[Religion professor Ira Chernus has done the first follow-up I’ve seen to the paragraph I quoted from Ha’aretz the other day in which our President reputedly claimed the voice of God had offered him foreign policy advice. (“God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did“). Chernus writes in part (Did Bush Say God Told Him to Go to War?):
“Once Bush is called to account [for the remark], his problems will really begin. If he confirms the Ha’aretz report, those of us who say God has no place in the Oval Office had better ring the alarm, as loud and long as we can. If he truly believes that he hears the voice of God, there is no telling what God might say tomorrow. This is a man who can launch the world’s biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction-biological, chemical, and nuclear-at any moment.
“Suppose he denies that the quote is accurate, or admits he said it but claims it was a mistake? Can he apologize for letting God’s will determine his most important decisions? How will that go down with his political base, the Christian right? They want him to proudly confirm the controversial remark. Of course he should consult God, they will say, before he decides to go to war. Of course he should be guided by the will of the Lord. Can Bush afford, politically, to distance himself from God? Even his political genius, Karl Rove, might lose sleep figuring out that one.”]
Quotes of the day:
On whether the President lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — from Josh Marshall, weblogger for talkingpointsmemo.com, in The Hill, a newspaper for and about Congress. It appeared under the title, A rose is a rose is a rose:
“But a lie is, well that’s really more an exaggeration. Unless, of course, it’s a misstatement. Except in cases involving weapons of mass destruction, when often it’s simply a matter of ‘over-hype.’ Actually, it’s all fairly hard for me to keep up with. All I know is that under George W. Bush the pundits who had no trouble calling Bill Clinton a liar have suddenly decided lying is a very subtle, hard-to-define, complex matter.”
On whether American troops should be in Iraq — from Staff Sgt. Charles Pollard (quoted in a Washington Post piece by Anthony Shadid included at the end of this dispatch):
“Suppose he denies that the quote is accurate, or admits he said it but claims it was a mistake? Can he apologize for letting God’s will determine his most important decisions? How will that go down with his political base, the Christian right? They want him to proudly confirm the controversial remark. Of course he should consult God, they will say, before he decides to go to war. Of course he should be guided by the will of the Lord. Can Bush afford, politically, to distance himself from God? Even his political genius, Karl Rove, might lose sleep figuring out that one.”]
Quotes of the day:
On whether the President lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — from Josh Marshall, weblogger for talkingpointsmemo.com, in The Hill, a newspaper for and about Congress. It appeared under the title, A rose is a rose is a rose:
“But a lie is, well that’s really more an exaggeration. Unless, of course, it’s a misstatement. Except in cases involving weapons of mass destruction, when often it’s simply a matter of ‘over-hype.’ Actually, it’s all fairly hard for me to keep up with. All I know is that under George W. Bush the pundits who had no trouble calling Bill Clinton a liar have suddenly decided lying is a very subtle, hard-to-define, complex matter.”
On whether American troops should be in Iraq — from Staff Sgt. Charles Pollard (quoted in a Washington Post piece by Anthony Shadid included at the end of this dispatch):
“‘U.S. officials need to get our [expletive] out of here,’ said the 43-year-old reservist from Pittsburgh, who arrived in Iraq with the 307th Military Police Company on May 24.’I say that seriously. We have no business being here. We will not change the culture they have in Iraq, in Baghdad. Baghdad is so corrupted. All we are here is potential people to be killed and sitting ducks. The president needs to know it’s in his hands, and we all need to recognize this isn’t our home, America is, and we just pray that he does something about it.‘”
From L. Paul Bremer, our Man in Baghdad (from a Guardian piece included at the end of this dispatch): “We are going to fight them and impose our will on them and we will capture or… kill them until we have imposed law and order on this country. We dominate the scene and we will continue to impose our will on this country.”
On polls and elections, 2003:
We’ve long had what Jonathan Schell once called “serial elections” — as pollsters dip incessantly into some pool or other of possible voters to ask, how’s it comin’? Whatcha thinkin’? Who’s the man? Ostensibly, the polls simply sample changing opinion in order to offer us little snapshots of where we are at any moment. But, of course, each of them is a little election of sorts, affecting the elections to follow, all of which lead to the last election, the one where you actually go into the polling booth, which becomes, in essence, the final opinion poll to be followed by the postmortem question, how accurate were the pollsters? — and then by the first polls testing the candidate-waters for the next election, and then
Now, however, it turns out there’s a new “poll” for testing electability (kind of like “sociability” or “congeniality” but for candidates) and it’s perfectly calibrated to our dismal moment. But let me turn the explanation over to the Washington Post whose report on the matter was almost indistinguishable from those in the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times (Online Fundraising Boosts Dean Effort):
“After a final day of online fundraising that netted more than $700,000, former Vermont governor Howard Dean closed the second quarter of the presidential fundraising year atop the Democratic field. Meanwhile the early money leaders — Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.) — battled to keep up, the campaigns said yesterday.
“Kerry, considered a strong contender from the outset, and Edwards, the first-quarter money leader, expect to post second-quarter totals of about $5 million each, their campaigns said. That would be enough to keep both of them ahead of Dean in the year-to-date totals.”
Now, for reasons I’ll go into another time, I’m happy to see Dean take in some dough, but it is appalling to discover that the latest “poll” for sorting out front-runners in a presidential race is a quarterly fundraising statement. It gives the phrase “money speaks” new meaning just when we thought that wasn’t possible. Soon to come undoubtedly — the Zogby and Gallup Fundraising Polls, where instead of querying voters about presidential preferences, they simply cut to the chase and queries potential funders. On the Republican side of things, of course, where money truly speaks, there’s is no race at all. (If you want a quick roundup of how the press is already handicapping the Democratic presidential- money “horse race,” check out Howard Kurtz of the Post today, A Money Primary).
By the way, speaking of polls and if you happen to be handicapping the Republican side of the 2004 election, the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows support for the war in Iraq sinking relatively rapidly. To the question, “How are things going in Iraq?” the “wells” have dropped in two months from 86% to 56% and the “badly”s have risen from 13% to 42%. Far more interesting, even surprising, to the question “Would it matter to you if Bush did mislead public on Iraqi weapons,” 53% responded “a great deal” and 22% “a moderate amount.” Only 11% responded “not at all.” (See Poll: Americans less positive on Iraq) Many of the polling figures remain startlingly, inexplicably high, including support for Bush, but even those figures are slowly falling.
If I were this administration, I would be fretting up a storm since the occupation of Iraq is slated to last a trillion years and, as the Anthony Shadid piece from the Washington Post shows, things are unlikely to improve there fast, if at all. (Already, another six Americans were wounded in Baghdad in two attacks today.)
In a “p.s.” to his latest letter to the President (I Never Promised You a Ruse Garden), Michael Moore, in his own irreverent way, sums matters up rather succinctly:
“PS. Sorry, I still can’t get that padded flyboy suit out of my head. I know, I need help. But when you landed on that carrier, and that banner read, ‘MISSION ACCOMPLISHED,’ just what mission was that that was accomplished? ‘Cause by my count, more than 50 of our young soldiers have died since you said the mission was accomplished. Anarchy still reigns, the Brits are losing kids, too, and wacko fundamentalists now seem to ready to rule the land. Women are already being told to cover their face and shut their mouths, store owners who sell liquor have been executed, and movie theaters showing ‘immoral’ Hollywood movies have been forced to shut down. And hey, this isn’t even west Texas! Maybe you could get back into that jumpsuit, fly over to Baghdad and land at the former Saddam International Airport, jump out and give one of those big happy waves — under a sign that reads, ‘MISSION IMPOSSIBLE.'” (Note the subtitle of Anthony Shadid’s Washington Post piece below.)
I include below as well a strong piece in the Guardian by Andrew Murray, a British antiwar activist. It reminds us that this administration doesn’t actually have all those dreamed of years between the Tigris and Euphrates before an antiwar movement again starts up, calling for the occupation to end and our troops to come home. It’s beginning in England first because our “junior partner” in Iraq is really just providing the Bush administration with so many “sepoys” for the policing of that land and has no real role in policy-making any more than will countries like Poland or India, should they send troops.
As we head into a July 4th distinctly lacking in glory, I leave with the latest column from the Boston Globe‘s James Carroll. Let his eloquent optimism about our country rather than my pessimism carry you into the summer. Tom
Why you love America
By James Carroll
The Boston Globe
July 1, 2003It was the point of fireworks when you were young. In those days, each backyard had its own celebration of the Fourth of July, and your dad, like all the others, presided over the lighting of the Roman candles, the volcano cones, and firecrackers. He saw to the distribution of sparklers with which you and your brothers wrote your names on the air. All that fire felt dangerous, but it did not frighten you because your father was in charge.
Fireworks were exclusive to the Fourth of July, which is how you knew what they meant: America is a great nation. Color in the sky was a joyous celebration of that greatness. You grew up with a fervent love of your country, which you never felt more fully than on its birthday.
To read more Carroll click here
Mistrust Mixes With Misery In Heat of Baghdad Police Post
Frustrated Reservists See a Mission Impossible
By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post
July 1, 2003BAGHDAD, June 30 — To Staff Sgt. Charles Pollard, the working-class suburb of Mashtal is a “very, very, very, very bad neighborhood.” And he sees just one solution.
To Sgt. Sami Jalil, a 14-year veteran of the local police force, the Americans are to blame. He and his colleagues have no badges, no uniforms. The soldiers don’t trust them with weapons. In his eyes, his U.S. counterparts have already lost the people’s trust.
“We’re facing the danger. We’re in the front lines. We’re taking all the risks, only us,” said the 33-year-old officer. “They’re arrogant. They treat all the people as if they’re criminals.”
To read more Shadid click here
Hostages of the empire
By Andrew Murray
The Guardian
July 1, 2003Neither General Dyer at Amritsar nor General Westmoreland in Vietnam could have put it any clearer. Welcome to the new colonialism. Bremer’s words are not just bluster. US forces are now engaged in massive search-and-destroy sweeps in central and northern Iraq against forces opposing their rule.
While the Westminster village remains riveted by the Campbell-BBC pillow fight, it is the real war on the ground in Iraq that should be commanding our attention. The six British soldiers killed last week, like the US servicemen under daily attack, are victims of an overbearing and inept occupation policy that is alienating ordinary Iraqis of all persuasions.