is an extensive report, dealing with many many subjects and issues, and this examination of the ties between Iraq and Bin Ladin is but a small fraction of the very grand whole. However, I am highlighting this area because my focus is on the lack of veracity, integrity, and competence we find in the statements and manners of the Bush Administration as they tried to sell the war against Iraq.

So what I'm seeing here is that these two reports are looking hard at all the evidence they can find, including both what the administration knew when and before they invaded Iraq, as well as much more that has come to light or been clarified since. Of course it is only natural to compare what we've learned with the representations the Administration made when they were in sole control of the intelligence.

Needless to say, I, personally, see a great chasm between the evidence we have now and the legitimacy of the representations by the Administration. It seems to me that the Bush Adminstration approached this policy as it approaches most policies. They had an agenda or a plan already, and they set about to shape the perceptions of the facts to support their agenda. Well of course ... that's part of democracy. Everyone tries to appeal to others' perceptions of facts.

However, if you are in control of nearly all the intelligence, and you are unscrupulous, then you can do a lot more than just "shape the perceptions of the facts." You can actually change the facts ... and get away with it. It only takes very subtle changes in detail to have huge impacts on perceptions. As outlined previously, the Bush Administration has consistently shown themselves more than willing to bend, change, distort, and suppress relevant information in the service of their own ends.

So when they wanted to sell us the war, they took what information they had and bent and exaggerated and omitted as necessary to make their case. At the time many many many many people believed, and said (and screamed) that the Administration's cast was lying. Since then, I have seen much to reinforce that belief, but almost nothing to diminish it.

Once more I must say that if they had been truthful and candid ... if they had adequately questioned one sided intelligence and reported to us as accurately as they could ... and they had still garnered sufficient support to go to war, then I might have still oppose the war as a policy choice, but I could still have respected the process ... that's democracy. But that's not what happened.


Here's an exercise that I'm hardly the first to do, ... but it's interesting ...

... talk talk talk ...

On The Subject of al Qaeda/Iraq Ties:


What they Said:

In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." (Washington Post) (That's right ... he said if we beat Iraq, we will be hitting the "heart of the base" of the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11!!! This is the same guy that, during the VP debate stated, "I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11")

Speaking about Iraq's alleged links to al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks, Cheney connected Iraq to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by saying that newly found Iraqi intelligence files in Baghdad showed that a participant in the bombing returned to Iraq and "probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven." He added: "The Iraqi government or the Iraqi intelligence service had a relationship with al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s." (Washington Post)



The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive. George W. Bush, President
Remarks By President Bush, The Oval Office
9/25/2002


So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad...There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented. Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
9/26/2002

Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Comments To Reporters
9/27/2002

This is a man who has had contacts with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Minnesota Welcome
11/2/2002

We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Tennessee Welcome
11/2/2002

He's had connections with shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome Remarks by the President in Atlanta, Georgia Welcome
11/2/2002


We know that he's had connections with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Florida Welcome
11/2/2002


He's got connections with al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Colorado Welcome
10/28/2002


We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in Michigan Welcome
10/14/2002

He is a man who would likely -- he is a man who would likely team up with al Qaeda. He could provide the arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks. He would love to use somebody else to attack us, and not leave fingerprints behind. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President at Illinois Welcome
11/3/2002

And, not only that, he is -- would like nothing better than to hook-up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come and do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action. George W. Bush, President
Remarks by the President in South Dakota Welcome
11/3/2002


AND ... FROM THE STARTE OF THE UNION ADDRESS on 1/28/2003 ...
Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. George W. Bush, President



What We Found Out:

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer had met Bin Laden in 1994 to hear his requests for space to establish training camps and assistance in procuring weapons - but Iraq had not responded. (from BBC - on 9/11 report)

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the statement says. (from BBC - on 9/11 report)

There is no convincing evidence that any government financially supported al-Qaeda before the 11 September attacks. (from BBC - on 9/11 report)



this is interesting, too, and shows what a good job they do at shaping the (mis)perceptions.

According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found." (Washington Post)

and why do you suppose that is?? ... Why do you think so many thoughtful Americans believed something that just wasn't true? Could it be because that's what you told them??

Well of course they believed this, ... after the drone from the administration suggesting that "you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," (George W.) and "Iraq . . . [is] the heart of the base ... of the terrorists who had us under assault ... on 9/11." (Cheney):


On the subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction:

What they Said:

In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons.. A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President
Detroit, Fund-Raiser
6/20/2002

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002

There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
9/6/2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush, President
Speech to UN General Assembly
9/12/2002

Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have George W. Bush, President
Radio Address
10/5/2002

The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon. George W. Bush, President
Cincinnati, Ohio Speech
10/7/2002

Iraq, despite UN sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological, and missile programs. In each instance, Iraq’s procurement agents are actively working to obtain both weapons-specific and dual-use materials and technologies critical to their rebuilding and expansion efforts, using front companies and whatever illicit means are at hand. John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002

We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material -- whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile material capability -- it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year. It has rebuilt its civilian chemical infrastructure and renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, and VX. It actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program. John Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control
Speech to the Hudson Institute
11/1/2002

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,...The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Vice President
Denver, Address To Air National Guard
12/1/2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
12/2/2002
(who's misleading the world?!)

The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Response to Question From Press
12/4/2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
1/9/2003

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. George W. Bush, President
State of the Union Address
1/28/2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to UN Security Council
2/5/2003

There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Addresses the U.N. Security Council
2/5/2003
("there can be no doubt" about what turns out to be untrue??!! what am I supposed to make of this?)

In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. George W. Bush, President
Speech to the American Enterprise Institute
2/26/2003

If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Interview with Radio France International
2/28/2003
(but that's exactly what they apparently had done! so why are we "facing the crisis that we now have before us"?!)

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. George W. Bush, President
Address to the Nation
3/17/2003
(... again "no doubt" ... really??!!)

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief Central Command
Press Conference
3/22/2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites. Victoria Clark, Pentagon Spokeswoman
Press Briefing
3/22/2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board member
Washington Post, p. A27
3/23/2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
ABC Interview
3/30/2003
(oh this is rich ... "we know where they are" he says!)


We simply cannot live in fear of a ruthless dictator, aggressor and terrorist such as Saddam Hussein, who possesses the world’s most deadly weapons. Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader
Speech to American Israel Political Action Committee
3/31/2003

I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003

But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found. Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary
Press Briefing
4/10/2003

Were not going to find anything until we find people who tell us where the things are. And we have that very high on our priority list, to find the people who know. And when we do, then well learn precisely where things were and what was done. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Meet the Press
4/13/2003
(oh ... maybe we didn't "exactly" know when I said so before ... )

I have absolute confidence that there are weapons of mass destruction inside this country. Whether we will turn out, at the end of the day, to find them in one of the 2,000 or 3,000 sites we already know about or whether contact with one of these officials who we may come in contact with will tell us, ``Oh, well, there's actually another site,'' and we'll find it there, I'm not sure. General Tommy Franks, Commander in Chief Central Command
Fox New
4/13/2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them. George W. Bush, President
NBC Interview
4/24/2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Press Briefing
4/25/2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so. George W. Bush, President
Remarks to Reporters
5/3/2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now. Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Remarks to Reporters
5/4/2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Fox News Interview
5/4/2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. George W. Bush, President
Remarks to Reporters
5/6/2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction. Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
Reuters Interview
5/12/2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction. Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
5/26/2003

No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were, where they were stored Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor
Meet the Press
6/8/2003
(see Rumsfield above ... maybe not "all of them" ... maybe just some?)

You may be reading too much. I don't know anybody that I can think of who has contended that the Iraqis had nuclear weapons. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
DoD News Briefing
6/24/2003


DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —
PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?
George W. Bush, President
Diane Sawyer Interviews President Bush.
12/16/2003

What We've Found Out:

After 16 months of invesigation Duelfer concludes that Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, and no capacity to make nuclear weapons. - from report on Duelfer's Senate report on NPR.

The Iraqi's were actually farther from having nuclear weapons than they were in the early 1990s.

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat Joseph C. Wilson IV, Ambassador
New York Times Editorial
7/6/2003

The Washington Post quoted an unidentifed senior administration official as declaring that "knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech." Unidentifed, Senior Administration Official
New York Times Article
7/8/2003

Hans Blix (Former UN Chief weapons Inspector): Earlier, in a BBC radio interview, he said the coalition had appeared to use "shaky" evidence, including forged documents, as a pretext for making war on Iraq. 4/23/03 from The Guardian.



Now, yet again I must say ... things could have been different. The Administration and their supporters are focusing now on the findings of the Duelfer report that Saddam Hussein had an intense "intent" to regain WMD capability, and would have as soon as he had the chance. I think that's important, and I don't want to belittle those findings.

But if the Administration had said, "as of now we do not have conclusive evidence of WMD programs in Iraq, but we strongly suspect that Saddam will restart those programs as soon as sanctions are eased," then they would have been truthful." Then we could have had an honest debate. If they had said "experts from around the world believe that Saddam is concealing weapons and weapons programs, but we cannot establish that for certain," then, as a nation, we would have had to wrestle with whether that was enough justification for war. That would have been honest democracy. But that's not what happened. There is an extensive list above of statements from the administration that are all, ... each and every one of them ... false. The administration chose to present the false case that we were certain there were WMD (and even that "we know where they are."). How could we be certain of something that wasn't true?

This again brings me back to the possibilities I faced in trying to make sense of the misrepresentation of the aluminum tubes... either they:

1) were outright lying, or

2) they were completely negligent in actually gathering sufficient intelligence (and didn't realize that), or

2) they so completely misjudged the evidence and misinterpreted the intelligence as to be "absolutely sure" with "absolute confidence" and "no doubt" of something that is apparently untrue.

Again, I'm not sure which of these circumstances is more frightening, but all of them lead me to conclude that the Administration cannot be trusted to execute monumental issues of national security with competence and good faith.


_____________

Mr President ...

Again, just 'cause you say it ... just 'cause you look into the camera with resolve and say it ... doesn't make it true. often your entire strategy seems based on the tenet that if you show enough resolve, that's good enough ... even when you are completely wrong!! Now you might convince people this way, but that doesn't change the facts.

If this isn't the perfect example, I can't imagine what would be: "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." W. speaking at press conference 6/17/2004

... that's right, you're doing great ... just say it over and over ... and we should believe it just because you say so!

too often you confuse stubborness for conviction, self righteousness for inspiration, and and might for wisdom. you seem to do your very best to confuse us about these things as well.

well you just can't fool us all the time. it's not working anymore, and the many times you've tried to pull the wool over our eyes are now catching up to you. so go ahead ... try to dance. try to trick and shimmer your way out of it ... it just won't work. you've dug your hole too deep - and you're dragging us down with you. but, ultimately, i have more faith than that in my own people. i believe that no matter how tricky you are enough people can still see through it and we can start repairing some of the horrible damage you have done to us, our nation, and our respected place as a world leader.

C) ARE WE SAFER???

you insist "we are safer" ... interesting ... look at the papers just from today (it doesn't matter what day). how are we safer? i'm not necessarily saying we're not, but you can't just say that in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. you cite that 75% of al qaeda leaders are caught ... but that's only one model and one threat, and one that many terrorism experts say is not the relevant model for such a decentralized organization. so you're creating the picture ... and it's very clever ... "we'll make this deck of cards ... and when we've got most of those people, then our voters will feel safer & believe us." yes, that's very clever, but that doesn't make it true or accurate. saying it just does not make us safer. in fact, creating a false image of safety makes us more dangerous, like convicting the wrong person for a crime makes the community feel safer - even though the actual killer is still loose and no one is looking for him anymore.

so it seems you are basing your reelection on the perception that you are making the nation safer.

"I should vote for you because you are making me safer?"

but what if that's just not true? what if we're not actually safer? should we still vote for you?

why should i believe we are safer when it looks the very opposite to me?

My single biggest concern regarding our safety and security is that we are alienating much of the world.

I read of two different recent international polls that say we have grown to all new levels of animosity & mistrusted for us around the world. (see for example http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=185).

and check this out ... astounding numbers of protests & protesters!

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/g/gl/global_protests_against_war_on_iraq__pre_war_.html


(... Much larger protests [against the U.S. invasion of Iraq] in nearly 800 cities on February 15 drew millions of protesters in total, in the vicinity of ten million people around the world, listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest mass protest movement in history.)

more violence all the time ... even in iraq.

iran & north korea developing nuclear weapons.

growing new recruits for anti US forces.


Being Part of the World Community is not "turning over our national security to other nations," it's the best way to remain keep ourselves and others safe ... as good neighbors ... and respected in the world.


in the first debate you said there was no doubt in your mind that if we had not invaded iraq, saddam hussain would have continued to grow his weapons program. "To think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion. We tried diplomacy. We did our best."

(of course you were completely wrong about this ... Saddam had, in fact, already long disarmed. So if you say that "in [your] judgment ... it is 'ludicrous' to think something that turns out to be true, what does that tell me about your judgment?)

BUT in any case ... let me set the scenario again ...

1) in the 90's we all know saddam had chemical weapons ... he used them.
2) at the time we invaded this sovereign nation, there were weapons inspectors there looking, and they couldn't find any more of these weapons. in fact the weapons inspectors (Hans Blix et. al) recommended continuing on with these inspections, rather than going to war ... giving the process more time. you said the inspectors couldn't find them because saddam was hiding them. but you said it with conviction, so people believed you. again, you didn't care about actual facts ... only the ones you could use or fabricate.
3) now that we've invaded and taken over an entire nation, unprovoked, lost over a thousand soldiers, and caused the deaths of ten thousand or more iraqis (including thousands of iraqi children), lost diplomatic respect throughout the world, and exploded the number of people with a reason to hate us ... based solely on your "conviction," we still can't find any of these weapons! (and we all know how desperately you all have been trying.) clearly saddam is not hiding them now. he's not evading inspectors. he's not hiding anything. he's in jail.


it's very simple ... you were wrong, iraq was not an imminent threat.

But your actions have further endangered us by isolating us and straining our alliances, friendship, and support in the world.

now, i know that everyone makes mistakes. everyone is wrong sometimes. i can't knock anyone for making honest mistakes. we all make plenty of them. but this is different.

you now explain that you had "intelligence" that led you astray ... that other's looked at the intelligence and came to the same conclusion. but that's not true. you are the only one that looked at that evidence and ordered an attack on another sovereign nation. even if we did have a few allies with us, i know you wouldn't claim they would have attacked if you decided not to. no, this decision was your alone ... that's your job.

we've all seen enough of the "intelligence" you had to know there was a very mixed bag of opinions. there was a great deal of conflicting evidence and information. this was even further complicated by the fact your administration has a habit of trying to influence the intelligence to align with the policy you already favor.

so, 'near as i can tell, you sifted through the intelligence and picked & chose what you liked (as usual), what supported your plans, and discarded the rest, sometimes even attacking the unwanted message bearers.


to be fair, of course, you are in the only position with the power to make this huge decision. and a huge decision it was. this was not just a decision of whether to enter a war or not. it was not a decision of whether to defend ourselves ... as we were never attacked, or even threatened by iraq. no this was so much bigger than that, even.

i mean let's think about this. you made the decision to attack, overpower, and occupy another sovereign nation without provocation, and without the support of the world community. the last time i remember that happening was when iraq invaded kuwait in the early 90s, when your father was president. at the time, he, with the rest of the world, reacted with outrage, as well they should have. you just don't do that in the modern world. invading another nation without provocation is a big deal ... maybe the very biggest deal on the world stage.

that's exactly why most of the world was opposed to the idea. some of the biggest marches and protests in history were happening almost daily throughout the world. imagine well over a million people marching in rome to protest something proposed in washington D.C.! that's because they realized how important this was. even in countries that joined the "coalition" ... some governments may have backed you, but the people did not.

you see the formula is simple. either we respect international law or not. if it's okay for one country to attack another without provocation, then it's okay for everyone to do that. in modern times we are gradually developing a system of international law and community that allows us to deal with each other in different ways. we are all safer in that kind of a system, because we have the help, support, and legitimacy of the whole community when there are problems.

here's an analogy. most americans have a common picture of the old gunfighter towns in the old american west. we got this picture from the movies. i don't know how accurate it is, but we share the picture in any case. now as near as i can tell you are john wayne saying "we have to stand up and show them (terrorists) how strong we are or we are sitting ducks." "they don't follow the rules, they don't stand up and fight like a man, so we've got to smoke 'em out." this approach made a lot of sense, of course, in a place where there was no effective law enforcement and the rule of the gun was supreme.

however ... moving to modern times ... can you imagine what would happen if an old gunslinger bad guy started making trouble in downtown, USA today. well he might take out a few people before we got him, and we would mourn the losses. it might even be me or a loved one of mine. but, very soon, he would be stopped, very likely by someone nearby, or a group of people nearby (as happened on the 9/11 plane that went down in PA). at the very least, the situation would soon be controlled by the police, our collective representitives in upholding the law. this is the point ... that we live in a land of laws. sure, we sometimes still rely on guns to enforce the laws, but the laws come first. the law is the justification, not the gun. might does not make right. and we are all expected to follow the law, and we are all safer for it.

in fact, that old gun totin' bad guy doesn't stand a chance of surviving long in the modern world because we've learned better ways of dealing with him. we deal with him collectively ... and with a system in place.

well, on the world stage, the united nations & world court are our best attempts so far at achieving that sort of collective efficacy worldwide. so in a land of "might makes right," of course, the united states could blow up the whole UN without much effort. but if we did that, we would lose the safety in numbers and common goals and ideals that we gain from operating in good faith as a part of this collective. if we thumb our nose at the UN, or at world opinion in general, we are sacrificing the good will of our neighbors. worse than that, though, we are redefining the rules of the game. if we're not going to follow the rules, why should anyone?

if i believe my neighbor is a threat to me, how should i deal with it? i could go directly to my neighbor and try to work it out. i could go to the police and evoke the legal system. i could go to my other neighbors and make my case, trying to enlist some support. now there's no guarantee that any of these will be effective, but all will be within the collective agreements we live under, and all will likely earn me the respect and support of my community.

another alternative is that i could just go shoot my neighbor. now this would effectively prevent him from doing me any harm. but does that make me safer? now i've got the police, my neighbors, and all my dead neighbor's friends and family against me. even if my neighbor was a bad guy. even if he was a threat. even if everyone is happy he's gone, who will stand by me when his family comes after me? then, if they do shoot me, then everyone comes to realize that the rule of the gun is back ... everyone will have guns. who is safer now? this is the result of choosing the gun over the rule of law and collective community action.


now mr. bush, you say the united nations security council voted to threaten "serious consequence" if iraq did not comply with the UN resolutions in place ... and that justified your attack. but the glaring hole in that story is that when you proposed the attack, the U.N. security council would not support you.

now let' me be clear here. the others on the security council were not saying "no way - we would never authorize preemptive force" or "no way, we would never authorize an attack." no, they were only saying, "hold on, the inspectors are still there, they're saying hold on, and it may be that the inspections are proving effective ... so let's be careful." again, other nations realized how important this was ... they recognized the danger of a precedent of unprovoked invasion, so they recommended caution.

of course we all remember all the rhetoric against germany and, especially, france for these cautions. they were villified by you and your administration for being uncooperative difficult. remember "if you're not with us you're against us." imagine! you actually said that those who urged we be careful and cautious before we carried out such an unprovoked invasion, those who said we should not start a war without proof that iraq was actually a danger were "against us."

but it turns out they were right! there were no weapons.

you can't change the story now. we all know the U.N. council was against the war.

maginot line.

being steadfast is not a justification in itself.

Early in your term, long before 9/11, one of your senior administration officials was quoted as saying ''The common European perception [of you] is of a shallow, arrogant, gun-loving, abortion-hating, Christian fundamentalist Texan buffoon, ... they read all the press about a hard-line unilateralist. They really believe this stuff about cowboys. We need to get it all on a higher plane.''

The sad thing is that I didn't believe all that stuff at the time, but you have consistently proven their perception accurate with your actions. We are not safer when the world sees us in this light.

We will be safer when we relearn Statesmanship, rejoin the world community, and regain the respect we've lost.


that's all for now.


peace & love.

griff bear.

VOTE! (one way or another)

Oh, the polls are so tight right now! It is impossible to tell who will win this election. The most important state that I see is Ohio. As Ohio goes, so goes the nation. I have eight states that are too close to call. Most of them have slight edges one way or the other except for Wisconsin and Ohio. If Kerry loses Ohio, then he will probably lose the whole shooting match.

Here is the calculation: If the parties win the same states that they did in 2000, then Bush will win with 278 electoral votes to Kerry's 260. Kerry is likely to add New Hampshire's 4 EV, though it is not a shoe-in. Bush is currently polling strongly in Florida, Missouri and Nevada, all of which he carried in 2000. They are toss-ups, but if Kerry loses them, he can still win. Gore carried Pennsylvania, Maine, Iowa and Wisconsin in 2000. These are also too close to call, but Kerry has been polling well in Pennsylvania, Maine, and Iowa. The last poll out of Iowa has the candidates tied equally. Rumors also have said that Bush is pulling resources out of Pennsylvania, effectively conceding that state to Kerry.

If these states vote the same way as they did in 2000, and polls suggest they might, then Ohio is the key to the election for Kerry. Ohio goes back and forth daily depending on which poll one watches. If Kerry wins in Ohio, then Bush would have to win in Wisconsin, Iowa and one additional democratic state, most likely New Mexico. In Wisconsin, Bush has been polling well, but the polls go back and forth. If Kerry takes Ohio and not Wisconsin, then he wins 274-264. If he takes Wisconsin and not Ohio, then he loses by the same margin. Other states might change this calculation, such as if Florida falls to Kerry or New Jersey to Bush, but it looks like the final decision will be made in Ohio.

OK, Politics! I encourage everyone to watch the last debate tonight. I watched the last three (2 Presidential, 1 vice-presidential) and found them fascinating. What these debates show is that issue politics is alive and well. The candidates have turned away from character questions such as what they did during the Vietnam war (or whether they did anything). Bush and Kerry are actually debating issues and laying out their visions for what they would do on the economy, Iraq, nuclear proliferation, etc. I think this is healthy. Much healthier than the debate during the 90's when the most salient issue involved a blue dress.

In Doonesbury, one of my favorite comics, Garry Trudeau has drawn a lot of criticism over the years for bringing politics to the comics page. Of course, there has been conservative politics on the funnies pages as well, but it has either been subtle or just plain unfunny. Doonesbury is at it again this week, providing URL's to conservative commentary.

This might seem odd to someone who is familiar with Doonesbury's liberal slant, until one realizes that the conservative commentary is critical of George Bush. Here's a juicy piece from Salon: "Conservative pundit Andrew Sullivan worries that Bush 'is fusing Big Government liberalism with religious right moralism. It's the nanny state with more cash.'" Salon This sounds like a good summary of compassionate conservatism.

If you have thought yourself a conservative in the past but are confused about Bush, here are a couple of links to and from Doonesbury:
Doonesbury October 11 www.unionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657
Doonesbury October 12 www.poynter.org/forum/?id=misc
Doonesbury October 13 salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/09/10/conservatives/index

Many of my readers might be wondering where I am and what I have to say about politics in this most political of all seasons. I have been paying very close attention to the race for President, but I'm not sure I can add much to the discourse that has not be addressed. What issue is there that I can address that has not already been flogged by the blogs and pummeled by the pundits? If you want a poll update, there are three or four websites that cover polls in great detail. If you want analysis on the left or on the right, I don't think there is a blogger or news outlet that can't give what you are looking for in spades. I have little to add, so I'll give an entertainment review. I promise my entertainment reviews will have more substance than Ebert & Roeper. ;)

I just watched the movie "Goodbye Lenin!" yesterday. It was a good movie on a few levels. It had some flaws, but special effects did not play a central role in the movie anyway. It was set in East Berlin, a location I have some familiarity with.

On the 40th anniversary of the founding of the German Democratic Republic (a.k.a. DDR or East Germany), the main character’s mother slipped into a coma due to a heart attack and did not awaken until 8 months later. In the meantime, she had missed the reunification of Germany. The mother had always presented herself as a staunch supporter of socialism, so the son decided that news of the dissolution of the DDR would be too much of a shock for her. In order to avoid too much excitement, he hid the fact that the DDR was no more. Much of the movie is about the antics resulting from that decision.

The media and reviews of the movie had presented the movie as a light-hearted comedy, but in watching it (in German with subtitles), it had a little more depth than the average Hollywood comedy. It had a profound human element to it, showing the love of the son for the mother, the difficulties of a small family dealing with a sick member, and the coming of age of a young man in a time of great social upheaval.

First and mainly, the movie dealt with the effects of an overnight social revolution on a society whose hallmarks were order and security. Alex could no longer find his mother’s favorite foods, so he had to repackage Western foods in empty Eastern packages. He scavenged abandoned apartments for unopened wares. He bought the cast-offs of the East in flea markets and thrift shops. He had all visitors dress in clothes that had gone out of fashion literally overnight. Most amusingly, he and a techie friend recreated East German television news in order to explain the few oddities that the mother could see from her bedroom window, such as a Coca-Cola banner hanging from a neighboring window.

Many critics have accused the movie of pandering to Ostalgie, or nostalgie for the East. But the movie did not gloss over the darker side of the "worker and farmer paradise." The most obvious was early in the movie when we saw the brutality of the East German police in supressing a mostly orderly protest march. Slightly more subtle, but more important to the characters and the movie as a whole was the mother’s explanation of why she was left behind when her husband fled to the West, never to be heard from again.

The most surprising aspect of the film to me was that, towards the end, it seemed that the mother actually knew that the wall had come down and the world she knew was gone. Just as Alex had created the charade for the sake of his mother, the mother went along with the charade for the sake of her son. The scene that belies this is when they were in the hospital watching the final news report of the East German news reporting that the DDR had opened its borders to allow the Western refugees in. The mother looked at her son with a look of pride, not in the DDR, but in her son. It seemed as if she knew that he had created this illusion and the illusion he created was not the DDR as it was, but at it should have been; as they all wanted it to have been.

I believe that Alex created the charade in part to prevent any shock to his mother, but kept it going to prevent any shock to himself. He created in his mother’s bedroom the society he wanted to live in, with the cultural foundations of his childhood which were now gone, but also with the idealism that infused the socialist East Germany and without the brutality that kept it in line. His mother’s bedroom became for him a kind of refuge from the chaos and turmoil of the revolution going on outside.

Two weeks ago, I rented a DVD of Neil Young’s Greendale. I found it on the new releases shelf at Blockbuster. It is one of the best movies I have seen in ages. It breaks genres. It is something completely new. It is more than a music video and something less than a feature film. All the dialogue is from his album of the same name. The movie can be better described as the visual accompaniment to the music.

To truly understand the movie, one has to listen to the music. The album has been described as a musical novel. In other words, it is something more than that endangered species, the concept album. Like a novel, all the main characters are introduced early in the album and their story unfolds as the album progresses. Most of the story occurs as a result of the action of Cousin Jed early in the album. The album is really about how his one act affects the rest of his family, including Grandpa, Uncle Earl and his cousin, Sun Green.

The story resonates with me strongly because of a number of factors, including the fact that it is set in a small town, has a strong environmental message, and focuses on Alaska quite a bit. I can see a lot of Sitka in it. Like my uncle once told me, "Everyone has to find his own Sitka". It seems Neil Young has found his. Greendale is in northern California and reflects a kind of aging hippie population and their progeny. It is similar to the works of Thomas Pynchon (Vineland or Gravity’s Rainbow) or the movie River’s Edge, though much less dark in the end. The low point in "Grandpa's Interview" is followed up with the upbeat "Sun Green" and ends on the high note "Be the Rain".

The music is vintage Neil Young and is his best work in ages, possibly of his career. In interviews, he is obviously proud of the album and thinks it might be the best work he has done. He is backed up by Crazy Horse, the band that has played with him since "Everyone Knows This Is Nowhere" in 1969. Billy Talbot’s bass is strong and heavy throughout the album. In many cases, the music reflects their early work, except there are fewer random jams. The music is tight and focused on the story. Most of the album is plain, unadorned rock & roll, but a few songs have a decidedly swing flair to them. "Be the Rain" evokes his earlier work in "Rockin' in the Free World".

Today, I bought the album and found that there was a bonus DVD on it with an entire live acoustic concert filmed at Vicar St. in Dublin, Ireland. This is a real treat for Neil Young fans. If you are interested in learning the songs, the cameras focus frequently on his guitar playing. The music played acoustically creates a far different emotional environment for the story. It is more personal, as if the story comes out of Neil Young’s own personal experiences. The most introspective is the song "Bandit". It is a song of someone taking stock of his life and his art. It is the kind of thing that only an artist of Neil Young’s caliber could pull off.

Admittedly, some of the songs, such as "Sun Green" or "Be the Rain", do not lend themselves to acoustic instrumentation, but many do. For the song "Bringin’ Down Dinner", he puts down the guitars and moves to an old pump organ (it appears to be the same as he used for his MTV Unplugged sessions.) This song is quite moving in this version.

I highly recommend this album for anyone who has lived for any time in a small town, who considers him or herself an environmentalist, or for any and all fans of Neil Young. Buy the CD, watch the DVD, read the story in the liner notes or online. If you can’t buy the CD, listen to the entire thing on Neil Young’s Website. You can find a lot of other things on the website, including lyrics and the narrative he gives between the songs in the acoustic concert at Vicar St. Pub.

In today's Washington Post, a military panel has called for more troops to secure elections in Iraq. Luckily, our allies have answered the call. The former Soviet republic of Georgia will send 800 more troops to bolster its 180 already on the ground. Also, there are rumors that Fiji will also send a contingent. But don't be lulled into a false sense of security, Fiji has not confirmed the rumor.

For those of you who want to explore the blogosphere a little more, here are a few sites. Especially one that has this little tidbit:

The fault lies not in our weapons, but in our inspectors.
"Over a week ago, the White House announced its opposition to provisions for inspection and verification as part of a new anti-proliferation treaty that would ban the production of nuclear weapon material. Some have called the administration's decision "disturbing," "astonishing," "frightening," and "stupid" for essentially endorsing the containment and derailment of nuclear weapons programs across the globe while simultaneously neutering any real attempt to do so by preventing inspectors from checking to see if the treaty's signatories are actually complying. What reasonable objection, they ask, could a sane and competent White House have to inforcement of a treaty aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons?"

The comments are especially tasty.

Other blogs I have found:
Professor Pollkatz's Pool of Polls. Poll Cats, Polecats. Get it? Nudge, nudge. He has some fine graphic representations of aggregations of polls. It tracks mostly Bush approval and disapproval ratings. There are no maps of election projections, but he has one that shows Bush approval ratings state by state. A data chart shows Kerry winning with 377 electoral votes if the elections were today. It is based on only two polls, though. He has some links to the following:

Federal Review. A collection of polls and with its own vote projections. The blogger seems to be conservative (or at least anti-liberal), but he gives equal voice to both sides. He is projecting Kerry winning with 301 electoral votes to Bush's 237 if the vote were today.

Election Projection. Another conservative blog showing Kerry would win with 296 electoral votes to Bush's 242 if the vote were today.

Race 2004. This is an interesting site that shows how the race would come out with Nader in the race and how it would come out if he were out. He points out that the two projections will get closer over time because Nader will have either qualified for the ballot or failed to qualify in each state. A responsible poll aggregator, he projects no winner and gives Kerry 247 electoral votes and Bush 196. When push comes to shove, however, he says that if the elections were held today with Nader on the ballot in the states where he has yet to qualify, Kerry would win with 318 electoral votes to Bush's 207. With Nader not on the ballot in the state where he has yet to qualify, Kerry wins with 307 electoral votes to Bush's 231. He points out that the fact that Kerry does better with Nader in the race goes against conventional logic.

Electoral-Vote.com. Currently shows Kerry the winner with 307 electoral votes, Bush with 231.

I would not be too excited that all these site are showing Kerry the winner, he has just come off of his convention/pep rally with a major campaign trip. The increase in electoral votes is likely the 'bounce' that pundits were predicting would happen after his convention. Bush will likely get a 'bounce' after his convention/pep rally at the end of August. Also, some of the more respectable polling outlets such as the LA Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc. are showing the most states up for grabs. Dave Leip's Election Atlas also does not project a winner. Most state-by-state polls have too much of a margin of error and there are conflicting polls in many states. A minor change of a few points is statistically insignificant in a poll with a margin of error of 3 points.

It is interesting that Kerry's bounce did not show up in the national polls (those that did not break things down by state), but it did show up in the electoral college polls. This is probably an indication that the divisions in the country are strongly based in demographic and geographic factors.

I have mentioned Dave Leip's Election Atlas before. Not only does it have election projections aggregated among various readers, it has aggregated polls, an electoral vote calculator and a mock election. The mock election is worthless, showing the libertarian winning, but the other features are very well done. In addition to the 2004 features, it has historical elections data down to county level for every election since the beginning of the Republic.

In projecting the 2004 election, Leip's data show different things in different features. The 2004 Presidential Predictions show Bush winning the same states he won in 2000 except for New Hampshire. This gives Bush 274 electoral votes to Kerry's 264. This aggregate prediction has not changed since I began watching it early this year. This is likely because people have visited the site, made their predictions, then left and never updated them. Therefore, we are left with stale predictions made at the beginning of the year when Kerry was more of an unknown.

The State Polls Aggregate page is more interesting. He updates it weekly with the newest polls from across the internet. Some are less reliable than others. (For a look at reliability of various polls, take a look at Professor Pollkatz's analysis or Robert Chung's poll bias analysis.) The aggregate of the polls show Kerry with 243 electoral votes and Bush with 200. 95 votes are still up for grabs, including not just Florida and Ohio, but some of the historically more liberal midwest states of Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota as well as the more conservative Nevada, Missouri, Arkansas and West Virginia. Click on the states to find polling data going back to the beginning of the year for each state.

Finally, I recommend playing around with the vote calculator and come up with your own scenario for how the election might come out. When you come up with something you like, post it to the prediction page of the site.

Is it possible that the end of Iraq as we know it is upon us? Will the country be divided into three parts? It is well known that the Kurds have wanted their own country for some time and even ran Iraqi Kurdistan as a state independent from Saddam Hussein since the first Gulf War. Now, the second Gulf War is threatening to divide the country further, with calls for provinces in the south to be independent of the central government.

According to Al Jazeera, a deputy governor of Basra is about to announce the separation of some Iraqi southern governorates from the central government in Baghdad. The breakaway province would include would include Basra, Misan and Dhi Qar governorates. These governorates include the cities of Basra, Al Amarah and An Nasiriyah. It is unclear how much support this proposal will have among the Shiites of southern Iraq, but many seem to be upset with the continuing violence in the holy city of Najaf and Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's explicit approval of it.

This article in the New York Times about removing senior official from the Endangered Species Office is an example of the Bush administration's approach to environmental issues. That is, to supress science and facts in order to allow political pressures to dominate the creation of environmental policy. We have seen it in their approach to weakening the Clean Air Act, revoking the Roadless Rule in National Forests, and now what looks like the first move in weakening the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act is a favorite shibboleth of the anti-environmental right and business interests. They have long wanted it weakened to the point of being irrelevant. This action could be the first step in the attack.

Pop Quiz: Whose quote is this and whom is it about?

"The danger here is that once a president loses credibility with the Congress, as this president has through months of lies and deceit and manipulations and deceptions, stonewalling, it raises into doubt everything he does and everything he says, and maybe everything he doesn't do and doesn't say. I just hope and pray the decision that was made was made on the basis of sound judgment, and made for the right reasons, and not made because it was necessary to save the president's job."

Hint, it wasn't a former Governor of Vermont referring to President George Bush's decision to release information regarding imminent terrorist attacks that is years old, some of it collected before September 11, 2001.

There is a certain look that a woman has that makes her the most attractive thing in heaven and on earth to a man. It is a look of desire more akin to an unnamed hope combined with an expectation of a feeling reciprocated. Sometimes, this look is a confident one, expressing a certainty that her feelings will be returned. Other times, this look combines uncertainty. Even if her words express certainty that she will be loved, her underlying feelings that this might not be so make their way to the surface and are expressed in her face, body language and speech. In either case, she may reserve her feelings because they are underlain and suffused with a fear that perhaps she is wrong and any overtures might be rejected. It is this cautious, expectant hope of love in her face that arouses in a man not just desire, but an expectant hope as well.

This look is reflected in songs, movies and books. In Spiderman 2, Mary Jane is the most beautiful when she and Peter Parker sit in the coffee shop and she is trying to figure out what his feelings are. She is cautious yet hopeful and confident enough to ask him to kiss her. You can see this expectant look in her face and hear it in the tenor of her voice.

In the opening lines of Bruce Springsteen’s Thunder Road, the music evokes and the words describe this as well.

The screen door slams, Mary’s dress waves.
Like a vision she dances across the porch as the radio plays
Roy Orbison singing for the lonely,
"Hey that’s me and I want you only."
Don’t turn me home again;
I just can’t face myself alone again.

This vignette describes a woman who is looking for her hero "to rise from the streets." She runs across the porch to see if the singer is the hero she is looking for. One can just imagine the hopeful yet cautious feelings Mary has that perhaps this is the love she is looking for.

Finally, in M. Night Shyamalan’s new movie The Village, when Ivy Walker and Lucius Hunt talk on the porch at night, that same look is in her face, confident and demanding. It is during this scene that she is the most beautiful. The look in her face and her blind eyes reflect her love for him, her certainty that he loves her in return and the hope that he will overcome his own fears and express those feelings to her.

Are this look and this feeling the sole possession of the young? I remember it in my youth, though I didn’t recognize it. Now I am older and I recognize it, though I rarely see it only in movies or reflected in songs or books. Can older women still express that feeling in their faces and bodies or do people practice suppressing it over the years and let fear practice hiding it? Is it only found by accidental discovery? Can it be found by searching? Where would one begin to look?