DragonFlight

(Parts I and II can be viewed at Theydidwhat)

As the king realized the winds were shifting and his position and power were waning, he knew things would be great if he only had more time. He thought and thought about this, but not being the brightest candle in the kingdom, came up with no new strategery. Just when things looked the most mystimafied, lo, one of his advisors came upon him muttering to himself, and had an idea. He approached the king, “Oh your most magnificent royalassholiness, decider of decisions, uniter of division, maker of wars, I have an idea.”

The king respondeded, “Bring it on.”

The advisor continued, “What we need is the support of a great warrior, one who is noble of heart, steadfast and loyal to the kingdom, but one who will believe what we tell him, because he has been so trained. He will reassure the people the smelly mound can be controlled, if only we had more time and money and sacrifice.”

The king looked puzzled, but not unpleased. Perhaps this was the answer. He called his most noble knight, a veteran of many battles, a trusted servant, and put him in charge of the surging smelly mound. He said unto this great warrior, “go thee unto the great reeking pile in the east, take your knights and your shovels, and give the ‘Keepers of the Smelly Mound’ the relief they need so they might once again get the putrid mound under their controlification.”

The king then told the people to be patient a while longer, that the great and noble Sir Petulance would indeed save the day, and show everyone that the smelly mound was not evil, but good. There was some consternation throughout the land, but there was also a ray of hope. One thought echoed through the hills and the dales, “if Sir Petulance can’t do it, nobody can.” The people of the Land of Liberty were suspicious, but hopeful.

The months dragged on, the smelly pile raged, and Sir Petulance did his best to control the mess. In those gatherings, both large and small, the people anxiously waited, filled with hope and expectation, and one thought, “surely now the obvious truth will become known!”

Finally the time came for Sir Petulance to consult with the king and his advisors. There was some confusion as to who would tell the people. The king wanted one of his close and trusted wazirs to share the great news. The liberals did not trust to this, and insisted that Sir Petulance himself first speak to the people. And so it was.

But the news was not what the people had expected. In spite of the reassurances that all was well, they could still smell the great reeking, smelly mound. The smell had changed slightly, but was still odorous, and though in some areas it had receded, in other places it had grown. The Keepers of the Smelly Mound had not used the respite to control the pile, and the aura of putrefaction continued to assault everyone’s noses. The people looked upon Sir Petulance and wondered, was he telling the whole truth, or was he telling them what the king wanted them to hear? Even the great knight himself admitted he didn’t know if the people would be exposed to less odor.

In spite of the ambiguity spreading throughout the land, the king raised his scepter in victory and demanded more resources from the people to drop into the stinking mound. Afraid of the scepter, but also defiant, once again “people began to gather in groups large and small, in meeting halls, and on-line, to talk about what they could do to stop what was happening and how the king and the vice-king could be called to account. And slowly but surely a wind arose, soft at first, then growing in force as it swept across the land. And if you listened very closely you could hear the wind whisper… impeach them, impeach them.”

Posted by Stephen at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

It’s so hard to know how to start. Being one of those “dreaded” liberals who believe the present government of the United States led by President George W. Bush is an unmitigated disaster, I’m so frustrated it’s nearly impossible to be articulate within my own mind about the thoughts I have about the Legislative Branch as well. I have “almost” as much disdain for this present Congress as I do for this so-called Administration! Considering, however, that there are some redeeming souls in the Senate and the House, on both sides, it would be impossible to entirely equate both branches in this regard.

One has to wonder of late, well for at least seven years now, what planet Congress has been on? I learned in grade school that Congress was one of the three branches of government, and mainly responsible for legislating laws. I was also taught, and under the impression, apparently false, that they had a major role in oversight of the other branches. Silly me.

It’s quite bad enough (I really wanted to say horrible) that we have an Administrative branch that feels they are above the law and the Constitution, but that Congress would enable this delusion, and these delusional souls, is reprehensible. Of course the waters are a bit muddied by the fact that we have a Vice President who apparently may belong to a different branch of government on any given day, depending on which keeps him safer from scrutiny.

And now, when you hope the worst is behind us, the Senate concerns itself with what private newspaper ads might or might not be appropriate. They can’t seem to pass a bill that may give our fighting troops a decent, fair and humane rotation cycle during a time of war, or that might even end that war which is mired in a quagmire, but they do have time to censure the first amendment rights of an organization that represents the views of a large group of Americans. (I thought the wording of the MoveOn ad was a bit over the top, but still don’t see how it was any of the Senate’s business to comment on it, especially when they failed to be equally critical of the “swift boat” ads and the attacks on Max Clellan. It’s obvious the Republicans are just more organized when it comes to playing political hardball.)

Of course, when one digs a bit further, it becomes apparent this is all a ploy to distract the American public from the real issue. A fellow blogger, Trish Purcell said it better than I could:

“Once again the “conservative” media machine swings into action in collaboration with the administration and like-minded legislators. Can’t you just picture their glee when the Move-On.org ad handed them a two-pronged weapon: a two by four with which to hit Democratic Senators over the head; an issue that could be sensationalized and distract people from the real issue – the failure of the surge.
Correct me if I am wrong but I think when you set a goal for a mission and you do not achieve that goal, the mission has failed. President Bush said the surge was to buy time for the Iraq government to achieve reconciliation. The Iraq government has not achieved anything like reconciliation. Therefore the surge failed.
Are we talking about or hearing about the success or failure of the surge? Are we discussing what we should do now? Are we working on a new plan for Iraq? None of the above. Instead we are arguing about whether or not Move-On.org should or should not have run their ad.”
And so here we are again, allowing the conservative media machine to dictate what we talk about and distract us from the important issue that we should be talking about. And our paid representatives in the Senate are wasting their time on a meaningless resolution about an ad instead of taking care of the real business of government. Enough already!”

The fact is, we have a Congress that goes well beyond the definition of mediocre, and perhaps comes closer to negligent and incompetent. First, it is dysfunctionally divided by partisan politics at a time when both our government at home and our involvements abroad are a bit chaotic. Personally, I see the Republicans as most complicit in this entirely despicable partisanship at present. Not only do they all, with few exceptions if any, automatically agree with most anything the Administrative branch dictates as far as the Iraq war goes, they justify this, at least to themselves and the more gullible voters, as necessary because the Democrats are incapable of defending the nation. That’s rather amusing in light of the fact that 9/11 occurred during this Republican administration, the debacle in Iraq was led and mismanaged by that same administration, and the nation is not safer because of either. Even General Petraeus would not say we were any safer, and more than one government report has said we were indeed “less” safe. And just how does Petraeus' report add up with his own accomplishments in Iraq? Petraeus' own standards

Here’s a copy of a letter I sent to one of my senators, Diane Feinstein, who startlingly (to me anyway) voted to support the Senate repudiation of MoveOn and their ad:

“I’m extremely disappointed that you voted yes today to repudiate the MoveOn Petraeus/Betrayus ad, and I’m not sure when it became the Senate’s business to criticize newspaper ads. I believe MoveOn has the right to voice their opinion as granted by the First Amendment, especially when Petraeus’ sugar coating of the situation in Iraq is quite suspicious. I knew the present Administration and most Republicans in Congress appear to believe free speech only applies when it mirrors their own views, but I hadn’t believed that true of you.

I’ve always voted for you, as well as several other Democrats, but I’m in the process of rethinking how I vote. I won’t vote Republican, as I feel they have, en masse, sold out our nation, and enabled a President who doesn’t believe in the oversight role of Congress as a separate branch of our government. It would appear that many in Congress as well, are unaware of that responsibility.

I know the Democrat majority in Congress is not large enough to pass certain legislation, or override presidential vetoes, but that doesn’t mean the Democrats should stop fighting for the wishes of their electorate. I don’t care how many times the President vetoes a bill; it doesn’t mean the Democrats should not persist. If you have enough time on your hands to censure political ads by private organizations, you have the time to keep passing bills that you, and more importantly, the people who put you in office, want passed.”

I’d suggest that everyone start responding to their own Congressional representatives when they do something they like, or don’t like. I don’t see any better way to try to change things other than to let those in power know where we, the electorate, stand on how they vote. They only seem to focus in on what we want when election time approaches. Perhaps knowing we are not happy with their performance and are considering how we might want to vote next time around will get through to them on a basic survival level. It sure seemed to work in the 2006 mid-term elections.

Here’s a simple URL that takes you right to a site which will give you quick access to communicating with them Contact Congress .

I should add here a quote from a comment on my “The Petraeus Report, And Other Consequences blog” by Renee:

“The whole idea that the Senate took time to denounce the MoveOn.org ad is utterly ludicrous. What a monumental waste of time and what a moronic thing to do. I have had it with Congress in general, I think the Republican leadership is a pack of rabid wolves, and the Democrat leadership needs to get their heads out of their asses. That's what I think.”

Amen to that! Where is the Congress I ordered?

Posted by Stephen at 06:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

I began writing this blog as a comment to a column written by a man whose opinions and word craft I admire greatly. His name is Jaime O’Neill. To those of you who only read this online and from afar via the Internet, and aren’t really familiar with the Paradise Post itself, he is a widely published freelance writer. I’m fortunate enough to know him personally, and freely admit he has directly, and by example, encouraged me to put my opinions on paper. As often happens with me, a small comment grew into another large blog. I can’t even make soup at home for less than ten people, even though there are only two of us.

The column I was commenting on, and which ultimately inspired a continuation in other, and hopefully related areas, can be found at Is Petraeus his own man? Perhaps not .

Jaime, I also question some of the outrage over MoveOn’s ad. Though I might agree with Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry that the choice of words was perhaps over the top, I also recall when I actually started thinking that. It was after seeing Petraeus sitting at that Congressional table, looking very regal in his full dress uniform, covered with ribbons, medals, insignias and those very large and shiny stars on each shoulder. He cut quite an impressive figure, a person appearing to embody intelligence, courage and integrity; a personality not to be taken lightly or with any disrespect.

And, of course, that is exactly the image he was supposed to portray; it’s easy to confuse the image and the man, with the purpose of the hearing. I myself have no doubt General Petraeus is an honorable and very capable man, who serves this nation to the best of his ability, which appears quite extensive.

I don’t perceive the real question as a matter of Petraeus’ integrity and loyalty to the interests of the United States, but rather whether his perception of events might not, by default, begin to blend in some ways with the person he has sworn to obey: “and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States.” As you aptly pointed out “Those two masters don't always intersect or even co-exist.”

When I read the Post editorial stating, Petraeus was “his own man,” the question immediately came to my mind, “how do they know that for certain?” And this was not a criticism of the general, so much as a perception of the reality that he was hired by this President to do a specific job, and as Time Magazine’s political columnist Joe Klein stated, “I think that he is absolutely trained to see the glass as being half full. And what you got a lot of was half full without seeing the other side of it. And a lot of what he said, especially when he talked about Basra, was disingenuous. But he really believes in the mission." I also thought some of the report was a little sugar coated. For instance, constantly referring to “ethno-sectarian violence” seemed a very polite and often deceptive substitution for Civil War.

It was also telling (you made a small reference to this) when Chris Matthews queried Klein about why he thought Petraeus said he didn’t know if the surge made America any safer, when answering Senator John Warner. Klein’s response was, “Well, you know what? It was the truth. It's what he really believed. Then a really funny thing happened. I was in the room. They went into recess and clearly someone from the White House called him up and said, are you kidding me! And when he came back, he was asked another question by a senator, and he went back to that statement. And he corrected himself, and said he hadn't thought it through or whatever.”

It’s this latter statement that causes me concern. It’s just a blatant example of how White House thinking and perception can influence Petraeus specifically, and the military and Pentagon in general. It’s a bit more of that sugar coating -- not quite a lie, or a betrayal, but absolutely meant to be misleading, with the purpose of muddying the waters.

Though I don’t entirely disagree with the Post’s assessment that many on the left “have come to loath President George Bush so much that many of them are simply incapable of seeing anything positive in anyone associated with him,” I would not equate this with how the Republicans felt about President Bill Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky debacle. In my humble opinion, the full fury of the Republican “bash and spin machine” came into focus the minute Clinton was elected to office. He had, after all, ruined the schedule for the neoconservative agenda and the combined Neoconservative/Republican drive toward complete domination of our government, merely by being elected and nothing more. George Bush, on the other hand, has well earned the disdain and distrust with which so many hold him.

The effects of the Bush Administration on our economy, our Armed Forces, and how the rest of the world now perceives us, may last far into this century if we are unlucky, and perhaps only a decade or two if we luck out.

The ramifications of the trumped up and misnamed “War on Terrorism” may have even greater and more terrible consequences. Terrorism is a tactic, not a philosophy, and declaring war on it is akin to trying to declare war on hate. I have little doubt there have for some time been Islamic ideologues around the world who have hated the West, and the United States in particular. I don’t doubt they represent a real threat to our safety. Yet, I also have no doubt that George Bush’s willful, arrogant and ill-conceived pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and its subsequent lingering consequences have created many more Islamic ideologues that now hate us, as well as more terrorists and suicide bombers. I don’t believe this would have occurred if the main focus had been on getting those responsible for 9/11, instead of in essence declaring a war on so many who otherwise might have remained neutral.

Perception is indeed reality. I believe General Petraeus to be an honorable man, but this doesn’t make even him immune to being duped by his sense of duty, and allegiance to those he has sworn to obey. (And I’m not saying he has been, but I refuse to believe it’s not possible.) I recall exactly this happening to Colin Powell, another honorable man.

The art of word crafting, and sugar coating the message, has become a poor substitute for speaking from the heart, without any thought to political perception or allegiance. When the events they might influence, for good or bad, peace or war, are so huge in magnitude that they might ultimately affect the future of an entire world for some time to come, they are a very poor substitute for the plain and simple truth.

If the people of this nation do not wake up, and soon, to the realization of how we have allowed ourselves to become separated and divided by the political and corporate cronies whose main “raison d’etre” is the accumulation of wealth and power, we are in danger of losing everything we hold dear. Iraq is not the only country today divided by civil war.

In fact, there are two wars now waging within our own nation. One is a war between the haves (or have increasingly more), and the have-nots (or have increasingly less). And this gap is rapidly widening every year, if not every month. The second is a war splitting the nation ideologically, under the guise of political and closely aligned religious issues. Supposedly, the combatants are called the “liberals” and the “conservatives” or the “left” and the “right,” but we should by now understand these are merely loose labels that describe no one accurately. They are meant to divide us, and are doing so quite successfully.

The economic war is largely enabled by corporations and corporate mentality, primarily that bottom line called profit. The political war is fueled primarily by posturing, pandering, self-serving politicians, and “leaders.” But make no mistake, both wars ultimately represent the same people and interests.

Ultimately, the beauty of the Petraeus Report is that it focuses more attention on the games that some people play. It’s my perception people are indeed beginning to slowly wake up to some of the reality of what is going on around them, and being done to them. My hope is this will happen sooner than later, and will eventually mend the division presently plaguing and weakening our great nation.

Posted by Stephen at 02:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (0)

One has to wonder what Dick Little’s real motive is for constantly debunking mankind’s possible contribution to global warming, and attacking environmentalists. He himself states in the opening line of his Post column of September 11, “I know this is getting old.” Yes Dick, in fact, it is getting VERY old.

I’d love to know exactly why Mr. Little feels there is a media bias concerning global warming, and why he thinks it’s a political issue? What do we gain from ignoring any and all possibilities? If the ecological balance of Planet Earth goes awry it will be too late to do anything. Isn’t it logical, rational and prudent to assume mankind “might” have some influence on the climate, and play it safe rather than be sorry? What’s the worse that could happen, we might clean up the environment a bit?

Yes, global warming is natural, and it occurs in a cyclical fashion. We live on a tiny planet hurling through frigid and relatively empty space at an enormous speed. Without natural warming cycles produced by volcanoes, forest fires, and other natural phenomenon there would be no life as we know it on our world.

What is NOT natural is technology. Since the advent of the industrial revolution mankind has been increasingly changing the natural balance of the ecosystem on this planet. We presently spew billions of metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every day as industrial waste. This is in addition to vast quantities of an even heavier greenhouse gas, methane, which are released into the atmosphere each day from herds of cattle and other food stock created by us. The idea these don't contribute to the global warming dynamics at all, is ludicrous.

According to the New York Times “On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is "unequivocal," and that human activity has "very likely" been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years.” Global Warming .

So my questions to Dick Little are these. Who cares which is presently contributing the most to global warming, natural sources or mankind? (The fact of the matter is, the world IS presently heating up, the poles ARE melting, and there will be grave consequences if this continues.) Why shouldn’t we do ANYTHING that might help decrease the introduction of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere in an attempt to slow down the process? Are you more concerned about the costs to big business to cut down pollution than the consequences of not doing anything, “just in case” mankind is contributing significantly to the problem? Is being politically "right" (pun intended) more important to you than the planet and the life it supports?

Posted by Stephen at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

No one wants Iran to have nuclear arms, possibly with the exception of some in Iran itself, and various ideologues. Yet one can understand why Iran as a nation might wish they had them, if not only to prevent the continual threats towards them by the United States government. President George Bush quickly singled out Iran in his first State of the Union address on January 29, 2002 as one of the “axis of evil” nations. Soon afterward, a concerted effort began to find and/or trump up reasons to justify a preemptive invasion against their neighbor Iraq, another member of the “axis of evil."

Iraq had no nuclear capabilities, so they were invaded. Much of the saber rattling by Bush against North Korea, the third alleged “axis of evil” nation, ended soon after they tested a nuclear device. Relations with Pakistan, though often iffy, never get real pushy, because they also have the bomb. It seems to follow that if you have nuclear weapon’s capabilities you are less likely to be threatened or attacked. Thus, Iran also having been placed on the dartboard by Bush, it might follow they would want nuclear weapons, if not only to protect themselves from him.

I’m certainly not implying that I in anyway want Iran to have the bomb. The irresponsible threats and blathering of the Iranian leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stating, “we will push Israel into the sea,” and the fact of arming and supporting insurgent groups in Iraq and in other nations, make it rather apparent that we don’t want any WMDs in his hands. I simply don’t want to give any nation a real reason for wanting to obtain them. If nations like Iran had no serious designs on them before the Bush Presidency, they sure might have them now. Just as the quagmire in Iraq has created more, not less terrorists, so will it create the obsession with having weapons that might act as a deterrent against being preemptively attacked. This is certainly a sad state of affairs. It creates the danger of accelerating the possibility of the exact thing you are hoping to prevent.

On August 28 President Bush Addressed the 89th Annual National Convention of the American Legion in Reno, Nevada. The full speech can be viewed at Bush Speech . After pandering to the American legion, their commander, Paul A. Morin, and those “who wear our nation’s uniform,” and once again invoking patriotism and the flag, he finally got to the real focus of his intention, basically the threat in the Middle East as he perceives it.

A large portion of the speech is dedicated to reiterating in detail his view of our military actions in Iraq, as well as the problems presented there, and the dire consequences of not “winning.” It is another attempt to justify his belief that it is necessary that our troops remain there, and finish what he started.

What I find particularly disturbing is a relatively short reference to Iran that is bundled snuggly in the middle of the speech. Bush calls Iran “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism” (not unexpected considering their axis of evil status), and continues with a list of Iranian connections to terrorism, including backing Hezbollah in Lebanon, funding groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and sending arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan, as well as supporting insurgents in Iraq. No doubt these are all true. I recall the United States backing the Mujadine when the Russians invaded Afghanistan. It's not entirely unexpected a nation might consider that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

What is truly noteworthy in Bush’s address, and more to the point I’m trying to make, is a statement sounding very familiar to those of us who remember the lead up to war in Iraq. “And Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.” He continues, “Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere. And that is why the United States is rallying friends and allies around the world to isolate the regime, to impose economic sanctions. We will confront this danger before it is too late.”

Is there an implication his intentions might be to actually attack Iran? Ray McGovern seems to think so. If you don’t remember Mr. McGovern, he is the former CIA analyst who successfully confronted Donald Rumsfeld at a press conference in May of 2006, disputing Rumsfeld’s denial of having ever claimed to know where the WMDs in Iraq were. McGovern recited Rumsfeld’s quote back to him verbatim. “We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” This is a must see if you haven't already viewed it! McGovern vs Rummy .

McGovern believes “President George W. Bush's speech Tuesday lays out the Bush/Cheney plan to attack Iran and how the intelligence is being ‘fixed around the policy,’ as was the case before the attack on Iraq.” I’d highly recommend reading his analysis at Ray McGovern .

Trish Purcell, in a very informative blog entitled What Are They Saying? What Should We Say? gives a brief history of some of the various Bush Administration tactics being employed to possibly justify a build up to war with Iran, a process similar to that preceding the Iraq invasion. Then it was the threat of the “mushroom cloud,” now it’s the threat of “nuclear holocaust.” I agree with Trish the time has come for the American people to weigh in on this issue.

Do we really want to go to war with another nation, one quite a bit larger and much more formidable than Iraq? I believe most Americans are now against the continuation of war in Iraq, and certainly are not looking to expand that conflict to include another country. But it appears George Bush is not concerned with what the majority believes, or wants. He’s on a mission, and we aren’t really sure whose? -- Could be his, Cheney’s, or God according to Bush. What is for certain is this issue is way to big and important to be resolved by the Bush/Cheney Administration alone. It must be debated in the public forum as well as in the halls of Congress, and not simply left to the same people who created the debacle in Iraq, and still assure us they know what they're doing.

It’s time for everyone to seriously think about all this, discuss it with others, and then start writing emails and letters, or making phone calls to their Congressmen and Senators and let them know what they think. Hopefully, it is still “our” nation. We are definitely the ones who will ultimately pay the price for any erroneous decisions made by others because we said nothing.

Posted by Stephen at 09:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)