If you need your blood pressure to go up a few points, read Glenn Greenwald.
Make My Day
MoveOn has a new ad:
The Right is working itself into a snit over this one, too. I learned about it from a troll, in fact.
If there are any righties reading this, let me say that I appreciate your outrage, and I hope you bring this ad to public attention so that Americans everywhere will see it and know what MoveOn says about the President.
Really. I mean it. Don’t hold back.
It hasn’t been all that long since some right–wingers were calling Bush a traitor because of his immigration policies, but they seem to have forgotten that. Or else they don’t connect the President Bush pushing “shamnesty” with the President Bush pushing the surge. The rightie brain is a wondrous thing.
Also today the righties are passing around an absolutely nonsensical knockoff of the “betrayus” ad with General Eisenhower photoshopped in. Oliver Willis:
Not getting enough traction for their campaign saying Hillary Clinton should apologize for an ad from MoveOn she had nothing to do with, the mental midgets at Redstate have photoshopped General Eisenhower into a knockoff of the MoveOn ad.
You know, except Gen. Eisenhower won the war in Europe and his commander in chief was a far left Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt. But whatever, let them play.
Other than their both being generals, I see no historical parallels between Ike and Petraeus. I suspect the Ike ad is one of those things only a rightie could appreciate. Or an idiot. But I repeat myself.
Meanwhile, Rudy Giuliani wants you to know he’s a tough guy. How’s he doing this, you ask? Promising to catch Osama bin Laden? Promising (thinking of Ike and Korea) to “go to Iraq”? The Swamp explains:
Try this on for triangulation. The liberal group MoveOn.org runs a controversial full-page New York Times ad critical of Gen. David Petraeus, pretty much saying he’s a traitor.
Rudy Giuliani then takes out his own full-page New York Times ad but instead of attacking MoveOn.org, he pummels Sen. Hillary Clinton for not denouncing the MoveOn.org ad, and for asking tough questions of the general at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing this week.
The Times’s advertising department may be the only winner in any of this.
I, for one, appreciate Rudy’s calling this to our attention. In fact, I hope that whenever a Democrat asks tough questions of generals or White House officials about the war, Rudy will take out more ads calling this to our attention. And I hope he doesn’t stop with the New York Times. This calls for a prime time television ad campaign! Go for it, Rudy!
Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, wants to drive home the point that he’s the Republican who has the best chance to beat Clinton in a general-election message. He wants Republican and independent voters to envision him competing fiercely with her in the general election.
Yeah, that’s just the thing to show the nation how tough he’d be against terrorism! Insult Hillary Clinton!
As I recall, when then First Lady Clinton ran for the New York Senate seat in 2000, she engaged in some television debates with her opponent, Rick Lazio. And in one of those debates, Lazio walked over to Clinton’s podium waving a piece of paper that he said was a pledge not to use unregulated soft money, and he challenged Clinton to sign it. He meant it to be a big dramatic moment, but he came across as a bully trying to intimidate a woman. The gesture backfired on Lazio, big time. I bet the Senator remembers that, too.
Go ahead, righties — make my day.
Follow the (Oil) Money
To understand what’s really happening in Iraq, follow the oil money, which already knows that the surge has failed.
This column has a must-read explanation of what’s going on with oil revenues in Iraq and why it means the Iraqi government ain’t worth a bucket of warm spit. Here’s just a small part:
… Ray L. Hunt, the chief executive and president of Hunt Oil, is a close political ally of Mr. Bush. More than that, Mr. Hunt is a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a key oversight body.
Some commentators have expressed surprise at the fact that a businessman with very close ties to the White House is undermining U.S. policy. But that isn’t all that surprising, given this administration’s history. Remember, Halliburton was still signing business deals with Iran years after Mr. Bush declared Iran a member of the “axis of evil.â€
No, what’s interesting about this deal is the fact that Mr. Hunt, thanks to his policy position, is presumably as well-informed about the actual state of affairs in Iraq as anyone in the business world can be. By putting his money into a deal with the Kurds, despite Baghdad’s disapproval, he’s essentially betting that the Iraqi government — which hasn’t met a single one of the major benchmarks Mr. Bush laid out in January — won’t get its act together. Indeed, he’s effectively betting against the survival of Iraq as a nation in any meaningful sense of the term.
The smart money, then, knows that the surge has failed, that the war is lost, and that Iraq is going the way of Yugoslavia. And I suspect that most people in the Bush administration — maybe even Mr. Bush himself — know this, too.
Conclusion:
All in all, Mr. Bush’s actions have not been those of a leader seriously trying to win a war. They have, however, been what you’d expect from a man whose plan is to keep up appearances for the next 16 months, never mind the cost in lives and money, then shift the blame for failure onto his successor.
Again, you must read the whole column.
Other voices:
President Bush’s TV address tonight was the worst speech he’s ever given on the war in Iraq, and that’s saying a lot. Every premise, every proposal, nearly every substantive point was sheer fiction. The only question is whether he was being deceptive or delusional.
Mr. Bush was clear last night — as he was when he addressed the nation in January, September of last year, the December before that and in April 2004 — that his only real plan is to confuse enough Americans and cow enough members of Congress to let him muddle along and saddle his successor with this war that should never have been started.
For the implacable Bush administration and for the impatient Congress, a single force drives all discussion about Iraq. It has not much to do with Iraqis. Their concerns are the future of the U.S. military, of U.S. prestige, of U.S. access to oil, of broader U.S. strategic interests in the Middle East. Add to the mix the political imperatives that inspire all of them — Bush’s intent to hand over the messy endgame to the next president; lawmakers’ determination to find a path to re-election that guides them safely through this quagmire — and you have a myopia that is bereft of morality.
More and more, the president sounds like he has decided to play out the clock. After American troop levels surged to 160,000 over the past nine months, the number will be reduced to 130,000 by next summer. Petraeus was already committed to bringing several brigades home to meet a promise to limit tours of duty to 15 months.
Weary and wary Americans listening to their president are parsing out the rhetoric and vocabulary of presidential reports. Notice how the word victory is replaced by success, which is not defined.
See also Tim Grieve’s fact check and Naomi Klein on disaster capitalism.
Mind the Gap
Fascinating information from Eesha Pandit at Reproductive Health Reality Check:
The Alabama Department of Public Health released a report that shows a link between birth outcomes and health insurance, as reported by the Decatur Daily. The report, by the department’s Center for Health Statistics, examined birth certificates for 60,262 live births, and among other things:
â–ª Infants born in Alabama in 2005 were more than three times likely to die in the first year if their mothers paid for their deliveries out-of-pocket than those with private health insurance;
â–ª Infants in deliveries covered by Medicaid were 40% more likely to have low birth-weights and 60% more likely to die than infants with private insurance;
â–ª White women were more likely to have private health insurance than minority women;
â–ª Medicaid covered deliveries for nearly four out of every five births among teenage girls and 40% of births involving women ages 20 to 34;
â–ª Private insurance covered nearly 80% of births among women ages 35 and older; and
â–ª Nearly all women with private insurance received prenatal care within the first trimester, compared with 74.7% of women with Medicaid.
Now whether Medicaid has merely become a marker for things like education, age, race and economic status, is up to debate. What is clear, though, is the fact that these factors do indeed affect access to reproductive healthcare, and that Medicaid is not a sufficient solution for social inequities.
The simple-minded might read this as an endorsement of private health insurance over “government” health care. In April, Erik Eckholm wrote in the New York Times about a rise in the deaths of babies born to poor and mostly black mothers in southern states — Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Focusing mostly on Mississippi, Eckholm said Medicaid patients had a difficult time finding and getting to providers.
But social workers say that the motivation of poor women is not so simply described, and it can be affected by cuts in social programs and a dearth of transportation as well as low self esteem.
“If you didn’t have a car and had to go 60 miles to see a doctor, would you go very often?†said Ramona Beardain, director of Delta Health Partners. The group runs a federally financed program, Healthy Start, that sends social workers and nurses to counsel pregnant teenagers and new mothers in seven counties of the Delta. “If they’re in school they miss the day; if they’re working they don’t get paid,†Ms. Beardain said. …
…In 2004, Gov. Haley Barbour came to office promising not to raise taxes and to cut Medicaid. Face-to-face meetings were required for annual re-enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP, the children’s health insurance program; locations and hours for enrollment changed, and documentation requirements became more stringent.
As a result, the number of non-elderly people, mainly children, covered by the Medicaid and CHIP programs declined by 54,000 in the 2005 and 2006 fiscal years. According to the Mississippi Health Advocacy Program in Jackson, some eligible pregnant women were deterred by the new procedures from enrolling.
One former Medicaid official, Maria Morris, who resigned last year as head of an office that informed the public about eligibility, said that under the Barbour administration, her program was severely curtailed.
“The philosophy was to reduce the rolls and our activities were contrary to that policy,†she said.
The outcomes described by Eesha Pandit at Reproductive Health Reality Check speak loudly and clearly — babies born to women who are cut off from decent health care are at greater risk. Eckhold continues,
Whether the rises continue or not, federal officials say, rates have stagnated in the Deep South at levels well above the national average.
Most striking, here and throughout the country, is the large racial disparity. In Mississippi, infant deaths among blacks rose to 17 per thousand births in 2005 from 14.2 per thousand in 2004, while those among whites rose to 6.6 per thousand from 6.1. (The national average in 2003 was 5.7 for whites and 14.0 for blacks.)
That racial discrepancy has a lot to do with why the overall infant mortality rate in the United States is high compared to other industrial first-world nations. Eesha Pandit writes,
In a report from Save the Children released this May, entitled State of the World’s Children, 125 nations were ranked according to 10 gauges of well-being — six for mothers and four for children — including objective measures such as lifetime mortality risk for mothers and infant mortality rate and subjective measures such as the political status of women. Among industrialized nations, the US was second to last (ranked only above Latvia).
See also: “Haley Barbour, Baby Killer,” “At Least We Beat Latvia.”
Infant mortality in the U.S. has been relatively high for many years. Yet most Americans either don’t know this or dismiss the statistics as fake. We do have The Best Health Care System in the Worldâ„¢, after all.
It’s true that some of the problem with our infant mortality rates can be attributed to different standards in what’s considered a live birth. In a small percentage of births, a birth that would count as a live birth by U.S. medical standards would be considered a stillbirth in other countries, and thus would not count as an infant mortality. But my understanding is that when these births are taken into account, the U.S. doesn’t move up much. What’s really cranking up the death rates of U.S. babies is the high infant mortality rate among the poor, especially the poor and black, in the United States.
There are also significant differences in infant mortality rates among the states. According to a recent release from the Center for Disease Control:
Three years of data (2002-2004) were combined to get specific estimates of infant mortality rates by state, race and Hispanic origin. For the three-year period there were significant differences in infant mortality rates by state, ranging from a rate of 10.32 [per 1,000 births] in Mississippi to 4.68 in Vermont. For infants of non-Hispanic black mothers, rates ranged from 17.57 in Wisconsin to 8.75 in Minnesota. For infants of non-Hispanic white mothers, the infant mortality rate ranged from 7.67 in West Virginia to 3.80 in New Jersey.
As I wrote here, American hospitals generally provide excellent care for newborns. But too many American babies are born prematurely, or with low birth weight or other preventable problems. And many of these problems can be traced to a lack of basic prenatal care.
Today UNICEF declared that the rate of child mortality worldwide has dropped considerably. Happy news. A table showing rates by country 1960-2005 shows a slight drop in deaths of children under 5 in the U.S. also. But all of the western European nations on the list have lower rates, as do Australia, Canada, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, and Slovenia. Shit, people, we don’t even beat Slovenia.
I Don’t Want to Do This
I’m liveblogging this turkey. I haven’t read the advance speech release. I want to be surprised.
Iraq is surviving for its survival, he says. Well, who the hell’s fault is that? Petraeus and Crocker say the surge is working. The goal of the surge is to provide security. Our success in meeting these objectives allows us to bring some troops home, he says. That and the fact that we’re running out of troops.
He’s bragging about Anbar province again. He’s not mentioning the death of Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha.
Oh, sorry, he’s mentioning Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha now, although not by name.
Anbar Anbar Anbar Anbar.
He’s trying ver hard to look sincere. So far I haven’t seen him smile at inappropriate times.
Got this in email:
* This year is worse than last year for U.S. troops – more were killed every month this year compared to the same month last year. See Icasualties.org/
* Independent investigations by the Associated Press and Los Angeles Times showed sectarian violence is up–not down as Petraeus and Bush have claimed. Bush and Petraeus claim violence in Iraq is down, with 960 civilians dead in August. But AP found 1,809 killed in August, up from 1,760 in July. LA Times found similar numbers, with August worse than July and June.
* As the Washington Post reports, experts “accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators” — such as only counting the deaths of people shot in the back, not in the front.
* A USA Today-Gallup poll shows 53% of Americans don’t trust Petraeus to deliver an independent and objective report.
He’s not saying shit we didn’t already know.
He said that people who saw Iraq as central to American security and those who want the troops home have been at odds. Not to He didn’t mention those who realize Iraq is not central to American security.
He still wants a free Iraq. I want a free America.
Now he’s speaking to Congress and asking for their support for Petraeus’s recommendations.
He said freedom is not free. Now I know I have to take a drink.
There’s a dog show on Animal Planet.
Oh good, it’s over.
Jack Reed is giving the Dem response. I don’t think Reed was the best choice. I would have liked to see Jim Webb again.
Reed is making good points, though.
I’m watching on MSNBC, so Olbermann and Matthews are doing post-game. Matthews says Bush said there are 36 other countries fighting in Iraq. I missed that. That’s hallucinatory.
Matthews: Bush said we are kicking ass. If we’re kicking ass, how come there’s no government coming together. No mention of why we should be fighting; just the dangers of leaving.
Olbermann: Nothing like making a bad self-fulfilling prophecy work for you.
Howard Fineman: The president talked about a permanent presence in Iraq.
Pat Buchanan is on saying that the President did what he needed to do, which is what he is paid to say.
Olbermann: The changes in Anbar didn’t have anything to do with the surge.
Rachel Maddow: People in Anbar no longer fear being beheaded. Instead, they fear being blown up.
Olbermann said Bush was supposed to be restrained in his certitude. Was he?
Joe Biden: Both Petraeus and Crocker acknowledged there was no political movement. By the President’s own standards this whole thing has been a failure. He’s just trying to keep the soldiers there for the next administration. Bizarre.
Biden says the speech was an insult the American people.
Matthews: We’re given a picture of a nation that is an ally fighting for its life against al Qaeda. No mention of the insurgence. When you meet with the President, does he live in this world?
Biden, short version: No.
Mike Huckabee is on speaking the GOP party line. And I’m missing a good CSI rerun on ABC for this. Appreciate it.
Here’s John Edwards’s response:
Here’s the rebuttal from the Center from American Progress:
Discuss, if you feel up to it.
Edwards Buys Ad to Rebut Bush
John Edwards has bought two minutes of air time on MSNBC, scheduled to air after Bush’s 15-minute televised speech from the White House at 9 p.m. EDT. Full story here.
I’d like to see a lot more of this, a la Ross Perot’s thirty minute spots he did in 1992, but of course this takes buckets of money. If you would like to help Edwards pay for this, he would like to hear from you. I wish I had TIVO – it’ll be interesting to see if Edwards’ vaunted rhetorical skills on a two minute national platform can shift the debate.
The Dying Horse
Ryan Grim writes a post for The Politico titled “‘Betray Us’ ad unites GOP, distracts Dems“:
To judge from the wall-to-wall coverage of MoveOn.org’s full-page ad in the New York Times Monday, the liberal group strolled to the 18th hole up by two strokes, pulled out its driver and shanked one deep into the woods.
Wow, that sounds like a disaster for the Dems. But wait …
The solidifying beltway consensus is that the ad, which refers to General David Petraeus as “General Betray Us,†was a blunder of the highest order, uniting Republicans and distracting Democrats at a time the party could instead be pressing for an end to the war.
Yes, Virginia, there are two Americas — inside the Beltway, and everywhere else. Outside of blog aficionados, Rush’s dittoheads and the zombies who watch Faux News, did “everywhere else” even notice?
Still, the Right is flogging the dying horse as hard as it can, because at the moment it’s all they’ve got. They can’t attack the Dems for wanting a quicker withdrawal from Iraq, or for being opposed to President Bush’s Iraq policies, because the public is overwhelmingly on the Dems’ side. So they are working as hard as they can to whip up public outrage over the “betray us” ad, attempting to turn it into a weapon of mass destraction.
Right before the midterm elections last year righties tried to turn a badly phrased joke by John Kerry into a national scandal that would tilt the elections in their favor. As former Republican congressman Dick Armey explained on MSNBC’s Hardball (October 31, 2006), “You misconstrue what somebody said. You isolate a statement, you lend your interpretation to it and then feign moral outrage.”
In that case, the feigned moral outrage seems to have persuaded John Kerry not to attempt another presidential run. But Dems won the midterms, anyway.
Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post — which, during Giuliani’s mayoralty, served as City Hall’s second press office — is parroting remarks Rudy is making about Hillary Clinton’s response to the Petraeus dog-and-pony show. Giuliani and the Post are working in tandem to sustain the dissipating outrage about the MoveOn ad, and are desperately trying to tie it to Hillary.
A bit of the Post editorial that Steve quotes —
Clinton not only couldn’t bring herself to criticize it [the Moveon ad], she also attacked Petraeus’ honesty: “The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief,” she huffed to the general Tuesday
Giuliani, by contrast, had it exactly right.
He called the MoveOn ad “one of the more disgusting things that has happened in American politics.”
Added America’s Mayor: “The failure of the Democratic candidates to really condemn that, given how much money MoveOn.org spends on behalf of Democratic candidates, is unfortunate.”
See how it works — so much as criticizing General Petraeus is an outrage. It wouldn’t surprise me of Bush’s speechwriters work an oblique reference to the Moveon ad into tonight’s speech.
Perhaps no one should tell Rudy what other people have said …
In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus’s superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.
Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be “an ass-kissing little chickenshit” and added, “I hate people like that”, the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.
I predict the Right will continue to feign outrage over the Moveon ad for another week or so, which is about the time it will take for them to realize the horse is dead and nobody cares.
Blocking the Exits
Warren P. Strobel writes for McClatchy Newspapers about yesterday’s Senate hearings:
Much to the frustration of the senators — mostly Democrats, but including a few Republicans — who grilled them Tuesday, neither the general nor the diplomat outlined a strategy for putting Iraq back together or a timetable for bringing U.S. troops home. …
… lawmakers complained that neither Petraeus nor Crocker could explain how the Iraq war fits into Bush’s war on terror or how it’s protecting Americans.
One of the most jaw-dropping moments in the hours of back-and-forth came when retiring Sen. John Warner, R-Va., asked Petraeus whether his proposal for Iraq — including a reduction of U.S. troops to pre-surge levels of 130,000 — would make the United States safer.
“Sir, I don’t know, actually,” Petraeus replied.
Two things stand out in Petraeus’ response. First, he refused to indulge in President Bush’s spurious rhetoric about how we’re fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here. Second, he was, in effect, telling the senators: I am doing what soldiers do; I am trying my best to accomplish the mission; the mission is related to the policy, and the policy isn’t mine.
This is what President Bush is hoping no one notices. He speaks of the “commanders on the ground” as if they were the ones setting policy. For example, he said in August 2006:
If we leave before the job will be done, those who sacrificed, those brave volunteers who sacrifice in our United States military will have died in vain. And as General Abizaid has said, if we leave before the job is done — if we leave the streets of Baghdad, the enemy will follow us to our own streets in America. (Applause.)
The stakes are high. I believe the only way we can lose is if we leave before the job is done. That’s what I believe. I’m making decisions based upon the recommendations of commanders on the ground. I want to assure you, polls and focus groups will not decide the Iraq policy in the global war on terror. (Applause.)
He’s saying he is setting policy based on what the commanders tell him. But Petraeus clearly said it’s not up to the military to set policy. His testimony was not about the worthiness of the mission, but about how the mission given him might be achieved (short answer: he’s not sure, but he’ll get back to us in March).
Back to Kaplan:
In one sense, today’s hearings dealt President George W. Bush a harsh blow. Many of the senators’ questions dealt with strategic issues, which Petraeus and Crocker—through no fault of their own—could not really answer to anyone’s full satisfaction. Even the vast majority of Republican senators at least cocked their eyebrows.
Nearly all the senators seemed to recognize that the few, much-vaunted successes—especially in Anbar province, where Sunni tribes have joined with U.S. forces to defeat al-Qaida terrorists—have little to do with the main issues of this war: sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites and the failure of the central government to mediate, much less settle, those conflicts. As Richard Lugar, the foreign relations committee’s ranking Republican put it, “The progress may be beside the point.” The U.S. troops may be “like a farmer planting crops on flood plains.”
Yet in another sense, Bush will probably recover from the blow without much damage. As counterinsurgency theorists understand, a combatant can win every battle and still lose the war. Similarly, the Senate Democrats won on points in today’s clashes on the issues, yet Bush will probably win the ultimate contest: the vote, in the coming weeks, on whether to continue with his plan.
In recent weeks, Bush has put all his chips on Petraeus’ testimony. He will no doubt now endorse the commander’s “proposal” for a modest troop reduction and pretend that it constitutes a compromise (even though it was physically inevitable). And he will repeatedly cite the testimony from Petraeus and Crocker that “some progress” is being made and that further withdrawals might be disastrous.
Headlines today say that Bush will announce a troop withdrawal in an address to the nation Thursday night. What this means is that sometime, probably July 2008, the troop levels in Iraq will go back to what they were a year ago, before the “surge.” Some progress. And it’s my understanding that the numbers are being determined by the fact that we’re running out of troops who haven’t been “rotated” past exhaustion, not by any real change in policy.
You realize, of course, that President Bush’s planned withdrawal of some troops next summer is going to be all over your TV screen, in an attempt to influence the ’08 election.
Troops rotate into and out of Iraq all the time, but I’m guessing that the Bushies are going to try to make these trips home into big, visually exciting spectacles, preferably featuring him and/or Laura and/or various GOP luminaries, that will be carried live and then rerun endlessly. The White House is going to try to create images that will have the same impact as the pictures of returning Vietnam POWs and the “split-screen” release of the Iranian hostages just as Ronald Reagan was being sworn in as president.
I remember during the Vietnam War, from time to time President Nixon would announce that X number of troops were coming home from Vietnam that month, as if this were an extraordinary thing. This announcement would be followed up by journalists (we still had a few back then) explaining that the number X represented the normal troop rotation. I don’t think Nixon fooled anybody, except those who were predisposed to being fooled. But, like I said, we still had real journalists in those days.
The simple fact is that Petraeus couldn’t say when all troops could be withdrawn, because that’s not a military consideration. It’s a policy consideration. And he doesn’t set the policy.
Back to Warren Strobel of McClatchy:
“Are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate we are doing now, for what? The president said let’s buy time. Buy time? For what?” said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a Vietnam veteran who also will retire next year.
Most experts argue that stabilizing Iraq requires two things above all: political reconciliation among Shiite Muslims, Sunnis and Kurds, and Iraqi security forces that can stand on their own.
Petraeus and Crocker could promise neither.
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., asked Crocker whether ethnic reconciliation is likely in the 16 months that Bush has left in office.
“Senator, I could not put a timeline on it or a target date,” Crocker replied. There are “hopeful signs,” he said, but “how long that is going to take and, frankly, even ultimately whether it will succeed, I can’t predict.”
Cost-benefit analysis, anyone?
He Doesn’t Know
“Petraeus Doesn’t Know if His Strategy Makes America Safer”
Update: Watch for yourself.
As I’ve said elsewhere, it’s not up to the generals — even the ones on the ground — to decide why we’re in Iraq or whether we should be in Iraq. That’s the job of civilian political leadership. It’s the job of generals to take the mission they are given and try to accomplish it. Bush has been hiding behind Petraeus and other generals. Somebody ought to take Senator Warner’s question and beat Bush over the head with it.
Update 2: See also “Anti-War Minister Is Attacked, Gets Leg Broken for Trying to Enter Petraeus Hearing.”
Ground Zero of Dreams
“A people unaware of its myths is likely to continue living by them, though the world around that people may change and demand changes in their psychology, their world view, their ethics, and their institutions.” — Richard Slotkin, Regeneration Through Violence
* * *
A couple of days ago I got an advance copy of a book by Susan Faludi titled The Terror Dream, due to be released in October. I’ve gotten only a few pages into it so I cannot say if the book as a whole is good or not. But the premise is spot on.
Faludi explores what September 11 did to our national psyche. In short, Americans as a whole did not respond to September 11 clearly and honestly. Instead, we retreated into a dreamworld of John Wayne cinematic epics and frontier melodrama. In this spectacular we cast ourselves as both the hero and the damsel in distress. The villain role has been filled by a rotating cast — Osama bin Laden, of course, but also Saddam Hussein, France, the United Nations, liberals, various straw man characters allegedly representing liberalism (Ward Churchill, whoever the hell he is, comes to mind), Democrats, the entire Middle East (excluding Israel, of course) and the entire religion of Islam.
As they said in the Wild West — shoot ’em all, and let God sort ’em out.
I don’t blame the American people. We needed responsible leaders to explain to us clearly what had happened and help us rise above fear and a mob’s desire for vengeance to a rational response. Instead, we had the Bush Administration. As Faludi writes on page 3 —
Throughout the fall of 2001, the media attempted to position the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as a reprise of Pearl Harbor, a new “day of infamy” that would reinvigorate our World War II ethic of national unity and sacrifice, a long-awaited crucible in which self-absorbed Americans would, at long last, be forged into the twenty-first century’s stoic army of the latest Greatest Generation. But the summons to actual sacrifice never came. No draft ensued, no Rosie the Riveters were called to duty, no ration cards issued, no victory gardens planted. Most of all, no official moral leadership emerged to challenge Americans to think constructively about our place in the world, to redefine civic commitment and public responsibility. There was no man in a wheelchair in the White House urging on us a reassessment of American strengths and weakness. What we had was a chest beater in a borrowed flight suit, instructing us to max our our credit cards for the cause.
In case any righties drop by here — they do tend to be rigidly literal — Faludi isn’t saying that President Bush should have reinstated the draft, issued ration cards, and called the nation’s womenfolk to work in factories. She’s saying that Americans needed to do something extraordinary to channel our grief and anger. We looked to our President for instruction. We never got that instruction, beyond “trust me.”
Consider this nationally televised speech that the President gave on November 8, 2001.
I said in my speech to a Joint Session of Congress that we are a nation awakened to danger. We’re also a nation awakened to service, and citizenship, and compassion. None of us would ever wish the evil that has been done to our country, yet we have learned that out of evil can come great good.
During the last two months, we have shown the world America is a great nation. (Applause.) Americans have responded magnificently, with courage and caring. We’ve seen it in our children, who have sent in more than $1 million for the children of Afghanistan. We have seen it in the compassion of Jewish and Christian Americans who have reached out to their Muslim neighbors. We have seen it as Americans have reassessed priorities — parents spending more time with their children, and many people spending more time in prayer and in houses of worship.
Yes, huge amounts of money were donated, because Americans didn’t know what else they could do. It’s like the hundreds, probably thousands, of New Yorkers who stood on line outside hospitals that day to give blood, because they wanted to do something.
We have gained new heroes: Those who ran into burning buildings to save others, our police and our firefighters. (Applause.) Those who battled their own fears to keep children calm and safe — America’s teachers. (Applause.) Those who voluntarily placed themselves in harm’s way to defend our freedom — the men and women of the Armed Forces. (Applause.)
And tonight, we join in thanking a whole new group of public servants who never enlisted to fight a war, but find themselves on the front lines of a battle nonetheless: Those who deliver the mail — America’s postal workers. (Applause.) We also thank those whose quick response provided preventive treatment that has no doubt saved thousands of lives — our health care workers. (Applause.)
We spend time with our children. We go to church. We do our jobs. We did these things before September 11. What more can we do? What extraordinary effort can we make?
We are a different country than we were on September the 10th — sadder and less innocent; stronger and more united; and in the face of ongoing threats, determined and courageous. (Applause.)
Our nation faces a threat to our freedoms, and the stakes could not be higher. We are the target of enemies who boast they want to kill — kill all Americans, kill all Jews, and kill all Christians. We’ve seen that type of hate before — and the only possible response is to confront it, and to defeat it. (Applause.)
This new enemy seeks to destroy our freedom and impose its views. We value life; the terrorists ruthlessly destroy it. We value education; the terrorists do not believe women should be educated or should have health care, or should leave their homes. We value the right to speak our minds; for the terrorists, free expression can be grounds for execution. We respect people of all faiths and welcome the free practice of religion; our enemy wants to dictate how to think and how to worship even to their fellow Muslims.
This enemy tries to hide behind a peaceful faith. But those who celebrate the murder of innocent men, women, and children have no religion, have no conscience, and have no mercy. (Applause.)
We wage a war to save civilization, itself. We did not seek it, but we must fight it — and we will prevail. (Applause.)
Yes, yes. We’re ready. We will give what we can. We will do what we must. Just tell us what is required of us.
I’m proud of the way our health care and postal workers — and the American people — are responding with calm in the face of this deadly new threat. (Applause.) Public health officials have acted quickly to distribute preventive antibiotics to thousands of people who may have been exposed. The government is purchasing and storing medicines and vaccines as a precaution against future attacks. We are cleaning facilities where anthrax has been detected, and purchasing equipment to sanitize the mail. Thousands of law enforcement officials are aggressively investigating this bioterrorism attack — and public health officials are distributing the most accurate, up-to-date information we have to medical professionals and to the public.
To coordinate our efforts we’ve created the new Office of Homeland Security. Its director, my good friend and former Governor, Tom Ridge, reports directly to me — and works with all our federal agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector on a national strategy to strengthen our homeland protections. For example, the Coast Guard has taken on expanded duties to protect our shores and our ports. The National Guard has increased — an increased role in surveillance at our border. We’re imposing new licensing requirements for safer transportation of hazardous material.
We’ve passed a new antiterrorism law which gives our law enforcement officers the necessary tools to track terrorists before they harm Americans. A new terrorism task force is tightening immigration controls to make sure no one enters or stays in our country who would harm us. (Applause.) We are a welcoming country, we will always value freedom — yet we will not allow those who plot against our country to abuse our freedoms and our protections. (Applause.)
That’s fine, Mr. President, but what can we do?
I recently received a letter from a 4th-grade girl that seemed to say it all: “I don’t know how to feel,” she said, “sad, mad, angry. It has been different lately. I know the people in New York are scared because of the World Trade Center and all, but if we’re scared, we are giving the terrorists all the power.” In the face of this great tragedy, Americans are refusing to give terrorists the power. (Applause.) Our people have responded with courage and compassion, calm and reason, resolve and fierce determination. We have refused to live in a state of panic — or a state of denial. There is a difference between being alert and being intimidated — and this great nation will never be intimidated. (Applause.)
People are going about their daily lives, working and shopping and playing, worshiping at churches and synagogues and mosques, going to movies and to baseball games. (Laughter and applause.) Life in America is going forward — and as the 4th-grader who wrote me knew, that is the ultimate repudiation of terrorism. (Applause.)
Whereupon the Bush Administration spent the next six years reminding us to be afraid and stripping away civil liberties in the name of “security.”
We cannot know every turn this battle will take. Yet we know our cause is just and our ultimate victory is assured. We will, no doubt, face new challenges. But we have our marching orders: My fellow Americans, let’s roll.
End of speech. Let’s roll. Sounds grand. Where? How? With what? Bush didn’t say.
The military action against the Taliban and the liberation of Afghani women from their burquas was fine, but we didn’t realize at the time how half-assed the effort was. Osama bin Laden and most of al Qaeda was allowed to slip away, and the Kabul Spring of freedom and democracy withered through lack of follow-up. The Bushies had already turned their attention to Iraq.
In the year after the attacks, many Americans were left in a state of emotional suspension. Their anger and sense of victimization roiled about, unresolved and directionless. The Afghan campaign had faded from the news, Osama bin Laden was still at large, and the challenge of September 11 still seemed unanswered. We were still waiting to be told where to roll. Thus the Bushies easily pulled off the Mother of All Bait and Switch Scams and whipped up a public frenzy against Saddam Hussein. With Darryl Worley’s “Have You Forgotten?” ringing in our ears, Americans were convinced that a war with Iraq was just the thing to get justice for the dead of September 11. Those of us who realized there was no connection — and no threat to the United States from Saddam Hussein — were shoved aside. Anyone who didn’t support the invasion of Iraq, no matter what our reasons, were dismissed as “Saddam lovers.”
And here we are. Stuck in Iraq, lives and resources drained by a war we shouldn’t have fought. Osama bin Laden is still sending us “nyah nyah nyah” videos. There’s still a hole in the ground in Manhattan. The real challenge of September 11 was never met. It was never even made clear to us what that challenge was.
I flipped on the television this morning and saw a bit of live broadcast of today’s September 11 memorial service. The cameras zoomed in on a weeping woman. I flipped the television off. I respect the grief of those who lost loved ones that day, but as a nation we have forfeited the right to grieve. A moment of great opportunity has passed, and it was utterly squandered.
After more than four years bogged down in Iraq, we seem to spend more time arguing about what narrative we’re playing out than what strategy we should be following. Is this World War II? Is it Vietnam? Are we John Wayne on the beaches of Normandy or General Custer at the Little Big Horn? And what about the ending? My dears, we must have victory. We must not leave Iraq without a satisfying climax to the drama, with parades and speeches and a general wallowing in our national glory, never mind the cost. Or the purpose.
At this point it does no good to argue with the war’s bitter-end supporters that Iraq is not, in fact, World War II and that George W. Bush is neither Winston Churchill nor Abraham Lincoln. Anyone who still supports the war is utterly lost in whatever heroic storyline is playing in his head. George Bush can continue to evoke all manner of irrelevant historical references — including September 11 — and it still reverberates in the psyches of many Americans. They are stuck in their dream world and will not wake up.
Update: Little Lulu is still rolling:
But remembrance without resistance to jihad and its enablers is a recipe for another 9/11. This is what fueled my first two books, on immigration enforcement and profiling. This is what fuels much of the work on this blog and at Hot Air. Not every American wears a military uniform. But every American has a role to play in protecting our homeland–not just from Muslim terrorists, but from their financiers, their public relations machine, their sharia-pimping activists, the anti-war goons, the civil liberties absolutists, and the academic apologists for our enemies.
So what movie is Lulu playing in her head? And was it directed by Leni Riefenstahl?
Update 2: Comments on Lulu at Balloon Juice.
Update 3: See also No More Mr. Nice Blog.