This is a tale of two Gulfs, one Persian, one of Mexico.

The public reaction to the response of the federal government in the wake of hurricane Katrina was not generated in a vacuum. Discontent with the Bush administration had been building, and the seeming complete lack of planning and coordination in New Orleans provided only a trigger for the disapproval of President Bush in the recent polls, it is not a root cause.

However, the falling levels of satisfaction before the hurricane struck also were not rooted in what many attribute them to, the increasing numbers of casualties from the war in Iraq with little visible progress towards the stated goals of building a stable, democratic nation there.

It is the actions of the administration, and specifically President Bush, in response to the challenges in the two Gulfs that has undermined the confidence of the American public.

The Persian Gulf has long been a center of difficulties for American foreign policy, ringed by regimes that are either outright hostile or opposed to the support the US has long given Israel.

As I have written elsewhere, my views on the need for the Second Gulf War against Iraq have been evolving, and I now think that in a Machiavellian world driven by realpolitik, the regime of Saddam Hussein did present a danger to the United States, but not the one presented by the administration. I will not add to the endless discussion of the Weapons of Mass Destruction that were not there and the intelligence failures that led to a chimera being used as a justification for a pre-emptive, optional war. The origins of those failures are not important to the issue at hand; what is crucial is how the administration did not recognize that when what was perceived by the public to be the main justification for the war was nonexistent, the public then began to wonder why we were sacrificing our best and brightest for a people who did not show the gratitude that the administration said before the war to expect.

Americans think of the United States as a “good” country, a moral nation. We are the good guys, the ones in the white hats. No matter how despicable the behavior of a regime, there is an uneasiness associated with a pre-emptive attack because that is not what good people do. We teach our children to not hit first.

The administration as a whole, and specifically President Bush, have done an abysmal job of explaining why, despite the absence of WMD in Iraq, we did need to “hit first”. The statements made project an attitude of “we don’t need to explain anything to you,” which is not appropriate in a democracy, and not the leadership that President Bush likes to talk about.

A leader does not make decisions and then rest in imperial grandeur. A leader inspires, a leader creates conditions where those he is leading are willing to make sacrifices and do things they would ordinarily regard as undesirable.

Even before the absence of results in the search for WMD became obvious even to the biggest cheerleaders for the war, the administration should have been out front, explaining why it was necessary to eliminate the regime of Saddam Hussein beyond the assertions regarding WMD development.

Instead of leading, we have had reacting and resistance that gives the appearance that the administration refuses to acknowledge reality.

This doesn’t play well in Peoria where they teach children to not hit first.

The Gulf of Mexico has its own diplomatic challenges, but they pale in comparison with the killer storms that occur every summer.

Now we are confronted with one of the largest natural disasters to ever impact the United States, something that was seen coming, a luxury nature rarely affords.

Again, we had a response after the fact from the administration, despite the slow motion horror that was telegraphed well before the storm struck. Instead of showing leadership before the event, we were given the spectacle of public relations events staged by an administration that while on vacation had apparently left no one at home to take care of business.

It was well known that hurricane Katrina was a huge, very powerful storm, having swelled days before it struck land to a category 5 hurricane, but despite that forewarning, we had reaction instead of leadership.

The timeline is well known, and the story presented in several recent reports in major magazines do not paint a pretty picture. Even if a supposed “anti-Bush bias” is filtered out, the raw facts extracted do not show a leader who has the situational awareness to make good decisions, they show someone who is detached from both those he leads and from the world at large.

There was no significant change in the schedule followed by the President for days after the storm devastated an area the size of England, and when the agenda was finally changed the most telling image of the response was a photo of the President looking out the window of Air Force One at the damage, remote, far above those on the ground who were short of food and water and had no transportation to get to a safer place because of the inadequate response of government at all levels.

What would a leader have done in the last days of August 2005 with a major hurricane bearing down on a vulnerable coast where for years the predictions of the consequences of a storm like this were of a modern-day Atlantis?

Before the storm struck, President Bush should have cancelled the remainder of his vacation and returned to the White House. Slow down the knee-jerk defense that “he can do his job just as well at his ranch in Crawford as he can in the White House” and take the time to understand that it is irrelevant. The need for his return to the Washington has no foundation in what the President requires to “do his job,” it is based upon what the nation needs from those who would be its leaders. A speech from the Oval Office on the eve of landfall of a powerful storm the size of Texas, warning about the expected devastation, and asking that the nation pray for those that soon must endure the tempest would have shown a leader who is both concerned for those he leads and is in place, in charge, and ready to handle any crisis arising from the ravaging hurricane.

Instead, we received photo ops, artificial, simulations of events that were repeated in the devastated in a display of complete disregard for the seriousness of the failure, with equipment and people carefully placed around the President to give the appearance of activity, of “hard work” if you will, but with the reality sadly different once the President and the cameras leave.

We have a tale of two Gulfs, one foreign, one domestic, both showing failures to lead by a man who talks about how he is a leader.

There is a third gulf, a void, a chasm of understanding on the part of the administration and its defenders.

This is key, important enough to repeat: it is not about what the President needs, it is what the nation needs.

Yet all the defenses of the “vacation President” revolve around what the President needs.

Think about it.

President George W. Bush talks a lot about leadership, about how he is a leader, how leadership is needed. He repeats variations of the phrase “hard work” almost as a mantra.

Leaders do not waste the time talking about leadership and hard work; they show leadership through their work.

Technorati Tags: commentary, Iraq, Iraq War, Katrina relief, New Orleans, patterns in the white noise, politics, right wing, right-wing, right-wing politics

Despite this being my weblog to “vent”, to not be moderate, I still strive to be reasonable.

However, so much of that I have read in blogworld and mediaworld in the past week has been so unreasonable I have not yet fathomed a way to respond that is not a “response in kind”, more destructive than constructive.

As I said, I strive to be reasonable, and a large part of my definition of reasonable is “constructive”.

I hope to have the patience, the energy, and the infrastructure support (a thunderstorm here is making the power supply questionable, I just had an involuntary reboot with the loss of all unsaved data because of a bump in the voltage of the electrical supply) to provide a reasonable analysis, even if biased, of what I see swirling around.

For those who choose to not wear blinders to the cluelessness, I present this:

Olbermann’s Time Line

Keith put together a video time line that jumps back and forth between different days and shows the spin by Chertoff and others coupled with the reality on the ground.

Video-WMP

Video-QT

As we all know, Bush’s idiotic claim that nobody anticipated the levees would be breached is exposed immediately. Just think about it. How in God’s name could our President say something so false that is so well documented on national TV?

Clueless, or a liar?

You decide, but take off your blinders first.

For those who refuse to let go of the administration talking points and continue to be apologists for the administration, how about this:

Bush orders FEMA to protect Upsidedownland

…especially when you begin to assign blame in your own “spin game“, it is what is known as ACCOUNTABILITY.

This isn’t Calvinball where you get to make up your own rules as you go with never the same rule twice.

Accountability has been completely lacking in this administration, to wit:

Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.
   -President Bush, complimenting FEMA chief Mike Brown yesterday on his agency’s response to Hurricane Katrina.

That is right up there with Secretary of the Department of Insular Clueless Kowtower Services (aka DICKS, formerly known as the Department of Homeland Security) Chertoff saying “That ‘perfect storm’ of a combination of catastrophes exceeded the foresight of the planners, and maybe anybody’s foresight.”

I call “shenanigans“!

—

Thanks to The Moderate Voice for the links to the quote and the spin game.

Technorati Tags: commentary, hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, opinion, politics, right wing, right-wing, right-wing politics, right-wing weblogs

Proof:

State Rep. Karen Carter was right Friday when she said the city didn’t have but two urgent needs: “Buses! And gas!” Every official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency should be fired, Director Michael Brown especially.

In a nationally televised interview Thursday night, he said his agency hadn’t known until that day that thousands of storm victims were stranded at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center. He gave another nationally televised interview the next morning and said, “We’ve provided food to the people at the Convention Center so that they’ve gotten at least one, if not two meals, every single day.”

Lies don’t get more bald-faced than that, Mr. President.

Yet, when you met with Mr. Brown Friday morning, you told him, “You’re doing a heck of a job.”

That’s unbelievable.

I wish it was unbelievable, but from this administration, it’s routine.

As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
   -H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

…the priorities of the American Ruling Class are exposed (and no, this isn’t some communist, leftist moonbat screed… I despise the aristocracy we have on the left, too, with Gore, the son of a Senator and Clinton, the wife of a President, as major Democratic figures… they are ALL part of the American Ruling Class who are out of touch with reality).

THE PRESIDENT: We’ve got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we’re going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we’re going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is — and it’s hard for some to see it now — that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott’s house — he’s lost his entire house — there’s going to be a fantastic house. And I’m looking forward to sitting on the porch.(Laughter.)

GOVERNOR RILEY: He’ll be glad to have you.

It’s nice to know that Trent Lott will get a fantastic house out of this disaster.

Lot’s of yuks there, huh?

So… how about those who died in the Superdome waiting for food and water to arrive?

What will they get?

A nice tombstone, perhaps?

Or just carted off in a body bag to be creamated?

Of course, they don’t count, they’re not powerful, rich white men.

Without requiring any additional details, it is painfully apparent that there is a massive failure of planning and coordination at all levels of government in the response to Hurricane Katrina, both before and after the storm struck.

Recently, I posted a link to a Scientific American article published in October of 2001 that predicted with remarkable accuracy the physical effects of a hurricane hitting along the path taken by Katrina.

Wired News has posted a Reuters article titled “They Knew What to Expect” that starts:

Virtually everything that has happened in New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina struck was predicted by experts and in computer models, so emergency management specialists wonder why authorities were so unprepared.

“The scenario of a major hurricane hitting New Orleans was well anticipated, predicted and drilled around,” said Clare Rubin, an emergency management consultant who also teaches at the Institute for Crisis, Disaster and Risk Management at George Washington University.

Later in the article:

“Disaster response teams developed action plans in critical areas such as search and rescue, medical care, sheltering, temporary housing, school restoration and debris management. These plans are essential for quick response to a hurricane but will also help in other emergencies,” he said.

In light of that, said disaster expert Bill Waugh of Georgia State University, “It’s inexplicable how unprepared for the flooding they were.” He said a slow decline over several years in funding for emergency management was partly to blame.

In comments on Thursday, President Bush said, “I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.”

But LSU engineer Joseph Suhayda and others have warned for years that defenses could fail. In 2002, the New Orleans Times Picayune published a five-part series on “The Big One,” examining what might happen if they did.

It predicted that 200,000 people or more would be unwilling or unable to heed evacuation orders and thousands would die, that people would be housed in the Superdome, that aid workers would find it difficult to gain access to the city as roads became impassable, as well as many other of the consequences that actually unfolded after Katrina hit this week.

John of Castle Argghhh! has written on the difficulties inherent in any massive operation. I recommend you read his entire post (the logistical discussion commences after the updates at the top). Regarding his credentials on disaster planning, he writes:

My thoughts on the subject are informed by the fact that I spent two years as one of those guys in the Army whose job it was to do the generic plans for incident responses (from a DoD perspective, and *ALWAYS* subordinate to FEMA - they’re the Big Dog), designing and executing training events to rehearse the plans, and, now and then, implement them, though during that time there was no event ever approaching the magnitude of what’s happening in Louisiana right now. But ask me about that exercise we did with Seattle that resulted in 10,000 notional dead and injured, with a concomitant breakdown in social control… my point being - we actually *do* planning (or at least did) for events of this size.

Some of the New Madrid earthquake scenarios, especially the winter ones… were visions of Apocalypse. Imagine flattening good chunks of St. Louis and Memphis - in January. And losing the bridges over the Mississippi (which means you can’t barge people and equipment, either), and we don’t want to even *think* about the economic impact of losing the I-70 and I-40 bridges… much less the rail bridges.

The weather makes your response focus completely different, because the shelter requirements suddenly become astounding and compelling. You’re thinking tent cities in 10 degree weather become nightmares. Clothing, keeping pipes from freezing, sanitation…. I’m thinking 10,000 suddenly homeless people dumped into that weather… in the clothes they had on at the time… There’s no spending the night wandering around in a daze, because you’ll freeze to death before that - the looting starts 5 minutes after the shaking stops. It *has* to - because they aren’t going to live through the night otherwise. But I digress. If you are going to have disasters of this magnitude, the Gulf Coast is a moderately benign place to have them, weather-wise, but I digress again.

Later in the post, John faults both Governor Kathleen Blanco and President George W. Bush for not putting what he terms “the Public Face of the Government” forward to get out the information on the rescue and relief efforts, “Because Controlling The Perception of The Disaster in it’s early stages will help shape the form of the follow-on actions.” I stress that you must read the entire post to get his full meaning. The quotes here are far from adequate to explain his points.

A few days ago at my non-centrist weblog Radio Saigon I posted “Some thoughts… …on leadership“, which was written before the full extent of the disaster in New Orleans became clear. The post was intended to discuss the declining support for the war in Iraq and how that decline could be at least in some measure attributed to a failure of leadership on the part of President George W. Bush. The post starts with a statement of how “leadership” in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, was comparatively easy:

There are many who like to extol the “leadership” shown by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of unprecedented terrorist attacks in 2001.

While not attempting to minimize the effects of the statements and gestures made by President Bush (along with other political leaders, statements and gestures often forgotten in the partisan fray), there is something that must be said:

On September 12, 2001, the task of “leadership” was easy.

When a population is in shock, seeking for reassurance that the world has not ended, that all is not lost, it is easy to be a “leader”, it is easy to ignore personal feelings and say, “Everything will be OK, there is someone in charge who will see things through.”

Ask any parent.

The inability of President Bush to convey complex messages in understandable terms is one of the root causes of the failure of his leadership, both in maintaining public support for the continuing war in Iraq along with the seemingly rudderless response to the aftermath of the New Orleans disaster.

As John pointed out, however, this failure of leadership exists at multiple levels of government. John faults Louisiana Governor Blanco along with President Bush. The problem is more widespread than merely those two levels.

For example, a recent interchange during an interview has gained much attention, as commented upon by Jack Shafer in Slate:

Last night, CNN’s Anderson Cooper abandoned the old persona to throttle Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., in a live interview. (See the video or read the transcript.)

“Does the federal government bear responsibility for what is happening now? Should they apologize for what is happening now?” Cooper opened.

As if campaigning before the local Democratic Ladies’ Club lunch, Landrieu sing-songed back, “Anderson, there will be plenty of time to discuss all of those issues, about why, and how, and what, and if.” She went on to thank President Bush, President Clinton, former President Bush, Senators Frist and Reid, and “all leaders that are coming to Louisiana, and Mississippi, and Alabama, “for their help.

Her condescending filibuster continued: “Anderson, tonight, I don’t know if you’ve heard—maybe you all have announced it—but Congress is going to an unprecedented session to pass a $10 billion supplemental bill tonight to keep FEMA and the Red Cross up and operating.”

Cooper suspended the traditional TV rules of decorum and, approaching tears of fury, said:

Excuse me, Senator, I’m sorry for interrupting. I haven’t heard that, because, for the last four days, I’ve been seeing dead bodies in the streets here in Mississippi. And to listen to politicians thanking each other and complimenting each other, you know, I got to tell you, there are a lot of people here who are very upset, and very angry, and very frustrated.

And when they hear politicians slap—you know, thanking one another, it just, you know, it kind of cuts them the wrong way right now, because literally there was a body on the streets of this town yesterday being eaten by rats because this woman had been laying in the street for 48 hours. And there’s not enough facilities to take her up.

Do you get the anger that is out here? …

I mean, I know you say there’s a time and a place for, kind of, you know, looking back, but this seems to be the time and the place. I mean, there are people who want answers, and there are people who want someone to stand up and say, “You know what? We should have done more. Are all the assets being brought to bear?”

Landrieu kept her cool, probably because she’s in Baton Rouge, while the stink of corpses caused Cooper to tremble in rage all the way to the commercial break.

I saw this interview live; it was painful.

The article continues to describe an aggressive (especially for the source) exchange on NPR between Robert Siegel and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, refusing to allow Secretary Chertoff to dodge questions regarding why the situation in New Orleans was so dire. In this commentary piece, Shafer is discussing the context of reporters finally calling public officials on lies and stonewalling responses to questions.

There is another context here.

How is it that the failure is of such a large scope, involving all levels of government?

How is it that someone Senator Landrieu can spend time congratulating her fellows in Congress in a manner that Cooper almost called “back slapping”?

Who can be held accountable?

That question is the easiest one to answer in this entire tragedy.

To find who the American people should hold accountable, go to the nearest mirror and look into it.

We are proud that the United States is a democracy at all levels of government, city, county or parish, state, federal. All of those tasked with creating disaster plans, with coordinating activities between the different levels of government, with ultimately minimizing as much as reasonably possible the effects of disasters natural or man-made ultimately report to the voters, directly or indirectly.

So, who is accountable?

Those who chose the ones who call themselves our leaders.

Those who voted.

Those who voted for candidates who said what the voters wanted to hear instead of what they needed to hear.

Those who voted for their own regional concerns first and only incidentally thought about the nation as a whole.

Those who voted based on a single issue.

These leaders towards whom I am reading outrage from all sides were elected.

Only the voters can change things.

The objection always arises - one vote makes no difference.

One of the worlds greatest criminals, and ironically enough a man who led his nation into the industrial age, Josef Stalin, once said, “A single death is a tragedy; a million, a statistic.”

I offer this in response to the objection: A single cry for change is a voice in the wilderness; a million, a revolution.

The people of Lebanon and Ukraine peacefully forced change through against all odds. We have a stable system that they did not have, we have advantages they did not have, we can make changes through the ballot box.

Yet we refuse to change.

We can stop listening to the panderers and instead vote for those who do the real work of governing.

We can ignore the grandstanders.

We can change what we say we support when the pollsters call.

We can change our priorities.

We can change what we say when we write our government representatives, at all levels.

We can change things, but it is up to us.

It is past time we did so.

—

Cross-posted to Random Fate.

Technorati Tags: hurricane Katrina, hurricane Katrina news, New Orleans, news, patterns in the white noise, some thoughts

So, the radical left-wing weblogs are the only ones making political hay of the disaster?

Really????

Like everything else, if you cherry-pick, you can make a case for anything, including finding quotes in the Christian Holy Bible to justify “negro slavery”, which was done quite frequently in the years leading up to the American Civil War.

Disgusting…

Judgement is being passed by those who are warm, well-fed, and safe upon those in New Orleans.

There is only one response:

Wait to judge until you walk in their shoes.

I grew up in Mississippi, you know, the state that inhabitants of Arkansas wake up every morning saying, “Praise God we’re not in Mississippi!”

In other words, the poorest state in the Union.

I saw poverty, and the poverty I saw (and thankfully did not have to experience first hand) was not the worst that existed in the state.

It is easy to judge when you are well fed, warm, and do not have to worry about waking up with no food, no clean clothing, and no hope tomorrow.

It is easy to judge when you have no imagination and no empathy, only anger.

It is easy to say many things when you have it easy.

I recall an innocent man who was executed around 2000 years ago saying much the same…

And two millennia later, we still have not learned the lesson.

…of the need that will exist for months or even years afterwards.

When the horrific images are no longer being broadcast and posted…

When the outraged statements are no longer being made…

When the shame of the lack of preparedness has faded into dim memory, a fading accelerated by the ADD nature of the modern world…

When the media attention has moved on…

When most have forgotten those who have lost all…

..there will still be people who need help.

Do not forget them.

All have been released in New Orleans as the far more fragile than recognized order of civilization breaks down.

The four horsemen are on their way, famine, pestilence, and death will precede war, not an external one but instead the most tragic, an internecine conflict of the have-nots against those representing the haves.

The tragedy is only beginning.

David Anderson, at

In Search of Utopia

, has written a post titled “Finaly the American Public starts to wake up…” (sic).

Despite my ultimate disgust at what I see elsewhere in blogworld, and while I respect David Anderson in his desire to have open and reasonable discussion, and in some agreement with the general thrust of his points, I must object to some of the things he has asserted in his post.

Listing his assertions and my responses in order:

* We were attacked and thousands died on 9/11 because this administration failed to pay attention to warning signs.

From what I have observed, both of the evidence available to the Bush administration at the time along with the likely reaction of any reasonably constituted Gore administration, I feel it is safe to say that in neither scenario is it a reasonable expectation that the attacks of 9/11 would have been anticipated, despite the warning signs that indeed even *I* saw before the attacks.

* They failed to capture the man responsible for 9/11 in Afghanistan.

Aside from noting how difficult a task this was, I will indeed agree that the Bush administration “took their eye off the ball” in their apparent eagerness to make sure they had the resources to attack Iraq.

* Our Energy policy has resulted in American’s being gouged at the Gas Pump, while Oil Companies and the Saudis make record profits on oil revenue.

Given that the energy policy did not change substantially until 2005 when Congress finally passed what was termed an “Energy Bill”, it is difficult to lay the inadequacies of the past years at the feet of the Bush administration, although I will freely admit the energy policies that will result from the newly passed law will be far, far worse rather than better than the former policies.

*Cronyism has led to companies like Haliburton war profiteering to obscene new levels.

I cannot speak to Halliburton, but I do believe that the Bush administration has prized loyalty far, far above competence.

*The American public was led into an unnecessary and illegal war in Iraq that has led to tens of thousands of deaths, many more wounded and a country now ravaged by virtual civil war.

“Illegal”? No more “illegal” than the first Gulf War. The fault for this lies with Congress, and no where else.

*The country is more divided than ever, and the President who promised to be a “uniter instead of a divider,” has instead pushed a Right Wing Agenda and Nominees to important post that have led to further division. (Think anti Gay).

Yes, this administration has not only reneged on the promises of being “a uniter, not a divider”, but has actively tried to suppress dissent with the government itself.

*The administration has practiced bully tactics unprecedented since the Nixon Years, with CIA agents being outed and dissenters being smeared on a regular basis.

See the comment above, accompanied with the recess appointment of John Bolton to the position of permanent ambassador to the United Nations.

So…

There are some points in contention, but overall, yes, there is a pattern that is becoming obvious to even the most casual observer.

However, the left-wing should be very wary of hyperbole, because it can cause them to lose any credibility they might gain from the pattern noted above.

Credibility is a fragile thing, to be nurtured, not taken for granted.

Technorati Tags: left wing, left wing weblogs, left-wing, left-wing politics, left-wing weblogs, politics, left wing politics

In order to achieve what I desired for my original weblog at Random Fate to be, I wanted to separate my political views from my other posts, placing only the political into my weblog here at Radio Saigon and my non-political or most balanced analyses into Random Fate.

What I have read in the past few hours goes beyond all comprehension, beyond all belief, beyond all limits, and cannot be restricted to one venue.

I cannot separate the political from the personal.

Some have said that “cultural relativism is evil”. If what they say is true, NO CULTURE DESERVES TO SURVIVE.

I have been reading weblogs on both the left-wing and the right-wing.

What do I encounter in response to the effects of the hurricane Katrina?

Instead of “here is what you can do to help those stricken in New Orleans, Lousiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and other areas” I find “what is (insert enemy point of view here) doing about this?” and “they (the opposition) are wrong because they are not doing (whatever)”.

There it is…

Do your own God-damned math, and tell your fellow travelers to SHUT THE FUCK UP if they can do nothing more than to cry how the “other side” is inadequate in their response to this disaster.

If you cannot do the math, if you cannot see the problem, then let me tell you something:

YOU ARE THE FUCKING PROBLEM.

Then shut the Hell up and let the adults take care of things, you pitiful, pitiful, hopeless children.

There is nothing more to say, and if you do not understand, you are not intelligent enough to be a full member of the human race.

Technorati Tags: left wing weblogs, left-wing weblogs, right wing weblogs, right-wing weblogs, weblogs

There are many who like to extol the “leadership” shown by President George W. Bush in the aftermath of unprecedented terrorist attacks in 2001.

While not attempting to minimize the effects of the statements and gestures made by President Bush (along with other political leaders, statements and gestures often forgotten in the partisan fray), there is something that must be said:

On September 12, 2001, the task of “leadership” was easy.

When a population is in shock, seeking for reassurance that the world has not ended, that all is not lost, it is easy to be a “leader”, it is easy to ignore personal feelings and say, “Everything will be OK, there is someone in charge who will see things through.”

Ask any parent.

History is replete with examples of those who seized the reigns of leadership in situations where society was begging to be led because of the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that caused the entire populace to react as an child would respond, seeking out a single figure, a parent, for reassurance.

It is the choices that those who sought to lead in those circumstances that have created the dichotomy in history that swings between “great men” and “inexorable forces”.

The inexorable forces lead to the circumstances at critical points where the great men can guide the forces at work, not with complete control, but the truly great could foresee the consequences and make allowances for the uncontrollable.

The great men who recognized and grabbed the opportunity but did not have this foresight failed, either in the shorter-term or ultimately a legacy which was one of destruction rather than creation.

Need a list?

Failures:

Hitler

Lenin

Napoleon (with some successes, such as his code of laws that still hold sway in France and other nations in Europe)

Bismark (ultimately, through the Hitleresque culmination of the culture he helped create)

Successes:

Churchill (during World War II, his rejection by the population of Great Britan afterwards was a true recognition of his limitations as a leader)

Truman (who did more than anyone, including Reagan, to both define and to win the Cold War)

Alexander (who despite an early death created a cultural legacy that lasted for thousands of years)

Elizabeth I

If you want a longer list for either category, do your own damn research.

What are we confronted with now?

A President who can perform the easy task of taking leadership when everyone is seeking it, an administration that in the planning for the war in Iraq was apparently (to give them the benefit of the doubt) the victim of a case of “groupthink” that was even bigger than that afflicting the Kennedy administration which resulted in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, a “leader” who cannot admit to mistakes nor fire those who have managed the war in Iraq with a level of incompetence that would be laughable if it had not resulted in hundreds of unnecessary deaths.

I will not debate here the ultimate rationale behind the War in Iraq which was started by choice in 2003, that is a matter for an entirely separate discussion.

In the area of leadership, especially when times get tough, however, it is becoming obvious that the current administration is falling short, even in the eyes of those who cheerlead the war.

It is easy to “stay the course” when the course is obvious, when the mistakes were unavoidable, when the future was completely unknowable.

When the course is uncertain, when the mistakes were warned against, when the future was indeed predicted by those whose temerity in opposing the groupthink was punished, it becomes obvious where the “leadership” ended and the spin began.

It is indeed debatable whether the war in Iraq starting in 2003 was “optional” or not.

Even if the war was NOT optional, however, it has been conducted since the “catastrophic success” in a way that is criminally incompetent.

You plan for the worst and hope for the best.

You do not plan for the best and stop worrying.

Yet, in this administration that follows the paths of the autocrats of history, rewarding loyalty while punishing competence that goes against the thinking and desires of the dear leader, the statements preceding the war in Iraq of 2003 were not even those of planning for the best, but of expecting the best, with no thoughts whatsoever that anything other than the rosy scenario could conceivably be possible.

The cheerleaders for the war see no issue.

The apologists state that the war was necessary, but offer no explanation for the incompetence or lack of accountability for the incompetence displayed, instead trying to divert attention to the need for the war itself and ignoring the the potential negative consequences of the aftermath.

The opponents of the war offer nothing but opposition and calls for complete withdrawal, an action that would leave the situation even worse than it is now.

The administration offers nothing more than continual shifting of both rationales for the war and goalposts for labelling the effort a success, including the latest, despicable reason - “stay the course to honor those who have already sacrificed.”

If their sacrifice was worth it in the first place, then there is no need to call on it to justify more sacrifice.

This is not leadership, it is avoidance of responsibility.

A definition attributed to Einstein reads, “Insanity is repeating the same behavior expecting a different result.”

Endless repetition of the same talking points both insults the American people along with giving an impression that the administration is incapable of reacting to new situations with anything other than the same responses that yield poor results.

For a look at true leadership in the face of adversity, recall President Harry S. Truman, engaged in a war in Korea where the ultimate rationale was called into question because it was far away and had no apparent relation to the freedom of the citizens of America.

Even the most popular general from the Second World War, Douglas MacArthur, set himself up in opposition to President Truman.

Yet, in the end, President Truman, the haberdasher from Missouri, a self-made man, showed himself to be a true leader.

President George W. Bush, the son of a prior President, a man who as far as I have been able to determine has never held a job independent of his connections or his parentage, has yet to show anything approaching that same level of leadership in adversity.

The old saw says only history can truly judge.

Sometimes, however, it is obvious when events are still news and not yet history who the leaders are, and who are the failures.

Technorati Tags: left wing, left wing politics, left-wing, left-wing politics, politics, right wing politics, right wing, right-wing, right-wing politics

The left-wing weblogs are blaming the Bush administration and the refusal to acknowledge global-warming or the Kyoto protocols as one factor in the increasing intensity of hurricanes such as Katrina which are wreaking havoc on the Gulf Coast region of the United States.

The right-wing weblogs are asking the left-wingers where are their fundraisers for relief, and where our our foreign allies and those who suffered from the tsunami at the end of 2004 when we came so readily to their aid in the past.

Is there no limit?

No, there is no limit, and no end.

While the adults work to get the important jobs done, those far less responsible but more vocal snipe and hurt our nation.

There is only one thing that can be said about them.

They are assholes.

Technorati Tags: left-wing weblogs, politics, right-wing weblogs

A short post, given I’m short of time:

Perhaps those on the right-wing, instead of searching for ways to attack the message or the messenger in the story of Cindy Sheehan should instead be trying to discover why her story and message had enough resonance to give it “legs” in the MainStream Media (MSM) coverage.

The mainstream media do not cover stories for more than a day or so if those stories generate little or no response from their readers or viewers.

Is what Ms. Sheehan calling for (another meeting with the President) realistic?

No.

Yet, somehow, her story had resonance with a lot of people.

Why?

That is the question that needs to be addressed, not seeking for ways to destroy the messenger.

If the politics of destruction is all you can practice, then you are nothing more than what Jon Stewart called the folks on Crossfire, people who can do nothing but hurt our nation.

Technorati Tags: Cindy Sheehan, politics, Jon Stewart, right-wing, right-wing politics, right-wing weblogs

Irony of the day:

You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.
   -George W. Bush

This from the man who refuses to accept that things might not be as rosy as his advisors and cheerleaders say, from a man who could not think of any mistakes he had made in 2004?

And he is now advocating so-called intelligent design because “people should be exposed to different ideas”?

It is no wonder the Flying Spaghetti Monster is gaining adherents among those who choose to use their brains to think instead of simply react.

Technorati Tags: parody, politics, right-wing, right-wing politics, science

How does one pull together 20 different threads from 30 different sources in a coherent manner in this age of ADD and multiplying web links that lead down a quasi-random path that resembles Brownian Motion more than any directed pursuit of understanding?

I read on right-wing weblogs how the war in Iraq is one that is vitally important in the “War on Terror”, but I have yet to see any convincing evidence that Iraq or the former regime there had any significant relationship to any terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, those who perpetrated the September 11, 2001 attacks; atrocities that in the hysteria of the aftermath resulted in the Bush administration havin almost a carte blanche to attack anyone who could be even remotely attached to that atrocity regardless of how tenuous the ostensible connection.

No corroboration of any real and substantive connection between the regime of Saddam Hussein and any terrorist groups has been shown, despite the frantic efforts of those warbloggers (distinct from milbloggers, those in the military who understand the nature of war and who did not cheerlead the chants for war in Iraq BEFORE the commencement of the conflict but refuse to “terminate the mission” before a positive outcome is achieved).

Now the party-line is not on WMD (formerly known as “Weapons of Mass Destruction”) but instead on “promoting democracy” in the Middle East (a policy seemingly not important enough to endorse the Clinton efforts towards the same goals in the Balkans…), and even more perniciously, in statements of “we cannot allow the sacrifices we have made so far to be in vain”.

I am repulsed by the “sacrifice” argument, and the cartoon below exhibits exactly why:

The arguments for the war have been changed far more often than we have rotated troops into and out of the theater of conflict.

All this tells us is that the case for war was not made on a reasonable, firm, logical foundation, and the American public is beginning to catch on.

However…

The decrease in numbers of those who support the President should not be regarded as a “victory” by anyone other than the enemies of our nation, for it is a loss to us all.

Following the “a picture is worth a thousand words” dictum, I can come up with no better commentary on the intellectual deficiency of the Democrats than this:

What next, then?

Far too many are taking joy in the recent polls showing a decrease in support for the President with respect to the conduct of the war in Iraq.

This is a case where all partisanship should be set aside.

Regardless of all the homilies, all the calls for accountability, for all the gut-wrenching reactions to the “we were misled” feelings, WE MUST FORGET HISTORY.

I hope this statement, coming from me, is a shock.

I have often written upon how the best way to avoid repeating history is to be aware of it; to understand what has happened before so we can circumvent the mistakes of the past.

Sometimes, however, history is recalled all too well.

If every past offense is recalled, if every former insult requires retribution, then there is no hope to avoid a war without end.

Sometimes, we must forget history in order to find a way to live together.

Recent attempts at analogies relating the history of the foreign interventions of the United States with past wars come to mind, and again, a drawing asks the most relevant question: Which outcome are you hoping for?

This goes beyond partisan politics, just as the Cold War went beyond simple domestic concerns.

Yet, we cannot deny our fundamental principles in defying our enemies.

It is indeed a delicate balance.

If we do not maintain it, however, how do we truly differentiate ourselves from what we claim to be fighting?

If it were easy, would it be worth fighting for?

Technorati Tags: commentary, left-wing politics, right-wing politics