George Allen’s desperate attempt to smear Jim Webb is likely to backfire with Virginia voters. Digging deep for dirt, George Allen has entered the realm of fiction. In Jim Webb’s novels, Macaca Allen thought he had hit pay dirt.
Last week the Allen campaign was finally able to get someone to publish the dirt they were peddling. The Drudge Report published passages from Webb’s novels in a last-ditch effort to sway Virginia voters. One of the books the Allen campaign believes is vulgar is Jim Webb’s novel "A Sense of Honor".
However, the novel George Allen finds vulgar, President Ronald Reagan found to be so significant that he quoted it at length at the United States Naval Academy Commencement Exercises in 1985:
One man who sat where you do now and graduated from the Naval Academy in 1968 is another member of our administration — Assistant Secretary of Defense James Webb, the most decorated member of his class. James’ gallantry as a marine officer in Vietnam won him the Navy Cross and other decorations, including two Purple Hearts. James wrote several books about American service men and women. In his book, “A Sense of Honor,'’ he describes the life that you have chosen. He wrote:
“Servicemen are always in motion, in the air at more than the speed of sound, underwater at depths whales could only dream of, on the surface of the water cruising at 30 miles an hour through crashing seas with another ship almost touching theirs . . . replenishing their oil supplies. Or they are on the ground, in the dirt, testing and training weapons that may someday kill others but today may deal them that same irony. The smallest margin of error separates a live man from a dead man. And in war, of course, they are the first and usually the only ones to pay. The President and the Congress may suffer bad news stories. The military man suffers the deaths of his friends, early and often.'’
So, is George Allen saying that President Ronald Reagan read smut? Surely, Senator George "Macaca" Allen would like to retract his accusations so that he doesn’t risk offending his base voters who admire the Great Communicator.
george allen 
jim webb macaca ronald reagan united states senate virginia
This is the mean season. One week before the mid-term elections, the kitchen sink has been unbolted and tossed around. George Allen has exposed himself for what he is - a cowardly shifty-eyed politician who would rather troll for sex in the pages of fiction than address the very serious issues facing our state and our nation. While George Allen has his aides read him passages from novels that arouse his political drawers, brave men and women of this country continue to lose their lives in Iraq as a result of the "stay the course" mantra of the senator and his president. That is unacceptable.
It is time for serious leadership in the halls of the United States Senate. It is time to elect James Webb as United States Senator.
I do not agree with James Webb on everything, nor do I need to. However, I respect Mr. Webb immensely. He is a serious and thoughtful man with strong values. He is a strategic thinker with broad foreign policy experience. He has served our country with honor and distinction both as a United States Marine and as a Secretary of the Navy. He is an author, thinker, citizen and hero.
Let me introduce you, mainly in his own words, to the man who Virginians have an opportunity to elect as their Senator on November 7, 2006.
During the Vietnam War, 363 brave Marines earned the Navy Cross for bravery. The Navy Cross is the second highest medal that can be awarded by the US Navy. James Webb earned his Navy Cross on July 10, 1969. Mr. Webb has refused to use his Navy Cross award in his campaign, but I am under no such obligation. Below is the full text of the citation:
The Navy Cross is presented to James H. Webb, Jr., First Lieutenant, U.S. Marine Corps, for extraordinary heroism while serving as a Platoon Commander with Company D, First Battalion, Fifth Marines, First Marine Division (Reinforced), Fleet Marine Force, in connection with combat operations against the enemy in the Republic of Vietnam.
On 10 July 1969, while participating in a company-sized search and destroy operation deep in hostile territory, First Lieutenant Webb’s platoon discovered a well-camouflaged bunker complex which appeared to be unoccupied. Deploying his men into defensive positions, First Lieutenant Webb was advancing to the first bunker when three enemy soldiers armed with hand grenades jumped out.
Reacting instantly, he grabbed the closest man and, brandishing his .45 caliber pistol at the others, apprehended all three of the soldiers.
Accompanied by one of his men, he then approached the second bunker and called for the enemy to surrender. When the hostile soldiers failed to answer him and threw a grenade which detonated dangerously close to him, First Lieutenant Webb detonated a claymore mine in the bunker aperture, accounting for two enemy casualties and disclosing the entrance to a tunnel.
Despite the smoke and debris from the explosion and the possibility of enemy soldiers hiding in the tunnel, he then conducted a thorough search which yielded several items of equipment and numerous documents containing valuable intelligence data. Continuing the assault, he approached a third bunker and was preparing to fire into it when the enemy threw another grenade.
Observing the grenade land dangerously close to his companion, First Lieutenant Webb simultaneously fired his weapon at the enemy, pushed the Marine away from the grenade, and shielded him from the explosion with his own body.
Although sustaining painful fragmentation wounds from the explosion, he managed to throw a grenade into the aperture and completely destroy the remaining bunker.
By his courage, aggressive leadership, and selfless devotion to duty, First Lieutenant Webb upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and of the United States Naval Service.
Ask yourself who you would rather have in a foxhole with you: James Webb or George Allen. I would not only want Mr. Webb in the same foxhole, but I would feel much safer knowing that a man of his character was in the United States Senate fighting to protect us.
In addition to the Navy Cross, James Webb earned the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts in Vietnam. After Vietnam, Mr. Webb continued to serve his country with distinction. James Webb was this nation’s first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs from 1984 to 1987. He then became the Secretary of the Navy until his resignation in 1988. Mr. Webb resigned as Navy Secretary after refusing to accept reductions to the size of the Navy. Mr. Webb explained his reasons in his letter of resignation to President Reagan:
Like many others, I have serious concerns regarding the entire budget reduction process. First, the Department of Defense has been required to absorb cuts at a ratio almost twice as great as non-defense programs. Second, many Defense reductions themselves have been made in the wrong areas, and without clear strategic thought. I am particularly upset with the nature of the cuts as they affect the Department under my authority.
On three separate occasions, the uniformed and civilian leadership of the Navy Department provided the Secretary of Defense with proposed cuts totaling the amount required to meet the budget reduction, but which also would preserve the cherished goal of your administration to rebuild our Navy to a minimum level of 600 ships. In each case the advice of this senior leadership, concurred in by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was ignored. I can only conclude that the decision to reduce the level of our fleet to a point that it may never reach the 600 ship goal was motivated by other than military and strategic reasoning.
During the four years I have served in your Administration, I have repeatedly expressed my gratitude at your decision to rebuild the greatest Navy in the world. Since I became Secretary of the Navy last year, I have stated just as frequently my belief that the force levels of our sea services remain minimal and must not be reduced. Even in the current budget environment such force levels could have been maintained. Since recommendations to that effect were rejected by your Secretary of Defense, I am unable to support him personally, or to defend this amended budget during budget deliberations. Consequently, I find it necessary to resign from my position as Secretary of the Navy.
James Webb has always been a defender and supporter of the soldier in uniform. He is driven by his love for this country and his support for its soldiers. Recently he defended Jack Murtha in a New York Times op-ed against the cowardly attacks on his service from desperate Republicans:
IT should come as no surprise that an arch-conservative Web site is questioning whether Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who has been critical of the war in Iraq, deserved the combat awards he received in Vietnam.
After all, in recent years extremist Republican operatives have inverted a longstanding principle: that our combat veterans be accorded a place of honor in political circles. This trend began with the ugly insinuations leveled at Senator John McCain during the 2000 Republican primaries and continued with the slurs against Senators Max Cleland and John Kerry, and now Mr. Murtha.
Military people past and present have good reason to wonder if the current administration truly values their service beyond its immediate effect on its battlefield of choice. The casting of suspicion and doubt about the actions of veterans who have run against President Bush or opposed his policies has been a constant theme of his career. This pattern of denigrating the service of those with whom they disagree risks cheapening the public’s appreciation of what it means to serve, and in the long term may hurt the Republicans themselves.
…
The political tactic of playing up the soldiers on the battlefield while tearing down the reputations of veterans who oppose them could eventually cost the Republicans dearly. It may be one reason that a preponderance of the Iraq war veterans who thus far have decided to run for office are doing so as Democrats.
A young American now serving in Iraq might rightly wonder whether his or her service will be deliberately misconstrued 20 years from now, in the next rendition of politically motivated spinmeisters who never had the courage to step forward and put their own lives on the line.
James Webb’s own son serves in Iraq. He has a personal connection to the men and women of the armed forces. He understands the stakes.
After the attacks of September 11, 2001 James Webb understood the stakes better than most, and certainly better than the current Administration and its dude ranch senator George Allen. In a remarkably prescient article in the United States Naval Institute Proceedings written on October 17, 2001, James Webb laid out the fight before us and warned against misadventures to come:
What we need is a clear articulation of the national strategy to the American people. When we commit to something like this, which involves many unknowns, people need to know what the endgame really is. In my view, there are two endgames.
The first is homeland defense. We must create an environment here in the United States in which our intelligence apparatus has been reinvigorated. So we can feel secure inside our borders, we must find terrorist cells, penetrate them, and eliminate them. And we must develop a capability to prevent similar groups from entering and operating in this country. It’s sort of like rule number one in any operational military environment: you cannot go on patrol if your perimeter isn’t secure. This is our highest priority, in my view.
Step number two is to convince every country in the world to accept responsibility for policing and eliminating terrorist training and other activities inside their own borders. In a way, this is my reading of what this administration began when it told several countries that have very bad records in this area, You have the chance to demonstrate to us that you will do this.
In those countries that do not agree with us, I think we need to do the policing for them for a while. And we need to start with a basic premise: if fundamentalist Muslim terrorists want to die for a cause, you are not going to stop them. The most important thing you can do, if you are their adversary, is to kill them on your terms, not on theirs. That makes some Americans—particularly American media—squeamish. But that is the reality of the situation we are in.
…
My final admonition—and I got into some trouble with this during the Gulf War—is that we are not in a position as a nation, and particularly as a military, to occupy large pieces of territory. The Wall Street Journal editorialized repeatedly during the Gulf War that we should set up a MacArthurian regency in Baghdad. There has been a lot of discussion about why we did not take Baghdad during the Gulf War. I think as much as anyone in this country, I would like to see Saddam Hussein go. To my knowledge, I was the only guy in the Reagan administration who opposed the tilt toward Iraq, in writing, in 1987. I do not think we had nor have the resources to occupy Iraq.
If you think we have problems in Israel, try putting a Judeo-Christian military system in the cradle of Muslim culture. And when you think about a military of 1.4 million people, with other responsibilities around the world, that is not a winnable situation. I tried to say ten years ago, over and over again, that we must be involved only to the extent that it directly involves our national interests. These arguments have been going on for 3,000 years. And when they do relate to our national interests, as this international terrorist movement does, we must act with a great deal of specific lethality. We must go after the people who are doing this and eliminate them.
Before the invasion of Iraq, James Webb provided a clear strategic direction for the United States, that if followed, may have saved us and the world from the mess the Bush Administration has driven us into. I have quoted from only part of the article. Read the entire article to get a sense of his grasp of geo-political forces, especially the roles of Pakistan, India and China.
On November 30, 2001 James Webb wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled "A New Doctrine for New Wars". In the op-ed he argued for a focused and flexible approach in the fight against the terrorists that attacked us, while at the same time warning against the temptation of widening the conflict:
The recent focus on international terrorism raises the prospect that traditional deterrence, both nuclear and conventional, could be minimized in the public’s eye. In order to ensure that this does not happen, our leadership needs to articulate a clear national strategy that addresses all our responsibilities.
…
The key elements of a new doctrine seem obvious. We must retain our position as the dominant guarantor of world-wide stability through strategic and conventional forces that deter potentially aggressive nations. We must be willing to retaliate fiercely against nations that participate in or condone aggressive acts, as well as non-national purveyors of asymmetric warfare. But we should take great care when it comes to committing large numbers of ground forces to open-ended combat, and we should especially avoid using them as long-term occupation troops.
The approach to our commitment in Afghanistan fits the above criteria, and should serve as a clear warning to other states that have condoned or supported terrorism. The Taliban were warned, and were offered the chance to rid their country of Osama bin Laden’s forces. Our military campaign has been conducted with lethality, relying on mobile naval and air assets and special forces units. The ground campaign has been carried out principally through local forces. Marine Corps infantry units were inserted at a time when the campaign’s objectives had been clearly focused, in order to perform specific tasks. And around the world, the U.S. military is still carrying out its functions of maintaining global stability.
This formula works, and as the campaign stretches, we should not be tempted by its very successes to change it. If we remain focused on the twin goals of deterring cross-border aggression and eliminating international terrorism we will prevail. If we move beyond these clear objectives, we risk running out of people, equipment, and the kind of clarity that maintains the national spirit. [Emphasis added by me.]
On September 4, 2002, on the eve of the attack on Iraq, in an op-ed in the Washington Post James Webb asked the question on all thinking persons’ minds: "Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years?":
Other than the flippant criticisms of our "failure" to take Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War, one sees little discussion of an occupation of Iraq, but it is the key element of the current debate. The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay. This reality was the genesis of a rift that goes back to the Gulf War itself, when neoconservatives were vocal in their calls for "a MacArthurian regency in Baghdad." Their expectation is that the United States would not only change Iraq’s regime but also remain as a long-term occupation force in an attempt to reconstruct Iraqi society itself.
The connotations of "a MacArthurian regency in Baghdad" show how inapt the comparison is. Our occupation forces never set foot inside Japan until the emperor had formally surrendered and prepared Japanese citizens for our arrival. Nor did MacArthur destroy the Japanese government when he took over as proconsul after World War II. Instead, he was careful to work his changes through it, and took pains to preserve the integrity of Japan’s imperial family. Nor is Japanese culture in any way similar to Iraq’s. The Japanese are a homogeneous people who place a high premium on respect, and they fully cooperated with MacArthur’s forces after having been ordered to do so by the emperor. The Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S. occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam. Indeed, this very bitterness provided Osama bin Laden the grist for his recruitment efforts in Saudi Arabia when the United States kept bases on Saudi soil after the Gulf War.
In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets.
Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall. Indeed, if one gives the Chinese credit for having a long-term strategy — and those who love to quote Sun Tzu might consider his nationality — it lends credence to their insistent cultivation of the Muslim world. One should not take lightly the fact that China previously supported Libya, that Pakistan developed its nuclear capability with China’s unrelenting assistance and that the Chinese sponsored a coup attempt in Indonesia in 1965. An "American war" with the Muslims, occupying the very seat of their civilization, would allow the Chinese to isolate the United States diplomatically as they furthered their own ambitions in South and Southeast Asia.
These concerns, and others like them, are the reasons that many with long experience in U.S. national security issues remain unconvinced by the arguments for a unilateral invasion of Iraq. Unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term occupation should be undertaken only when a nation’s existence is clearly at stake. It is true that Saddam Hussein might try to assist international terrorist organizations in their desire to attack America. It is also true that if we invade and occupy Iraq without broad-based international support, others in the Muslim world might be encouraged to intensify the same sort of efforts. And it is crucial that our national leaders consider the impact of this proposed action on our long-term ability to deter aggression elsewhere.
However, warnings from James Webb and other thoughtful observers went unheeded as the neo-cons pursued their fanciful agenda.
As was expected, the Iraq War started to show early signs of the protracted guerilla conflict it would become. James Webb wrote an article in the New York Times entitled "The War in Iraq Turns Ugly. That’s What Wars Do.":
This campaign was begun, like so many others throughout history, with lofty exhortations from battlefield commanders to their troops, urging courage, patience, compassion for the Iraqi people and even chivalry. Within a week it had degenerated into an unexpected ugliness in virtually every populated area where American and British forces have come under fire. Those who believed from intelligence reports and Pentagon war planners that the Iraqi people, and particularly those from the Shiite sections of the southeast, would rise up to greet them as liberators were instead faced with persistent resistance.
…
If American forces are successful in these engagements, the war may be over sooner rather than later. But if these battles stagnate, guerrilla warfare could well become pandemic, not only in Baghdad but also across Iraq. And even considering the strong likelihood of an allied victory, it is hard to imagine an end point without an extremely difficult period of occupation.
In fact, what will be called an occupation may well end up looking like the images we have seen in places like Nasiriya. Do Iraqis hate Saddam Hussein’s regime more deeply than they dislike the Americans who are invading their country? That question will still be with this administration, and the military forces inside Iraq, when the occupation begins, whether the war lasts a few more days or several more months.
Or worse, the early stages of an occupation could see acts of retribution against members of Saddam Hussein’s regime, then quickly turn into yet another round of guerrilla warfare against American forces. This point was made chillingly clear a few days ago by the leader of Iraq’s major Shiite opposition group, who, according to Reuters, promised armed resistance if the United States remains in Iraq after Saddam Hussein is overthrown.
Welcome to hell. Many of us lived it in another era. And don’t expect it to get any better for a while.
While George W Bush, Dick Cheney and George Allen were screaming "stay the course" at the top of their lungs, James Webb understood earlier than most that the course that the Bush Administration had embarked upon would likely lead to disaster.
Unlike the ideologues in the Administration and their lackeys in congress, James Webb has been consistent and correct about the Bush Administration’s misguided Iraq policy. He has been strong on defense, a defender of our men and women in uniform, and a tireless voice of reason on foreign policy matters. In his writings and in his actions, James Webb has proven to be a serious thinker for our serious times. We need leaders like James Webb to steer us out of the quagmire Mr. Bush and his rubber stamp, George Allen, have waded into.
James Webb is not a career politician, he is simply a patriot. Virginia, the home of patriots, deserves and needs one now. On November 7th, Virginians can send James Webb, a true American hero and patriot, to the United States Senate.
george allen george w bush iraq jim webb macaca united states senate virginia
What do you do when your incompetence leads to failure? You blame others.
What do you do when a recession occurs on your watch? You blame the Clinton Administration. What do you do when your economic policies cause massive job losses? You blame the Clinton Administration. What do you do when a massive surplus leads to a massive deficit? You blame the Clinton Administration. What do you do when you ignore warnings about terrorist attacks on the homeland? You blame the CIA. What do you do when Bin Laden attacks the United States? You blame the Clinton Administration. What do you do when you are caught fiddling while New Orleans drowns? You blame the local government. What do you do when North Korea tests nukes? You blame the Clinton Administration.
What do you do when you fail to provide basic security after destroying a country? You blame the Iraqis.
Faced with chaos in Iraq, Mr. Bush has said that he will not change his strategy in Iraq, although he might change his tactics:
Presidential spokesman Tony Snow said that while Bush might change tactics, he would not change his overall strategy.
"He’s not somebody who gets jumpy at polls," Snow said of Bush.
Bush, at a political fundraiser in Washington for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, railed against Democrats who criticize the war. Calling the Democrats the party of "cut and run," Bush said voters need to ask: "Which political party has a strategy for victory in this war on terror?’ "
I am a voter and I am asking myself what exactly Mr. Bush’s strategy is in Iraq. As far as I can tell, his strategy from the start of this fiasco has been, "Blame others."
Blaming the Iraqis is something of a parlor game in Washington. It has been a constant theme in Mr. Bush’s attempts to hide his own incompetence from the rest of us. This week, the "blame the Iraqis" strategy became the backbone of an emerging exit strategy in Iraq. The New York Times is reporting this morning that the administration is drafting a timetable for Iraq and will lay down a set of benchmarks that the Iraqi government will have to meet to quell the violence:
The Bush administration is drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to address sectarian divisions and assume a larger role in securing the country, senior American officials said.
Details of the blueprint, which is to be presented to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki before the end of the year and would be carried out over the next year and beyond, are still being devised. But the officials said that for the first time Iraq was likely to be asked to agree to a schedule of specific milestones, like disarming sectarian militias, and to a broad set of other political, economic and military benchmarks intended to stabilize the country.
Although the plan would not threaten Mr. Maliki with a withdrawal of American troops, several officials said the Bush administration would consider changes in military strategy and other penalties if Iraq balked at adopting it or failed to meet critical benchmarks within it.
A senior Pentagon official involved in drafting the blueprint said Iraqi officials were being consulted as the plan evolved and would be invited to sign off on the milestones before the end of the year. But he added, “If the Iraqis fail to come back to us on this, we would have to conduct a reassessment” of the American strategy in Iraq.
Let me be the first to make this rather obvious prediction: The Iraqi government will not be able to meet the benchmarks to stabilize the country.
Already administration gophers like Mr. Rumsfeld have been telling us that the Iraqis are the ones responsible for providing their own security:
Mr. Rumsfeld alluded to discussions about benchmarks on Friday at a Pentagon news conference, noting that Mr. Khalilzad and General Casey “are currently working with the Iraqi government to develop a set of projections as to when they think they can pass off various pieces of responsibility.”
He emphasized the urgency of transferring more security and governing responsibilities to the Iraqis. “It’s their country,” he said. “They’re going to have to govern it, they’re going to have to provide security for it, and they’re going to have to do it sooner rather than later.”
Yes, it is their country. However, we are the ones that invaded and occupied their country. It is quite clear under international law who is responsible for the security of Iraq. According to the Law of Occupation it is the duty of the United States, as the occupying power, to provide security in Iraq. The Law of Occupation is codified by the Hague Regulations, the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and the U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare. Article 43 of the Hague Regulations state:
The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.
While it may be politically convenient for the Bush Administration to blame the Iraqis for the worsening situation in Iraq, it is the failure of the Bush Administration to provide any semblance of basic security to the occupied country of Iraq that is the primary culprit. Instead of providing security, we were given lighthearted quips when the whole world saw the chaos in Iraq immediate after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003.
Declaring that freedom is "untidy," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Friday the looting in Iraq was a result of "pent-up feelings" of oppression and that it would subside as Iraqis adjusted to life without Saddam Hussein.
He also asserted the looting was not as bad as some television and newspaper reports have indicated and said there was no major crisis in Baghdad, the capital city, which lacks a central governing authority. The looting, he suggested, was "part of the price" for what the United States and Britain have called the liberation of Iraq.
"Freedom’s untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things," Rumsfeld said. "They’re also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that’s what’s going to happen here."
Looting, he added, was not uncommon for countries that experience significant social upheaval. "Stuff happens," Rumsfeld said.
Stuff happened because Mr. Bush’s ideology only could envision people throwing flowers at our feet.
The Bush administration was ill-prepared for post-war Iraq. They compounded the problem by handing over Iraq to the Iranian-backed SCIRI and the Iranian nurtured al Dawa party. How dense do you have to be to not understand that the platform of a political party named "The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq" might not exactly be in line with the western liberal democracy the neo-con fantasy envisioned? Is it really a surprise that Shia death squads are roaming the country, wearing police uniforms, and massacring Sunnis, and is it really a surprise that Sunni suicide bombers are targeting the Shia?
Is it really a surprise that Mr. Maliki, a hard-line al Dawa leader with a dubious past, would not want to crack down on the militias that are his pillar of support? After all, it was Mr. Maliki’s own party that invented the modern car bombing, that has killed Americans in Kuwait and in Lebanon, and that has now been given control of a country by the historically challenged George W Bush.
So, as we watch George W Bush cut and run from Iraq, we must not forget that we are at this unfortunate situation because of Mr. Bush’s ill-conceived and ill-executed invasion and occupation of Iraq. Mr. Bush can point fingers anywhere and everywhere he chooses, but he only need look in the mirror to find the man responsible for this fiasco.
civil war cut and run dawa party george w bush iraq sciri strategery
Former President Bill Clinton was the keynote speaker on Wednesday at the "Securing the Common Good" event at Georgetown University. It is my opinion that his keynote address was one of the more remarkable and significant political speeches of recent times. In his speech, President Clinton laid out the difference between political philosophy and political ideology:
There is a big difference between a philosophy and an ideology, on the right or the left. If you have a philosophy, it generally pushes you in a certain direction or another, but like all philosophers, you want to engage in discussion and argument. You are open to evidence, to new learning, and you are certainly open to debate the practical applications of your philosophy. Therefore, you might wind up making a principled agreement with someone with a different philosophy.
…
The problem with ideology is, if you’ve got an ideology, you’ve already got your mind made up. You know all the answers, and that makes evidence irrelevant and argument a waste of time, so you tend to govern by assertion and attack. The problem with that is: that discourages thinking and gives you bad results.
This new Bob Woodward book, State of Denial, is well named, but I think it’s important to point out that if you’re an ideologue, denial is an essential part of your political being – whichever side. If you’re an ideologue, you’ve got your mind made up, so when an inconvenient fact pops up, you have to be in denial. It has to be a less significant fact.
Ron Suskind wrote a related book called The One Percent Doctrine. I don’t know if any of you read that. He also co-wrote former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill’s memoirs. But the most interesting thing to me in this One Percent Doctrine is not the part that people have talked about, about 9/11. I don’t know whether that’s true or not, but Mr. Suskind says in The One Percent Doctrine that the ideologues within the current government refer to people not just like me, although I’m included, but even moderate Republicans like Colin Powell and Admiral Scowcroft as somehow lesser political mortals, because we are trapped in, quote, “the reality-based world.” And what they mean by that – in fairness to them, what they mean by that is that we are an empire, we’re the world’s only military superpower, and you can use power to change reality. And if you don’t see that, then you will always be condemning your country to a lesser status.
When I was a kid, I grew up in an alcoholic home. I spent half my childhood trying to get into the reality-based world, and I like it here.
In one remarkable passage, Bill Clinton summed up the fundamental failure of the Bush Administration. In one remarkable passage, Bill Clinton turned Mr. Bush’s perceived strength - his "steadfastness" - on its head and exposed it for the weakness that it is. Denial is central to Mr. Bush’s ideology.
Ideology and denial have informed Mr. Bush’s foreign policy - most notably his policy in Iraq. All bad news from Iraq has been ignored because it did not fit Mr. Bush’s reality. So, when researchers from the Johns Hopkins University released a study of Iraqi deaths in the current issue of the peer-reviewed medical journal, The Lancet, Mr. Bush dismissed its results as "just not credible." The study found that 654,965 Iraqis have died as a result of the 2003 invasion. In addition to Mr. Bush, a number of observers have called into question the death toll in the study’s findings as being too high. The study has become a political tool in the context of the upcoming elections - with the pro-war diehards dismissing the death toll as "not credible" and the anti-war crowd hailing it as validation of the ills of this war. However, the study is not a political document, it is a scientific document - and the science is sound.
The Johns Hopkins study used a methodology that has been used to measure death tolls in other modern conflicts. According to a news release by the study’s authors:
The mortality survey used well-established and scientifically proven methods for measuring mortality and disease in populations. These same survey methods were used to measure mortality during conflicts in the Congo, Kosovo, Sudan and other regions.
Previous studies that used the same methodology, such as the Congo death toll study of 2000, were hailed as authoritative. The Congo study found that the death toll in 2 years had been at least 1.7 million. The epedimiologist who supervised the Congo study, Dr. Les Roberts of Johns Hopkins University, is also one of the authors of the current Iraq study. After the Congo study, Dr. Roberts asked the UN and the US agencies to look over the study:
When he finished his survey, Mr. Roberts asked the United Nations relief assistance coordinator for the area and a representative of the United States Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance in the region to look over his findings. They thought that he might have been conservative, Mr. Roberts recounted.
The current Iraq study based on the same methodology is facing a decidedly more polarized audience.
Although the study’s findings are significantly higher than other estimates based on counting known fatalities arriving at hospitals and morgues, the current study’s findings are in line with a 2004 study of deaths in Iraq conducted by the same team. More significantly, the trend in the study showing that the death rate has been increasing over time is consistent with both the Iraq Body Count numbers and the US military’s own study.
In a study released by the Pentagon in August 2006 entitled "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq", the Iraqi "casualty" count between January 2004 and August 2006 is given at just over 50,000. These numbers are based on "casualty" numbers that are "derived from unverified initial reports submitted by Coalition elements responding to an incident". The study warns that these numbers should be used for "comparative purposes" only. The study also does not break down the number between injured and killed and only refers to "casualties". Given that the US military (and the coalition) does not control much territory in Iraq, it is a safe assumption that the numbers of incidents the Coalition responds to is a small fraction of the total number of violent incidents in Iraq. Even so, the upward trend in the violence, especially in the past year, is startling and tells an ominous story.
The Pentagon study paints a gloomy picture of the security situation in Iraq. It also notes that conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq:
During this reporting period, attacks and civilian casualties have risen, characterized by ethno-sectarian attacks and reprisals. Violence escalated notably in Baghdad, which, as the political, population, and media center of the country, is a high-value target for terrorists.
…
Sustained ethno-sectarian violence is the greatest threat to security and stability in Iraq. Breaking this cycle of violence is the most pressing immediate goal of Coalition and Iraqi operations. Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq, specifically in and around Baghdad, and concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian population has increased in recent months.
The Pentagon study also claims that most of the violence in Iraq occurs in Baghdad and a few surrounding provinces, most notably, al Anbar province:
However, the reporting in the Pentagon study is likely skewed in favor of provinces where the US military has more of a presence, namely Baghdad and al Anbar provinces. The Johns Hopkins study provides a startlingly different picture of the distribution of violence in Iraq.
According to the Johns Hopkins study, four provinces (Anbar, Ninewa, Salah al-Din, and Diyala) have a higher death rate than does Baghdad. Also, five other provinces (Basrah, Missan, Qadissiya, Kerbala, and Tameem) have death rates in the same category as Baghdad. Therefore, there are ten provinces in Iraq where the death rate is similar or greater than that of Baghdad. That is a stunning statistic and demonstrates that violence has now spread to 10 of Iraq’s 18 provinces and is no longer isolated to the "Sunni Triangle". By contrast, the Pentagon study claims that nearly 90% of the violence is contained within four provinces (Baghdad, Anbar, Salah al-Din and Diyala). Again, it appears that the Pentagon’s view of the violence in Iraq is limited by where it has boots on the ground. Thus, it appears very likely that the Pentagon is vastly undercounting the actual violence in Iraq.
There are also other startling internal numbers in the Johns Hopkins study. Most notably, since the 2003 invasion, child mortality rates in Iraq have more than quadrupled and nearly 40% of all children under the age of 15 have died due to violence, about half of whom have died due to Coalition airstrikes.
Whether one accepts the aggregate finding of the Johns Hopkins study, it seems quite clear that the study validates trends in the death rates that other observers have noted. It is also quite clear that the scientific approach of the study gives a more accurate picture of the violence in Iraq than what the US military is able to see from its limited on the ground presence. As a scientific work, the Johns Hopkins study is not so easily dismissed.
The Iraq War has always been on the intersection of a bad ideology and bad intelligence. It continues to be so. Mr. Bush’s ideology causes him to dismiss the findings of studies such as the one from Johns Hopkins which contradict his preconceived notion of reality. On the other hand, reports that rely on limited information, such as the Pentagon report, are closer to Mr. Bush’s vision of "reality" and serves to validate his world view. Even so, the latest Pentagon report is very pessimistic and Mr. Bush will find it very difficult to continue ignoring the reality of Iraq. Mr. Bush will soon have to enter the reality-based world and he may find that he doesn’t like it here.
bill clinton death toll george w bush iraq johns hopkins university the lancet
Having failed to find any WMD in Iraq, George W Bush has resorted to his "freedom" agenda. Mr. Bush repeatedly claims that "democracies don’t go to war with each other." His prescription for lasting peace in the Middle East and the end of terrorism is spreading democracy (by force) to the world. In pursuing his "freedom" agenda, George W Bush, and his poodle Tony Blair, have undermined democracy in the West. Their single-minded pursuit of what they believe is just and right has now become an existential threat to western liberal democracy and our way of life.
As much of a violent and dangerous threat al Qaeda is to the United States and its allies, it has never been an existential threat. It seems inconceivable that a small group of thugs can violently destroy a political and economic power as massive as the United States. However, what al Qaeda can do is cause the United States to cannibalize itself as it undermines the pillars of democracy in its own perceived self-defense. To do so, al Qaeda needs an unwitting and fiercely ideological patsy - it has found one in George W Bush.
Bush’s notion that democracies do not war with each other is debatable at best. However, the argument, even if it is accepted, is based on the belief that the inherent restraints within democratic society prevent those societies from engaging in warfare, except as an absolute last resort. Rudolph J Rummel, one of the early proponents of the "democratic peace theory", based his theory on Immanuel Kant’s notion of "Perpetual Peace":
Rummel’s response when asked why he believed democracies didn’t fight was to recall Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace, published in 1795.
Kant’s theory is that democratic leaders are restrained by the resistance of their people to bearing the costs and deaths of war. And a democratic culture of negotiation and conciliation, plus the hurdles to taking swift action, favours peace.
George W Bush, however, is actively undermining the fundamental pillar of the very theory he touts by his "stay the course" policy in Iraq. Mr. Bush says that he is not constrained by public opinion because he knows he is right. By proceeding with his policy against overwhelming public opinion, he has undermined the ideological basis of his crusade.
As George W Bush, and his poodle Blair, strain to "stay the course" against the restraints of democracy, they are beginning to damage the foundations of democratic society. One such restraint, as explicitly declared in Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, is the absolute authority of the civilian leadership of the military:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
The continued pointlessness of the Iraq War is causing the military to publicly speak out against the civilian leadership that is asking them to sacrifice for a war with little or no public support.
Up until this week, most public opposition to the war has come from retired U.S. military generals. However, all that changed last week in Britain when Chief of the General Staff of the Army, Sir Richard Dannatt, spoke out against the Iraq War. Sir Richard called the coalition’s dream of bringing democracy to Iraq "naive" and he called for British troops to pull out as soon as possible. He also stated, rather unsurprisingly, that the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil is fueling terrorism.
Sir Richard’s candid comments sent shockwaves in London and Washington. By week’s end Tony Blair, to salvage his authority, had to declare that he agrees with his army chief and that what Sir Richard was saying was "the same as we all are." Tony Blair had in effect lost control over his military. The military leadership was openly questioning the policy of their civilian masters - a recipe for disaster in any democratic society. Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair’s blatant disregard for the normal constraints of democratic societies in their quixotic pursuit of "peace" has led to this turn of events.
Another feature of a democratic society that leads to stability and not war, according to Rummel, is its guarantee of civil liberties. Recently Mr. Bush and his war machine have taken a giant bite out of our notion of civil liberties:
When President Bush rammed the bill on military commissions through Congress, the Republicans crowed about creating a process that would be tough on terrorists but preserve essential principles of justice. “America can be proud,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the bill’s architects.
Unfortunately, Mr. Graham was wrong. One of the many problems with the new law is that it will only make it harder than it already is to separate the real terrorists from the far larger group of inmates at Guantánamo Bay who were bit players in the Taliban or innocent bystanders. Mr. Graham and other supporters of this dreadful legislation seem to have forgotten that American justice does not merely deliver swift punishment to the guilty. It also protects the innocent.
…
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 makes it virtually impossible to contest a status tribunal’s decision. It prohibits claims of habeas corpus — the ancient right of prisoners in just societies to have their detentions reviewed — or any case based directly or indirectly on the Geneva Conventions. Even if an appeal got to the single appeals court now authorized to hear it, the administration would very likely argue that it cannot be heard without jeopardizing secrets, as it has done repeatedly.
The new law championed by Mr. Bush and the congressional Republicans allows the government to detain individuals without the right of those individuals to challenge their detentions. That is a license for abuse. This law prohibits habeas corpus, an idea the framers deemed so important, that they included it in the text of the Constitution itself, not in an amendment to the Constitution. Article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution states:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
We are neither facing a rebellion nor an invasion. Yet, we have suspended habeas corpus.
Bit by bit, the fabric of democracy is being undermined by Mr. Bush’s "War on Terror" and his Iraq War. We are fighting them "there" while losing freedoms here. We are undermining our democratic institutions in trying to spread "democracy" abroad. At some point, our leaders must be held accountable if democracy is to be preserved.
We can start to hold our leaders to account starting November 7th. Have no doubt that we are now facing an existential threat to our democracy from within. As we face the real enemies from outside that seek to harm us, we must guard against the forces from within that strike at our very foundations. George W Bush and his rubber stamp Republican congress have brought this challenge to our democracy. On November 7th, we are called upon to defend our democracy.
al qaeda constitution democratic peace theory george w bush immanuel kant iraq perpetual peace rudolph j rummel sir richard dannatt tony blair
Today Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank were awarded the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to create economic and social development from below." Today is a day of celebration for all of Bangladesh and Bengalis everywhere. In a country racked by political infighting, corruption and poverty, Dr. Yunus and his faith in the poorest souls on Earth has always been a slight ray of hope. Today that ray shines a little brighter.
Dr. Yunus was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his pioneering work in the use of microcredit. Dr. Yunus is an economist who founded Grameen Bank in 1976 (formally in 1983) to give small loans to mostly poor women in rural Bangladesh to start small businesses. These women, who were otherwise deemed "unbankable" by conventional banks, proved to be a lower credit risk than most "creditworthy" borrowers. Grameen Bank’s loan repayment rate is over 98% - significantly higher than most commercial banks in the Third World. Dr. Yunus discovered that microcredit can be both commercially viable and an engine for socio-economic change. Grameen Bank has helped millions of Bangladeshis rise above poverty, not through charity, but through hard work and a little faith in their abilities.
Dr. Yunus’s success in helping the poor help themselves has been duplicated in almost all other developing countries. He has proven the value of direct investment from the bottom up in bringing about economic development. Microcredit and its success stands in direct contrast to the billions of dollars in foreign aid that is wasted when the West gives "aid" to Third World tyrants and dictators.
In awarding Dr. Yunus the Nobel Peace Prize, the Committee said:
Muhammad Yunus has shown himself to be a leader who has managed to translate visions into practical action for the benefit of millions of people, not only in Bangladesh, but also in many other countries.
Loans to poor people without any financial security had appeared to be an impossible idea. From modest beginnings three decades ago, Yunus has, first and foremost through Grameen Bank, developed micro-credit into an ever more important instrument in the struggle against poverty.
…
Every single individual on earth has both the potential and the right to live a decent life. Across cultures and civilizations, Yunus and Grameen Bank have shown that even the poorest of the poor can work to bring about their own development.
Micro-credit has proved to be an important liberating force in societies where women in particular have to struggle against repressive social and economic conditions. Economic growth and political democracy cannot achieve their full potential unless the female half of humanity participates on an equal footing with the male.
Dr. Yunus had a simple idea that he turned into action. In doing so, he has changed millions of lives.
Everyday hundreds of millions of people on our planet struggle to just survive. They struggle not with questions of war and peace, not with decisions to launch bombs or practice diplomacy; but with how to find enough food to feed themselves and their families. Their needs are basic and consume most of their existence. These people, our fellow human beings, our fellow brothers and sisters, live on the neglected edge of society. Dr. Yunus, three decades ago, resolved to do his part to help his fellow brothers and sisters step away from the edge. In doing so, Dr. Yunus understood what the current occupant of the White House to this day does not: that peace and stability in this world cannot be achieved until and unless the roots of poverty are addressed.
For his efforts to alleviate poverty to bring about a more peaceful world, the Nobel Committee today awarded Dr. Muhammad Yunus the Nobel Peace Prize.
bangladesh grameen bank microcredit muhammad yunus nobel peace prize
