Fear Factor

FDR famously said "We have nothing to fear except fear itself".

The latest opinion polls indicate that the Republican administration’s consistent and shameless exploitation of the threat of terrorism to maintain their grip on power and the public isn’t working as well as it used to; the approval numbers for Bush, the Congress as a whole, Republicans in particular and the administration’s policies and management have been stuck in the toilet for months with quite a few specific issue ratings trending even lower.

All this is of course music to the Democrats and their supporters who have been variously accused of being wrong, treasonous and crazy for finding fault with the Republican agenda and actions. And now, finally complaints are being voiced not just from the Left but from the Right as well.

The radical Christian Right which has so heavily and deeply invested in the Republican administration feels it has been used as its attempts to ban “gay marriage”, overturn Roe vs. Wade and turn religion into an essential component of social and political life have withered on the vine. Fiscal conservatives have witnessed a massive increase in the national debt and massive waste in government spending. Libertarians have seen a growth in the size of government and the erosion of personal freedoms, and collectively they have all come to realize that the occupation of Iraq and its management has not delivered the promised dividends. Now with explicit dissatisfaction from many quarters, the “political capital” and the “mandate” that George Bush and the Republicans claimed to have acquired in 2004 appears to be spent.

With so little to show their traditional supporters, let alone their traditional opponents and the remaining 50% of eligible voters who traditionally don’t vote and thus don’t count, the incumbent Republicans are faced with a serious dilemma: do they change course and abandon the strategy and rhetoric that has served their own ambitions and egos so well, so far, or do they respond to the mood and express concerns contained in the public opinion polls as November approaches? Do they adapt or do they die? (As this is the basic tenet of the Origin of Species which the Republicans have been so vociferous in denouncing, it’s a very thorny question indeed).

Having spent the last six years betraying the public’s trust (and even that of all but a select few of many special interests) the majority of incumbent Republican Senators and Congressional Representatives now realize that the Barbarians are at the gate, the wolf is at the door and someone is about to move the cheese.

The defining characteristics of the current GOP and this administration have been polarization and fear.
In defining every issue as black and white, right and wrong, “us versus them” and then having had their assessments proved wrong and the results contrary to their promises, the Republicans now face being judged by the very same polar standards they have so readily applied to everyone else.

That they survived this long is a testament to their manipulation of fear, claiming that the questioning of policies would make America look “weak” and abet the terrorists; or that requests for information in order for Congress to make informed decisions on the public’s behalf would reveal secrets that would encourage the terrorists to strike; or equating the thwarting of some nebulous, impractical plot as justification for the administrations governance of any public issue, no matter how unrelated.

Now it seems the majority of Americans are shaking-off their former Pavlovian programming—they have other, more important fears which they, not the administration, are choosing to define.

It is the incumbent Republicans who now have something to fear. Not only do they risk losing their pensioned jobs, inflated status and extraordinary benefits they also risk losing the personal and collective power that has served them so well. But more than that, they risk being held to account for criminal acts—bribery, theft, lying under oath, endangering the public, perverting justice and so on. With the prospect of not just public approbation but actual criminal indictment in their future (should the Democrats regain some power) fear--and not their sworn responsibility to the public and the Constitution--will be the primary motivator of their actions in the near future.

I maybe wrong, but it’s my impression that the crazy rhetoricometer is already close to bouncing against the peg. As amusing as it is to watch politicians squirm and scramble, remember what’s at stake here for the politicians and for the voting public.
All the polls over the last six months reflect a desire for change from all quarters and both sides. With those polled no longer influenced by “terror alerts” and if Bush and the Republicans “stay the course” a discrepancy between public attitudes and election results will be a clear indicator of blatant manipulation of the electoral process and its mechanisms.
There is still only one, ONE, issue where Republicans as a whole maintain a perceived advantage—fighting terrorism. Why? I have no idea. But given that the polls indicate that the prospect of terrorism now ranks near the bottom of the list of major public concerns (and has done for months) and that “terror alerts” have ceased to be a motivating factor for the public, if the Democrat party doesn’t gain a majority in either the House of Representatives or the Senate this November, then our own democracy will have surely been usurped.

Ironically I’m playing the “fear card” myself here. But it is this administration that has made fear an essential factor of politics and policy, and fear now drives those who have exploited it
Fear is a powerful motivator. For myself, I fear what actions fear will drive our fearful politicians to take. I also fear what fear will allow the electorate to accept. The question this November is really about what do we fear the most?

Politics, Plots and Paranoia

Two years ago blogger Julius created a chart and a timeline illustrating an apparent close relationship with Bush’s political fortunes and the announcement of terror alerts.

Now, over at Crooks & Liars is a WMV from MSNBC’S Countdown titled The Nexus of Politics and Terror in which Keith Olberman presents a similar examination with some cautious commentary.

Though Julius suspects Olberman’s team lifted his work and if so would like some recognition for it, he’s still glad that Olberman addressed the issue on TV. Julius’s work is IMHO more effective in its presentation than Olberman’s: this is a case where words are worth more than pictures and Julius’s information is more “accessible” and practical.

But there’s something they’ve both missed which I think strengthens the argument that most of the alerts were overblown and used for political rather than public benefit, to amplify supposed threats and amplify the Govenrment's activities in thwarting them :
Where the hell are all these terrorist plotters that the authorities have supposedly thwarted? Shouldn’t there have been some arrests and convictions -- even just a notification of in-camera trials?

Using Julius’ heavily researched and well-sourced work as a basis, here's a timeline featuring declared threats and thwarted plots that actually ignores Julius' premise and poses a different set of questions: which if any of the alerts were justified, and what has resulted? Is the US safer and are the DHS'S security efforts delivering any tangible results? :

2002
Feb 12: General alert, no specific target. No arrests.
May 24: Transit system, Statue of Liberty, Brooklyn Bridge. No arrests.
June 10: “Dirty Bomb”. Jose Padilla arrested (actually a month before and eventually tried in Criminal Court—but never convicted on the principal “dirty bomb” charge).
September 10-24: General alert. No arrests.
2003
Feb 9: General alert. No arrests.
May 20: General alert (possible Al-Qaida attack). No arrests.
June 20: Plot to cut through Brooklyn Bridge cables with blow torch. Iyman Faris arrested and convicted (he had reservations that he could actually do it)—Julius missed this one.
July 29: General alert (possible Al-Qaida attack). No arrests.
Sept 5: General alert (Al-Qaida “working on plans”). No arrests.
December 21: General alert. No arrests.
2004
March 21: General alert. No arrests.
April 2: General alert (transportation the target, sometime in the summer). No arrests
May 25: General alert (as above). No arrests.
June 15: “Imminent” Ohio mall bomb attack averted. 1 arrest. (Except that the Somali immigrant was arrested November 28 2003 and was in jail since then for suspected terrorist ties and a “plot” that was dated to March 2000.)
July 8/11: No actual alert, but public discussion of the potential for terror alerts through the summer and possibly delaying elections.
August 2: Alert for Washington DC, New Jersey and New York financial institutions. Bush daughters visit one of the “targets” that very day (the Citicorp building). Information describing the plot is actually four years old. Arrests in Pakistan.

Adding-on to Julius’ list:

August 4, 2004: Though Katherine Harris (R-FLAke) claims arrest of a man in Carmel, Indiana planning to blow up power grid, caught with hundreds of pounds of explosives. Despite being refuted by all the authorities of Carmel, Ind. and having absolutely no evidence, she claims the next day that “over 100” plots had been thwarted since 2001 but she wasn’t at liberty to divulge any information on any of them. No arrest.

November 2, 2004: Ken Blackwell (Secretary of State for Ohio, Republican, and in charge of the entire election infrastucture) issues a terror alert exclusively for Warren County during the election, apparently denying would-be terrorists (and coincedentally anyone not associated with the GOP or Diebold) access to or observation of voting machines and the voting process. No arrest.

Anyway more recent terror announcements have been:
2006
June 22: Miami-based plot to blow up Sears Tower. No Al-Qaida ties, no explosives, timing devices, travel plans, no money, but the plotters were jonesing for some new boots and uniforms so essential to the respectable terrorist. 7 arrested.
July 7: NYC Holland Tunnel Bomb Plot. Changed to PATH train bomb plot. Planning conducted in an internet chat room. Several arrests in Lebanon, Europe, Canada. Dissected by yours truly here.

I’ll leave the correlation of terror plots and politics in the capable hands of Julius, and instead ask the question: where are all the other purported plotters?

I appreciate that counterterrorism organizations can’t be expected to sweep up everyone involved in a plot at the same time, that information of plots do not necessariky lead directly to plotters, that time is required to gather evidence and that the wheels of justice turn at their own pace. But for all of the anti-terror activity described above what has been the result and where is the evidence to support the seriousness of the declared risks and the qualifications and presence of the plotters themselves in the courts of justice?

Out of this list of 20 plots/alerts, two were completely invented and six produced arrests (leaving 12 supposedly legitimate plots/threats with no result).

Of those arrested there’s not much cause for celebration given the basic details:

Note: Moussaoui—the “20th hijacker”-- is not part of this timeline and predates the “GWOT”. Though he had strong links with Al-Qaida, his credentials as an effective terrorist are doubtful. Al-Qaida basically disowned him.
Note: Richard “Shoe Bomber” Reid also predates this timeline and the “GWOT” and his capture was thanks to a diligent flight attendant; not Jack Bauer or "Rainbow-Six", let alone the DHS.

Jose Padilla was well known to US intelligence services for decades—indeed he worked with the CIA for several years. He was never convicted of the “dirty-bomb” plot and the entire prosecutorial process he underwent was remarkably inconsistent with both normal criminal proceedings and the extraordinary powers invoked and implemented by Bush regarding “terror” suspects. He was of no relevance to the “GWOT”.
Iyman Faris appears to have had some relevance to the GWOT, but even he had no real expectations of carrying out the scheme with any success. Not much of a threat there, then.
The Somali accused of planning mall bombings was already in jail for “terrorist ties” and had apparently made no attempt to execute his “plot” for three years. Yet the “plot’ was described as “imminent”.
The NY/NJ financial center “plot” was likewise ancient history, the plotters were in Pakistan at the time of the “alert” and going nowhere, and this announcement actually blew the cover of a Pakistani Al–Qaida mole—much to the anger of both Pakistan and the UK.
The “Miami Seven” clearly had neither the brains nor the resources to carry out their supposed scheme—in jail now, the strength of the case against them remains to be seen.
The “Holland Tunnel” plotters appeared to have the money to carry out their scheme, but the fact that it was discussed in an internet chat room suggests an impressive level of incompetence that casts doubt on the execution of the plan. In addition the plot as originally described by the DHS was implausible to say the least, and was then changed to something more plausible—but why?

So based on all the above, over the course of 5 years and at the cost of many billions of dollars during at least 20 major alerts US counter-terrorism efforts have yielded one well-known career criminal and about sixteen incompetent fantasists (without the actual means for causing any death or destruction).

By the DHS's own system a Yellow Alert or "Elevated" means "a significant risk of terrorist attack" and Orange Alert or "High" means a "high risk of terrorist attack". Now, of those alerts described above, how many of them seem to have qualified as presenting significant or high risks?

Of what benefit have the various terror-alerts been?
Has anyone actually been caught in the act of actually executing a terror plot? No.
Has anyone actualy been found with the means of their intended method attack (i.e. bomb components)? No.
Has the DHS halted any plots that had a reasonable probability of actually working? No.
Has the country freaked out every time a terror alert was announced? Pretty much.
Have the alerts coincided with bad political news for Bush? Yes.
Has Bush acquired higher ratings in the polls immediately afterwards even though either no evidence has been provided or usually only incompetents have caught? Almost always yes.
Has the alert system made us safer, or at least "feel safer"? No.
Has it made Bush feel safer? Yes.

So I guess the system does work!

Awesomest Website Ever! EVAH!

I'd like to introduce you to Ms. Kelly Foxton. She is a patriot. She's Republican. She's a hot Republican patriot. She's a RILF.










She has a website. It is the most awesomest website I have ever seen. And I insist you go there right now. Not later, NOW! 'Cos if you don't, you'll be really, really sorry. And the terrorists will win.

WARNING: Though the site is totally kid friendly, you might say something you don't want your kids to hear when you see it. And don't forget to scroll down through the whole page to bask in it's awesome awesomeness--let it fill your senses. And then let me know what you think. Ready...?

Click Here To Blow Your Mind

TRUE STORIES ON THE INTERNETS!

"Reading from my notes, yor 'onor: in the surprisingly clement weather I pursued the western-oriental genl'man travelling in a south-westerly direction, h'and h'upon appre-ending 'im he admitted to creating a disturbance and startling a neighbour's cat, but declared it was a fair 'cop and that US Middle-Eastern policy was to blame"



UK SAVES US ASS!
Thwarted US-Bound Terror Attack Totally Makes Up For US Saving UK Ass In WWII Say Top Generals.
“We won’t be able to kick the limeys in the nuts with that anymore; I guess we’re even”.




ISLAMOFASCISTS QUESTION FUTURE AFTER LIEBERMAN DEFEAT
Pro-War Lieberman’s Dem. Primary Loss Weakens Terror Foe.
“With Pro-War Joe on the way out, and the general anti-incumbent feeling sweeping the American public, come November we’ll be losing a lot of staunch opponents. Who will be left to hate and fight? What is to become of our glorious Jihad? We might just have to pack it all in”.

HARRIS, LIEBERMAN FORM “BI-PARTISAN INDEPENDENCE” PARTY.
Support to Come From Oft-Ignored Cranky RepubliDem Jews and Wealthy Methodist Ranch-Moms.
“It won’t be the same old politics any more, it’ll be a new kind of politics run by the same old people—but new! Though with some old stuff thrown in too, such as myself and Katherine” said Lieberman. “We’ll be totally independent” said Harris, “of the partisan bickering, the polls, the consultants and advisers, the negative advertising, the net-roots, the PAC’s and the special interests' money, the…the…the money... oh god, the money! ohgodohgodohgod!”

OSAMA ISSUES FATWA ON VIDEO BOOTLEGGERS
Al-Qaida Leader Asserts Intellectual Property Rights Infringement.
“I never got a dime for ‘Death To America’ or ‘The Great Satan’—oh yes, those were mine, but I was young and naïve and I signed the rights away. No more! Either Al Jazeera and all those other media whores of Babylon starting paying me my cut, or from now on I’ll post everything to You Tube and then it’ll be worthless! Ha! No-one makes a profit from OBL! NO ONE! —except Dick Cheney of course.”

REPUBLICANS LEGISLATE TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING (WITHOUT BOMBS)
“CHILL” Bill Gives Oil Energy Companies $200 Billion To Research Bigger Ice Cubes More Refreshing Drinks And Gasoline-Powered Air Conditioners.
“That’s $50-billion less than the Kyoto Accord would have cost” said industry spokesman Neil Cavuto, “so don’t go telling me that Big Oil isn’t looking out for the little guy…the shriveled crispy little guy”.

OVER THERE OVER HERE

As Carl points out in his post "The Cocksucker Proxy" (at Simply Left Behind), the just-thwarted airline terror plot is a reminder not so much that "The American people need to know we live in a dangerous world” (as Bush stated from Green Bay Wisconsin) but that it’s been a more dangerous world for everyone associated with Bush’s foreign policies ever since he invented an “urgent” threat to US and world security in order to pay back the investments made by American oil companies, military subcontractors, free-market economists and ideologues in Bush and the Republican Party so that they might secure a more fabulous future for themselves, courtesy of taxpayer money and resources. Since then there’s been no credible terrorist activity of the type Cheney et al. have constantly promoted (i.e. like 9-11 but with brass knobs on) in the US, but plenty of related events elsewhere—Madrid, London, Turkey, Bali, and Saudi Arabia to name a few.

As policy (!) the US has incarcerated, tortured and killed an awful lot of Arabs and Muslims and has brought to them not democracy, freedom and peace but lies, death, destruction and war. By their inane reasoning and insane ambitions, the architects of the “War on Terror” have in fact designed a War of Terror, where the US (and it’s allies) are increasingly and more violently targeted than ever before.

When asked privately why he was transferring troops out of Afghanistan when neither the military nor the political objectives had been reached, Donald Rumsfeld responded “because Iraq has more targets”.
That was true a few years back, but no longer. What the Americans haven’t destroyed or failed to rebuild, Iraqi militias are shredding with shrapnel under the noses of an impotent US army and an impotent “government”. But for those with sympathy and outrage in their hearts and minds outside of Iraq, the United States and the UK and their dwindling list of allies in this murderous misadventure present to them “target rich environments” (as our own military is fond of saying) for vengeful action.

Bush’s two-watt response to the thwarted suicide air attack was the typical combination of Andy Griffith assurance and bed-wetting warning, claiming the US is safer than ever, but it’s still not perfectly safe.
Had the English counterterrorism efforts not been so diligent and organized, it is quite possible that airliners would have been crashing down from the skies over New York, Washington and Los Angeles. Because there was no intention to hijack the planes there would have been no indication of a problem until the moment of detonation. If the moments had been chosen on the airport approaches over the target cities the physical and psychological effects would have been devastating and spectacular. As an act of terror I think that would have trumped 9-11.

Although Spain and the UK have suffered their own attacks—directly due to their involvement in Iraq—the target in this case was once again the US. It is notable that the alleged plotters are apparently British-born Pakistanis operating out of England.
Why didn’t they choose a British target? Is it because security measures in the UK present a significant impediment to terrorist actions there?
Is it because destroying planes in mid-flight produces the most spectacular effect from relatively little effort? Is it because the alleged plotters see the US as the most appropriate target for their rage or cause? Perhaps we shall find out over the next few weeks,

Notable too is that the US apparently had no active involvement in the intelligence operation. Perhaps they can be excused “player” status because of geography. But I’m not sure that excuse would fly because, well, flying isn’t that hard to do—the US certainly has no problem when it comes to “rendering” –flying agents and suspects all over the world. And given that the US is supposedly engaged in a “Global War on Terror” I’d expect the US intelligence services to be globally positioned and involved, wouldn’t you—especially with their BFF, the UK?

Of course, there was that time when DHS blabbed about their sterling work of protecting the US by publicly identifying a Pakistani mole who was feeding Al-Qaida e-mails to Pakistani and British intelligence services a while back, forcing his “retrieval” and completely destroying a year’s worth of effort in a day—but I don’t suppose anyone remembers that—it’s a team effort after all, right guys?

Misdirection and redirection has been the touchstone of the current US administration, but although they’ve managed to fool a lot of Americans for quite a few years (with a wave of my wand and the magic word alakazam, tax-cuts will create jobs, the family farm will be saved, health care will be cheaper, gas prices will be lower, war will be easier and freedom will be freer!), those who already harbored ill-will against the US for perceived historical injustices weren’t fooled and they have now been joined by new recruits fired by current and very real injustices.

This time an ally has apparently saved America’s ass. But America’s allies are few and far between. America isn’t still just a target, it is a bigger target than ever. Bush has made it so, and the US is weaker than ever. If we don’t change our own regime, then others will surely attempt to do so—and not for our benefit but for their own (as the Iraq invasion was supposed to). Until that happens, “over there” will all too easily become “over here”. And don’t count on the UK or Pakistan being there to help the US for much longer—they’re already busy dealing with their over here, over there, whilst we can only sit and wait for the moment as over there creeps its way over here.

UPDATE:
I had this post written late last night, but blogger wasn't letting me upload, so it was the first thing I did this morning before cruising the news sites. And what do you know? From ABC's The Blotter comes this tidbit:

"British authorities have shared parts of the investigation with the FBI, and out of concern for leaks, only the barest details were shared with regional authorities as late as last night."

You may have noticed how Chertoff had damn all to say yesterday. I suspect the British decided to keep the information flow strictly amongst professionals.

UPDATE II :
Think Progress notes that on CNN ( I don't have cable) former 9/11 commissioner Tim Roemer said, “It’s very important that we don’t put all our intelligence and military resources in Iraq and take our eye off the ball in other places in the world.”

I think that dovetails with what I said: "I’d expect the US intelligence services to be globally positioned and involved, wouldn’t you—especially with their BFF, the UK?"

So there you have it people; one hint and one opinion from two seperate sources seem to agree with two minor points in my post. I am SO on top of this stuff!

It's Not A Civil War Until I Say So!

Yesterday, President Bush said “You know, I hear people say, Well, civil war this, civil war that. The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box.”

Well let’s just ignore what “people say” and listen to the “experts”.

Gen. George Casey (highest-ranking military commander in Iraq): “[civil war in Iraq] “certainly is possible.”

CentCom Commander Abizaid: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably is as bad as I’ve seen it in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war”.

Donald Rumsfeld, on the day he was suddenly available to report to Congress on Iraq was asked: “And the question, Mr. Secretary, after your most recent visit and this spike in violence, do you believe that Iraq is closer than ever to the brink of civil war?”

"Clearly, there's sectarian violence. People are being killed. Sunnis are killing Shia; Shia are killing Sunnis. Kurds seem not to be involved… There undoubtedly are some people who are leaving the country and going to safer places because of the violence. Does that constitute a civil war? … And we can all go to the dictionary and decide what you want to call something. But it seems to me that it is not a classic civil war at this stage".

Apparently it’s not yet a civil war; so what is it? Let’s take Rumsfeld’s advice and consult “the dictionary” to decide for ourselves, shall we?

Cambridge Online Dictionary; a civil war “is a war fought by different groups of people living in the same country”.
Merriam-Webster: “a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country”.

Gosh, it’s all so complicated!

Bush's Memoirs: What I Did on My Vacation From Reality

Left: The Spanish version of Portrait of A Leader.
Wait! The SPANISH version?

It was recently barely reported that George Bush is gathering “reference materials” in preparation for a memoir of his presidency.

Personally, I can’t wait!
I mean, how cool would it be if he quit right now, so we could read his memoir in time for Christmas? Sure it would cut the content of his memoir by a couple of years, but his presidency over the last six years has been the most exciting ever and I’m not sure I could take much more without resorting to some kind of prescription pill.

Speaking of pills, remember Clinton’s memoir? That sent me to sleep faster than being hit over the head with a brick of Ambien. Sure millions bought it, but no-one actually finished reading it.

But that won’t happen with Bush’s book as long as he stays true to himself and continues to do the exact opposite of everything Clinton—including not actually writing his memoir himself.
Nope, he should do what he does best—demonstrate his leadership by delegating the responsibility of writing his memoir to someone else.

And who better to keep that charge than George’s BFF and co-author of “A Charge to Keep” (the 1999 paean to Bush’s “wonder years”) former communications strategist and current Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Karen Hughes.

Of course George shouldn’t 'tap' Karen again just because they’re BFF—that’s simply not his style. Ms. Hughes should take charge of Bush’s memoirs not just because she’s an effective political communicator but because she is an established and independent author in her own right.

Scant weeks after the success of A Charge to Keep, Ms. Hughes published her own experiences of the road to the White House, fascinatingly titled Ten Minutes from Normal (Amazon customers interested in this title may also be interested in Pearl Jam tickets). Whereas 'Charge' began with the words of Bush the politician cautiously finding his way;

“most lives have defining moments”,

the first sentence of 'Ten Minutes' exhibits a more evocative and gripping style:

"The rhythmic rocking of the train felt unnatural, slow and lethargic, a marked contrast to the hyperactivity of the just-finished Republican National Convention..."

Now doesn’t that kind of writing draw you in and make you want more?
How unnatural was the train? What’s the difference between slow and lethargic? Which Republicans at the National Convention had “just-finished”—and doing what exactly?
It’s just this kind of dynamic writing—raising more questions than providing answers--that Bush’s memoir needs if it is to properly reflect the style of his presidency.

Presidential memoirs are invariably serious and introspective and are never as popular as the President who writes them. This is why it’s all the more important for Bush’s to be a radical departure from the norm, just like his presidency.
Bush’s memoir shouldn’t be a tale anchored by endless facts and the technicalities of law—we already know all the facts from the press, and laws, like Democrats, slow things up and should be ignored--it should be about passion and heartache, about sacrifice and burden, about yearning and earning and learning and burning, about stuff people really care about.

You might be thinking that Bush doesn’t need any help to make his memoir an instant bestseller, that it would fly off the shelves based on his record alone. Well that would true only if we lived in the "real" world, but that’s just not the case here in the US where the media is so obviously controlled by liberals who’d like nothing more than to re-write Bush’s history for their own political purposes .

It won’t be enough to just organize all the official documents and inter-office post-it notes in chronological order to tell the tale of Bush’s presidency. What’s really needed is someone who can weave a convincing story out of whole cloth.
A major aspect of Bush’s tenure was his constant search to find the best-qualified people for his appointments, so picking Karen Hughes for this particular task would be perfectly in keeping with his modus operandi.
Make no mistake (Bush didn’t), Karen is surely the best qualified for the task at hand—better qualified even than Harriet Meirs was for her nomination—and one only has to look at Hughes’ collected works to be convinced; works such as:

Formula: Father

Supermodel Darcy Taylor has returned to Austin, Texas to fulfill her dream of having a home and raising a child. Though her dream initially included a husband, she has forgone that part because no one could surpass the love she felt for her best friend, Mitchell Maitland. Now a fertility specialist, Mitch reluctantly agrees to help Darcy have a child though he can't understand why the beautiful girl he loved insists on this procedure.

Don’t you want to know why Mitch, a fertility specialist, is reluctant to help his 25-year old, totally available (and presumably virgin) supermodel best-friend get pregnant via in-vitro injection? Could he have another method in mind?

Or; Hot On His Trail:


Lost: Her so-called life. Calley Graham's overprotective mother had stood in her way long enough. But all that would change if she could sign on as a rookie investigator for Finders Keepers!
Found: One tough trail boss. Matt Radcliffe was leading a cattle drive out of New Mexico. He sure didn't have time for a pesky investigator who wanted to drag him back to Pinto, Texas. But Calley figured if she volunteered to take over as camp cook, she could keep her job, and maybe keep the cowboy, too!

Had Calley Graham uncovered some dirt about her mother that allowed her to finally escape her clutches and get a job as an investigator?
Is Calley’s job at risk because any private detective firm named Finders Keepers would probably have a hard time finding and keeping assignments? And what had Matt Radcliffe done in Pinto, Texas that would make him want to get a job driving cattle out of New Mexico?
Were the New Mexican cattle doing the jobs American cattle didn’t want to do and taking advantage of the welfare system to such an extent that they need to be driven out?
What happened to the original camp cook? Was he too camp? Will baked beans be the recipe that will open Matt’s mysterious past, his heart and Calley’s legs? And what’s that awful smell?

Or the edgier romance noire; It Happened One Wedding Night

As one reviewer (actually the reviewer) describes this torrid tale of torridness:

On the night of their siblings' wedding, Ryder Redstone and Daisy Harding unknowingly created a child together and went their separate ways. Daisy returned to her life as a mousy teacher and Ryder returned to his life on the road with a multitude of women. Or at least they tried to. A few months later, Daisy is fired for her unwed pregnancy and heads to Whitehorn to spend time with her sister. Ryder returns as a favor to his brother to help out around the ranch. Now the two must deal with the repercussions of that evening.

Daisy isn't blatantly beautiful and Ryder is not as careless as he seems. I really found a lot to admire about Daisy though her denial of Ryder as the father is patently false. Her denial gradually grows irrational and even irritating. [Ryder] is willing to set a lot of his pride aside for Daisy, which clearly wasn't an easy thing for him. He was also ready to make sacrifices… or the sake of his child and he had a great deal of faith in Daisy while she continuously second-guessed…his devotion to her.

Why did Ryder and Daisy totally forget to get married before Ryder rode her? Why did Daisy let her petals get plucked? Will daisy really take her firing lying down? (I guess so). Will Ryder’s slut-hopping experiences help him cure welfare mother Daisy of her pre-marital sex induced mental illness??

Now just imagine Karen Hughes applying her full talents to Bush’s memoirs! Face it, no one wants to read a boring old historical record about what actually happened—that’s old news, water under the bridge, road kill stuck to the re-treads.
With Bush providing the hero and the Hill providing a rich (and getting richer) cast of characters Karen need only tie them all together with lots of words what she knows plenty of and good ones too! Just imagine instead of reading like the Gulag Archipelago, it would be more like a cross between the Thornbirds and anything by Tom Clancy!

Anyway, Mr. President, I know you don’t listen to polls or the public or even a lot of important people, but I do know you listen to God as do I, and God told me to ask you to ask Karen Hughes to write your memoir, so please think about it when you are on vacation. And the sooner you can get started the better—after all, though you’ve said before that history will ultimately judge your presidency and we’ll all be dead by then, I’m sure millions of people would prefer to see you judged just as soon as possible!

To help you decide here’s how the cover of your memoir might look:

CONDIPLOMACY

US Secretary of State Condoleezaa Rice holding her ubiquitous imaginary tuna casserole, the key component of her global diplomatic style. After all. who doesn't pretend to like imaginary tuna casserole?

NOTE: Princess Sparkle Pony would argue that Condi is actually fondling her invisible friend and she's probably right as she has a Ms.sters in Condilology as well as having written several treatmeants on Cranial Follicularity. Her link is on my page.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE (US Secretary of State): Hello-o-o…? Hi-ee! It’s me, Condi…anyone home?

FOUAD SINIORA (PM of Lebanon): Wha--? Condi! Qu’elle surprise! Who could have possibly predicted you’d fly over here?

CONDI: No-one, obviously. It’s not like people get PDB’s about that sort of thing.
Anyway, I’d been meaning to come over for ages, but you know how things get some times…so I brought you some tuna casserole….

SINIORA: Well you have your hands in front of you and a few inches apart as though you were holding a casserole dish, but I don’t see anything…

CONDI: Why is it that everywhere I go no one can possibly imagine I’m holding a tuna casserole?

SINIORA: Okay…ummm…well…in that case have some hummus.

CONDI: Hamas?

SINIORA: Never mind. If I’d known you were coming I’d have tidied-up a bit, the house is a mess…

CONDI: Oh no, not on my account. You have a lovely hole…home…. It’s very ….rustic, yet ..post-modern. Did you have it done professionally…?

SINIORA: Funny you should ask. All I know is that I came back from work and bingo, everything was re-arranged! I think it was one of those extreme makeover things…my wife probably arranged it as a surprise.

CONDI: And where is she?

SINIORA: No idea; probably buried in a department store somewhere, you know how she loves to shop…anyway, whatever are you doing here?

CONDI: I know how I love to shop…ha-ha

SINIORA: Ha-ha

CONDI: Anywhoo… I admit this isn’t an entirely social visit…the fact is that there are things going on in the neighborhood that I’m a bit concerned about…

SINIORA: Such as…?

CONDI: Well it seems your boys have been firing rockets into the neighbor’s yard.

SINIORA: Ah yes. boys will be boys you know…what’s the name of yours? George? I’ve heard he can be a bit of a handful too.

CONDI: Well…the Ritalin seems to be helping lately--but never mind that!
The point is that I’m really good friends with your neighbors; and it puts me in a very difficult position and I’m just asking you as a good acquaintance to stop sending rockets over the fence…

SINIORA: Well you know Condi, the boys have always been headstrong and I’m afraid they really don’t listen to me anymore… just like your George.

CONDI: George has nothing to do with it. The point is that your boys have been firing rockets over the fence ever since they kidnapped the neighbors’ boys, which was not a very nice thing to do…

SINIORA: I agree, but the trouble is the Hezbollah boys have some influence and support in our political system, rather like your Christian right—a lot of them say Islam is a violent cult and call for the destruction of its followers, the Hezbollah militants have pretty much the same view regarding Jews and Christians.

CONDI: But the Christian Right doesn’t murder civilians!

SINIORA: Not as directly as Hezbollah I grant you (ignoring the occasional queer-killing and doctor shooting), but it wasn’t the Christian Left who championed the invasion of Iraq which has resulted in, how many dead civilians…?

CONDI: That’s not a fair comparison

SINIORA: Maybe so, but there’s very little that seems fair these days.

CONDI: Well that brings me to my point. You have to stop Hezbollah sending missiles over the fence. And return the lads that were kidnapped. Then your neighbors will stop dropping bombs and then we can all sit down and have mint juleps and tuna casserole and sort things out in a civilized fashion.

SINIORA: Now why didn’t I think of that? Of course! It’s so crazy that it just might work! Except….

CONDI: Except what?

SINIORA: Except that I don’t know where the kidnapped are, or the kidnappers, and it’s kind of tough to find out because the phone system has been severely damaged as are the roads and if I go out on what’s left of the streets I risk getting shot or blown-up or just crushed to death. For all I know the kidnapped could be dead already, murdered by Hezbollah or killed by the Israeli bombing.

CONDI: Well why don’t you know where the kidnappers are?

SINIORA: I’m sorry? How many people have been abducted and are still missing in the US?

CONDI: The US has a lot more people….

SINIORA: And the US has a lot more resources, and it isn’t being bombed to dust every goddamned day!
Look, if the Israelis really gave a damn about getting back their boys, they wouldn’t be bombing the crap out of everything—they could end up killing their own. Of course they’ll get damn all help from my government as a whole, but this country is more about business than politics—it always has been. Hezbollah is not now helping business, and neither are the Israelis. I can’t do a hell of a lot whilst they keep bombing everything! So far they’ve killed four-hundred civilians and a few dozen Hezbollah and destroyed our economy. The most the Israeli’s have really done is make our tourism industry worse than theirs! Hezbollah will retaliate as long as Israel retaliates. I don’t control Hezbollah.

CONDI: Well you need to get control of them, and make them stop!

SINIORA: I need to survive these bombings first. And who the hell are you to tell me what to do and how to do it? How’re things in Afghanistan and Iraq; still the shining examples of democracy and peace? Why don’t YOU tell Israel to stop!

CONDI: Look, mister ma-in-a-moody, you’ve got to stop Hezbollah, or else! I, Condi Rice, demand it!

SINIORA: Or else what? You’ll provide more bombs to Israel? Oh wait, you are already doing that! You’ll invade Lebanon yourselves? You and what army? You’re supposed to be a scholar of Russian history; did you ever hear of the siege of Stalingrad?

CONDI: I really don’t think you can compare the two; Stalingrad was very cold and Lebanon is very hot. And now I think about it, China is very big.

SINIORA: Look, Condi, Lebanon was just getting on its feet again and we had a shot at democratic self-governance and the new government was a necessary, shaky compromise. Now it’s blown to shit and I’ve got nothing to offer. So go tell Israel to stop the bombing. I’m sure Hezbollah will not honor any ceasefire, but then Israel can target them proportionately as they have done in the past, and give Lebanon a chance to establish a stronger government. We need constructive, not destructive, efforts to establish stability and peace.

CONDI: So get rid of Hezbollah!

SINIORA: Get rid of Al Qaeda! Get rid of terrorism! Get rid of American Idol! Get rid of Iran! Easier said than done, but bombs won’t do it. It takes time and manipulation to achieve success, just like your elections of 2000 and 2004. But the trick then is to do something productive and meaningful for the majority.

CONDI: Oh my goodness, is that the time? I really must be going, I have a thing to go to and George can get so fussy and vulnerable when things don’t go as planned. So, as I was saying, stop attacking Israel and then everything will be just fine! Enjoy the tuna casserole! E-mail me when you get a chance. Byeee!

SINIORA: Huh! Whaddyaknow? All that time and I didn’t hear a single jet or bomb! Maybe I misjudged her, and the Israelis! Ahhh! Peace and quiet! Now perhaps I can—oh crap!

Fighting Words

A carbon-based biological combat functionary equipped with the latest Situational Awareness Combat and Kinetic Overview Semantic Heuristical Informational Tautological System (or "SACKOSHITS") that allows the US to distinguish "war" and "not-war" , providing the US with actionable parameters for engagement on any conflict, subject to the will of God and the PNAC.

In a recent press briefing Tony Snow was asked regarding the current fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon and in reference to Bush seemingly sitting on the sidelines “…why is this not our war?”
Snow responded: “Why would it be our war? I mean, it's not on our territory. This is a war in which the United States -- it's not even a war. What you have are hostilities, at this point, between Israel and Hezbollah. I would not characterize it as a war.”

“War” tends to be officially declared from the outset, or else defined as such upon completion (no-one really announced “men of the Middle-Ages, we are about to begin the Hundred-Years War!”)
But though the US never officially declared war on Iraq (or Afghanistan), everyone accepted it as a war and used the term freely.

Israel hasn’t officially declared war either but this isn’t some border skirmish (which is how it started). Israel is bombing the crap out of Lebanon and some troops are across the border and engaging with Hezbollah who are retaliating with missile attacks on Israel. 9 days on, Tony Snow’s “hostilities” have thus far lasted “officially” longer than the 1991 Gulf War.

The subtext of Tony Snow’s response seems to be this: It’s not a war until the US says it is and as long as it isn’t a “war” it doesn’t deserve major US involvement.

Why is the White House suddenly so coy about using the term?

One reason might be protocol—it’s up to Israel to declare war, which it hasn’t actually done.

Another issue concerns civilian casualties and the prospect of war crimes; the BBC has a cogent piece about that here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5198342.stm

It may also be that the Administration would prefer to avoid the term, given the unpopularity of the “War in Iraq”; major involvement in this situation might be one war too many (despite recent saber-rattling regarding Iran the White House has chosen to stick with diplomacy thus far).
And it may be that identifying it as a war might trigger some informal (or possibly formal) obligations (to Israel) or protocols that Bush would just as soon not have to deal with right now.

But never mind the esoterics of subtext, whatever the motivation or motivations for once the White House doesn’t seem to be rushing to judgment or action (and given its international record and the complexities of the situation, reticence may well be the best course for the moment).

Two armies arrayed against each other on mutually defined areas of engagement or fighting over possession of military assets over a period of time, ultimately leading to concessions by one side, or a mutual halt to combat is perhaps the “classic” definition of war and history offers many examples. But if so then World War II surely began to change the nature of war for four simple reasons—air power, mechanization of ground troops, industrialization and urbanization.

In WWII warfare could be conducted from a significant distance, and supporting resources became military targets. During the American Civil War civilians could and did picnic on safe vantage points as Union and Confederate armies clashed, before returning home exhilarated by the spectacle.
In WWII civilians had no such luxury for the war was carried to their homes and workplaces, and that’s been the case ever since. Population growth and the concentration of industry and jobs into large urban areas has made the “battlefield” extinct and so too the old definition of war. WWII also redefined the distribution and confluence of industrial, political and military power through the break up of traditional militarily controlled empires, the last being the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Viewed from the remaining imperial throne, this latest exchange of munitions and death may not meet the old definition of war, but for those on the receiving end, on both sides and to the armed and the defenseless, it surely is exactly that.

Here's a glimpse of what war most immediately involves:

This is an unofficical portrait of a soldier after "major combat operations are over".













I have no idea why or how this kid died. He could have been a legitmate combat casualty. Or not. I also don't know whether bullets or shrapnel opened up his head, but that white stuff is his brain spilling out.

I actually saw such a thing once from a car accident, but there's a big difference in the context of the event and consequence--accident is one thing, but war is premeditated.











And here's Tony Snow. the new public face of the Bush administration which is oh so happy to wage war, but hesitant to declare it or define it.

This juxtaposition of pictures is specifically unfair to Mr Snow who is only doing his job defending the policies and incompetence of his immediate employer ( ignoring the fact that his "employer" is actually an employee also, of the American public--in theory anyway).

The point is that Tony Snow and his superiors have never seen the immediate consequences of war first-hand and never will, therefore their concept of war will continue to revolve around semantics and statistics, and the pronouncements they make and the decisions they take will continue to be made absent of experience of reality.

To them war is a political concept, not a present reality. They might not call it war, but war it is.

Back to The Future

After much tribulation it appears my PC is back to near-normal. Henceforth I shall...umm...re-continue (?) blogging and as usual let the microchips fall where they may.