SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: longnshort who wrote (10029)1/27/2007 2:07:42 PM
From: midway moron  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224724
 
TruthDig | posted April 11, 2006 (web only)
Now Powell Tells Us
Robert Scheer





Robert Scheer is editor of TruthDig, where this essay originally was published.

The President played the scoundrel--even the best of his minions went along with the lies--and when a former ambassador dared to tell the truth, the White House initiated what Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald calls "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson." That is the important story line.

If not for the whistleblower, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, President Bush's falsehoods about the Iraq nuclear threat likely would never have been exposed.

On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell told me that he and his department's top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the President followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim. Now he tells us.





The harsh truth is that this President cherry-picked the intelligence data in making his case for invading Iraq and deliberately kept the public in the dark as to the countervailing analysis at the highest level of the intelligence community. While the President and his top Cabinet officials were fear-mongering with stark images of a "mushroom cloud" over American cities, the leading experts on nuclear weaponry at the Department of Energy (the agency in charge of the US nuclear-weapons program) and the State Department thought the claim of a near-term Iraqi nuclear threat was absurd.

"The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons," said a dissenting analysis from an assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research (INR) in the now infamous 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was cobbled together for the White House before the war. "Iraq may be doing so but INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support such a judgment."

The specter of the Iraqi nuclear threat was primarily based on an already discredited claim that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes for the purpose of making nuclear weapons. In fact, at the time, the INR wrote in the National Intelligence Estimate that it "accepts the judgment of technical experts at the US Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose."

The other major evidence President Bush gave Americans for a revitalized Iraq nuclear program, of course, was his 2003 State of the Union claim--later found to be based on forged documents--that a deal had been made to obtain uranium from Niger. This deal was exposed within the Administration as bogus before the President's speech in January by Ambassador Wilson, who traveled to Niger for the CIA. Wilson only went public with his criticisms in an op-ed piece in the New York Times a half year later in response to what he charged were the Administration's continued distortion of the evidence. In excerpts later made available to the public, it is clear that the Niger claim doesn't even appear as a key finding in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, while the INR dissent in that document dismisses it curtly: "[T]he claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment highly dubious."

I queried Powell at a reception following a talk he gave in Los Angeles on Monday. Pointing out that the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate showed that his State Department had gotten it right on the nonexistent Iraq nuclear threat, I asked why did the President ignore that wisdom in his stated case for the invasion?

"The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote," Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush's State of the Union speech? "That was a big mistake," he said. "It should never have been in the speech. I didn't need Wilson to tell me that there wasn't a Niger connection. He didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. I never believed it."

When I pressed further as to why the President played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn't the President: "That was all Cheney." A convenient response for a Bush family loyalist, perhaps, but it begs the question of how the President came to be a captive of his Vice President's fantasies.

More important: Why was this doubt, on the part of the secretary of state and others, about the salient facts justifying the invasion of Iraq kept from the public until we heard the truth from whistleblower Wilson, whose credibility the President then sought to destroy?

In matters of national security, when a President leaks, he lies. By selectively releasing classified information to suit his political purposes, as President Bush did in this case, he is denying that there was a valid basis for keeping the intelligence findings secret in the first place. "We ought to get to the bottom of it, so it can be evaluated by the American people," said Sen. Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I couldn't have put it any better.




To: longnshort who wrote (10029)1/27/2007 2:09:23 PM
From: midway moron  Respond to of 224724
 
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, "who has gone public with criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy, is caustic in private about the proposed 'surge' of 30,000 additional U.S. troops," according to Robert Novak. "Powell noted that the recent congressional delegation to Iraq headed by Sen. John McCain heard from combat officers that they wanted more troops."

Said Powell: "The colonels will always say they need more troops. That's why we have generals."

A footnote: "Senior Republican senators are trying to get word to the president that any troop surge would be dead on arrival in Congress



To: longnshort who wrote (10029)1/27/2007 2:10:50 PM
From: midway moron  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224724
 
bushlies.net



To: longnshort who wrote (10029)1/27/2007 2:13:40 PM
From: midway moron  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224724
 
youtube.com



To: longnshort who wrote (10029)1/27/2007 2:17:44 PM
From: midway moron  Respond to of 224724
 
COMMENTARY:
Bush's State of Deception
by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
The only hope of stopping Bush from initiating war with Iran is for the leadership of both parties in both houses of Congress to make unequivocally clear that Bush will be impeached if he attacks Iran without the approval of Congress.Bush's state of the union address did not describe the deplorable state of the union. The speech's importance consists of Bush's plea to Congress to please let him fool them one more time in order that he can attack Iran and start a bigger war that Congress will have to support in order to support Israel. That is all the president had to say.
The "surge" of US troops for Iraq is another deception. The surge's purpose has nothing to do with achieving victory in Iraq. Its purpose is to counter the pressure from the American public, Congress, and the US military to withdraw US troops from Iraq. Once a withdrawal begins, the neoconservative misadventure in the Middle East is at an end before its goals can be achieved. Delaying the withdrawal by proposing an escalation and provoking a debate gives Bush and Israel time to orchestrate an attack on Iran.

No one in Congress or print and TV media is prepared to call Bush on this transparent deception. Instead, critics focus on the fact that the surge cannot succeed. For example, in the Democratic response to Bush's address, Senator Jim Webb, who served as Secretary of the Navy under President Reagan, stressed the recklessness and cost of Bush's invasion of Iraq:

"The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable and predicted disarray that has followed."
Sen. Webb is the best that the Democrats have and with Ron Paul the best that Congress has. Yet, not even Webb can cut to the chase.

Consequently, while Congress wastes time with non-binding resolutions against the surge in Iraq, Bush proceeds to implement plans to start war with Iran.

I have said that the only hope of stopping Bush from initiating war with Iran is for the leadership of both parties in both houses of Congress to make unequivocally clear that Bush will be impeached if he attacks Iran without the approval of Congress. Even this might not be enough. The Bush Regime is capable of orchestrating an incident, such as an attack on a US aircraft carrier, that can be blamed on Iran and, in that way, sweep Congress along on a patriotic outburst against "Iranian aggression against US forces." Many of the people who have come to oppose Bush's war in Iraq mistakenly believe that Bush is a good person who is trying to protect America, but that he is going about it in the wrong way and is too inflexible to learn from his mistakes. They have no clue as to the evil agenda that guides the Bush Regime.

The Bush Regime is the first neoconservative regime in US history.

The main purpose of the neoconservatives' "war on terror" is to eliminate any effective Muslim opposition to Israel's theft of Palestine and the Golan Heights.Bush hides the neoconservative agenda behind "the war on terror," which essentially is a hoax. The main purpose of the neoconservatives' "war on terror" is to eliminate any effective Muslim opposition to Israel's theft of Palestine and the Golan Heights.

To silence Muslim opposition to Israel's theft of Arab lands, the US must eliminate or intimidate Middle Eastern governments that are not under US control--Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah which governs southern Lebanon. The US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have failed to establish US control, but they have left both countries in a destructive civil war. Israel's invasion of Lebanon appears to have renewed civil war in that country.

Bush is not going to be forthright about the neoconservative agenda, because he knows it is one that Congress and the American people must be manipulated and maneuvered into accepting. However, neoconservatives themselves are very forthright about their war plans. Let's listen to their most recent pronouncements.

On January 23, former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, a leading neoconservative, told a conference in Herzliya, Israel, that the United States and Israel were in danger of nuclear attack from Iran. The crazed Gingrich, who is considering a run for the US presidency in 2008, said: "Our enemies are fully as determined as Nazi Germany, and more determined than the Soviets. Our enemies will kill us the first chance they get. There is no rational ability to deny that fact."

Gingrich says: "We don't have the right language, goals, structure, or operating speed, to defeat our enemies. My hope is that being this candid and direct, I could open a dialogue that will force people to come to grips with how serious this is, how real it is, how much we are threatened."

Who are "our enemies?" Why, Iran, of course.

Iran is such a dangerous determined enemy that "the threat of a nuclear Holocaust" hovers over the US and Israel. "Israel is in the greatest danger it has been in since 1967." The US could "lose two or three cities to nuclear weapons, or more than a million people to biological weapons. Freedom as we know it will disappear."

Another American presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, told the Israeli audience that Islamic jihadism was "the nightmare of this century."

Israel, Romney declared, "is facing a jihadist threat that runs through Tehran, to Damascus, to Gaza." Hezbollah, he declared, is not fighting for a Palestinian state but for the destruction of Israel.

The world has not experienced this level of warmongering since Hitler.The world has not experienced this level of warmongering since Hitler.

Also at the Israeli conference was US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, who added fuel to the fire by alleging without any evidence that "Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, there's no doubt about it. There's no debate among experts. It's seeking a nuclear weapon at its plant at Nantz."

A truthful statement, which no one any longer expects from any member of the Bush Regime, would be that the weapons inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency have poured over Iran's nuclear program and have found no evidence of a weapons program. A number of experts, such as Gordon Prather, have fiercely disputed the propagandistic claims of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

What concerns experts is that once Iran has succeeded with a nuclear energy program, it could go on, in the absence of inspections, to develop nuclear weapons in about 10 years. However, as a signatory nation to the non-proliferation treaty, Iran would undergo the inspections, as it was doing prior to the recent provocations orchestrated by the Bush Regime. In contrast, Israel has not signed the non-proliferation treaty and has a large number of nuclear weapons, the existence of which Israel has denied for years.

Burns told the Israeli conference that the US will not allow Iran to go nuclear. This is an extraordinary statement, because every signatory country to the non-proliferation treaty has the right to develop nuclear energy. Some people speculate that an oil-producing country doesn't need nuclear power. However, oil is Iran's only significant export. The less Iran uses its own oil, the greater its exports.

Burns told the Israelis that "We are committed to our alliance with Israel.

We are committed to being Israel's strongest security partner. I can't remember a time when the relationship between our two countries was stronger than it is today."

Chief US neoconsevative Richard Perle told the Israeli conference that President Bush would give the green light if US military involvement was needed for a successful strike on Iran. According to the Israeli press, "Perle hypothesized a nightmare scenario, saying: 'In possession of nuclear weapons, or even in possession of nuclear material, Iran is perfectly capable of using its terrorist networks to enable others to inflict grievous damage.'"

Former Israeli defense minister Shaul Mofaz, who met privately with Burns prior to their joint appearance at the Herzliya conference, said that 2007 would decide the future of the Middle East. Mofaz declared, "The year of 2007 is a year of decisiveness. Iran of 2007 has all the components to threaten us existentially, and the whole of the region."

Any expert or knowledgeable person who examines these statements sees nothing but unsupported assertions, paranoid speculations, fear-mongering and blatant lies. It is on this basis, and this basis alone, that the Bush Regime will initiate war with Iran.

Iran is being set up by the identical propaganda machine that set up Iraq with fearful imagery of "mushroom clouds over American cities" and nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction."

After years of blaming al-Qaeda for the Iraqi insurgency, the Bush Regime propagandists have suddenly switched gears and now are blaming Iran for the failure of the US occupation in Iraq and for the deaths of US troops. The Bush Regime recently arrested Iranian diplomats in northern Iraq and made charges so preposterous that the charges were even rejected by Bush's Kurdish and Iraqi allies. Powerful US naval attack fleets have been stationed off Iran's coast, and attack aircraft have been moved to Turkey and other locations on Iran's borders.

Meanwhile, Iran has done nothing.

Iran has refrained from arming and encouraging its Iraqi Shi'ite allies to join the insurgency against US troops. Iran could deliver the weapons that can knock out US tanks and helicopter gunships, thus eliminating the US military advantage from the conflict.

Neoconservative and Israeli propagandists have spread the lie that the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared Iran's intention "to wipe Israel off the map." This lie is today regularly repeated even by such formerly careful newspapers as the New York Times and London Times.

A number of experts have examined the speech by the Iranian president. What Ahmadinejad actually said was a direct quote from the deceased Ayatollah Khomeini: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." The experts explain that in the context of the text of the speech, what is being said is that peace in the Middle East requires regime change in Israel. In place of a Zionist regime hell bent on stealing more land from Muslims, Zionism will pass away and Israel will cease its aggressive policies and live at peace with its neighbors.

A great number of Western experts agree that the problem in the Middle East is neither Islamic jihad nor Israel per se, but Zionism, which keeps Israel on a land expansionist course at the expense of Arab peoples.

The failure of US policy in the Middle East is the failure to deter Israel from this Zionist policy. A large number of Israelis are opposed to this policy and recognize that Zionism is the cause of Israel's conflict with Arabs.

The real problem that Americans face is that the Zionist influence on US policy is so powerful that instead of dealing with the real cause of strife in the Middle East, the US is about to join Zionism in attempting to eliminate all Muslim opposition to Zionist expansion.

Bush's "war on terror" and Iran's alleged nuclear weapons are just propagandistic cover for the real agenda, which is to silence opponents of Zionist expansion.

The fanaticism of Zionists has been made clear by their ferocious attack on President Jimmy Carter, who stated in his current book both clearly and reasonably that the only path to peace in the Middle East is for Israel to accept a viable Palestinian state.

Carter has done more for peace between Israelis and Arabs than anyone. Moreover, Israel, as opposed to Zionism, has had no greater friend or stronger supporter than Carter. But because Carter pointed out Zionism's role in the conflict, America's most decent and truthful president was demonized.

The unjustified Zionist attack on Carter should tell everyone where the real problem lies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



To: longnshort who wrote (10029)1/27/2007 2:18:02 PM
From: midway moron  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224724
 
Libby trial shows lies
By From the Star Tribune
January 27, 2007
of Minneapolis

On Lewis Libby's trial:

Most serious of all is how the Bush administration lied to itself.

The current edition of the Atlantic carries a photo of President Bush and the headline, "Why presidents lie, and why the worst lies are to themselves." It may not get at why, but the perjury trial of Lewis Libby getting under way in Washington is all about Bush administration lies on Iraq, and especially lies to itself. The trial offers an important window into how those lies were concocted and how the administration went after anyone who challenged them.

You will recall that Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union message that Iraq had tried to purchase enriched uranium from Africa — from Niger, it was later revealed — for a nuclear weapons program. This upset Ambassador Joseph Wilson because he had been dispatched by the CIA, after it received queries from the White House, to determine the truth behind the Iraq-Niger connection. He found that it was bogus, and he said so publicly a few months later in an op-ed published in the New York Times.

The White House launched a "Swift Boat" campaign against Wilson. During that exercise, it was revealed that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was working as an undercover operative for the CIA. Revealing an agent's identity is a crime under certain circumstances; during the investigation of it, Libby said things to a grand jury that proved untrue, leading to the perjury charge.

Far more interesting than Libby's guilt or innocence is what will be revealed during the trial about how the administration lied itself into believing Saddam Hussein had an ongoing, vigorous nuclear weapons program. All evidence contradicting that belief was rejected out of hand while a case supporting it was cobbled together from unreliable intelligence and speculative assessments. Because Wilson had the temerity to publicly, aggressively challenge that belief, he was subjected to a brutal attack on his integrity.

To an extent, it worked. Even today, lies about Wilson are repeated as if gospel in the right-wing blogosphere and on talk radio. The Libby trial will, we hope, begin to get at the truth.



To: longnshort who wrote (10029)1/27/2007 2:23:50 PM
From: midway moron  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 224724
 
Thousands of protesters call for Iraq withdrawal
Associated Press
Last update: January 27, 2007 – 1:16 PM
Printer friendly
E-mail this story
Save to del.icio.us


Listening to opening statements

Jay Westcott, Getty Images

Nation
Thousands of protesters call for Iraq withdrawal

Oldest known resident of S.D. dies at 110

Live turkeys used in Pennsylvania archery competition

Heimlich family divided over doctor's reputation

Some active duty troops to attend Iraq war protest
WASHINGTON — Protesters energized by fresh congressional skepticism about the Iraq war demanded a withdrawal of U.S. troops in a demonstration Saturday that drew tens of thousands and brought Jane Fonda back to the streets.
A sampling of celebrities, a half-dozen members of Congress and busloads of demonstrators from distant states joined in a spirited rally under a sunny sky, seeing opportunity to press their cause in a country that has turned against the war.

"Silence is no longer an option," Fonda declared to cheers, addressing not only the nation's response to Iraq but her own absence from anti-war protests for 34 years.

The actress once derided as "Hanoi Jane" by conservatives for her stance on Vietnam said she had held back from activism so as not to be a distraction for the Iraq anti-war movement, but now needed to speak out.

"Thank you so much for the courage to stand up against this mean-spirited, vengeful administration," she said.

Fonda drew parallels to the Vietnam War, citing "blindness to realities on the ground, hubris ... thoughtlessness in our approach to rebuilding a country we've destroyed." But she noted that this time, veterans, soldiers and their families increasingly and vocally are against the Iraq war.

The rally on the National Mall unfolded peacefully, although about 300 protesters tried to rush the Capitol, running up the grassy lawn to the front of the building. Police on motorcycles tried to stop them, scuffling and wrestling with some and setting up barricades along the front steps.

Protesters chanted "Our Congress" as police faced off against them. Their ranks grew and several dozen shouting "We want a tour" broke away and tried to get into a side door.

At the rally, 12-year-old Moriah Arnold stood on her toes to reach the microphone and tell the crowd: "Now we know our leaders either lied to us or hid the truth. Because of our actions, the rest of the world sees us as a bully and a liar."

The sixth-grader from Harvard, Mass., the youngest speaker on the stage, organized a petition drive at her school against the war that has killed more than 3,000 U.S. service-members.

More Hollywood celebrities showed up at the demonstration than buttoned-down Washington typically sees in a month.

Actor Sean Penn said lawmakers will pay a price in the 2008 elections if they do not take firmer action than to pass a nonbinding resolution against the war, the course Congress is now taking.

"If they don't stand up and make a resolution as binding as the death toll, we're not going to be behind those politicians," he said. Actors Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and Danny Glover also spoke.

Fonda was a lightning rod in the Vietnam era for her outspoken opposition to that war and her advocacy from Hanoi at the height of that conflict. Sensitive to the old wounds, she made it a point Saturday to thank the active-duty service-members, veterans and Gold Star mothers who attended the rally.

The House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers, threatened to use congressional spending power to try to stop the war. "George Bush has a habit of firing military leaders who tell him the Iraq war is failing," he said, looking out at the masses. "He can't fire you." Referring to Congress, the Michigan Democrat added: "He can't fire us.

"The founders of our country gave our Congress the power of the purse because they envisioned a scenario exactly like we find ourselves in today. Now only is it in our power, it is our obligation to stop Bush."

On the stage rested a coffin covered with a U.S. flag and a pair of military boots, symbolizing American war dead. On the Mall stood a large bin filled with tags bearing the names of Iraqis who have died.

A small contingent of active-duty service members attended the rally, wearing civilian clothes because military rules forbid them from protesting in uniform.

Air Force Staff Sgt. Tassi McKee, 26, an intelligence specialist at Fort Meade, Md., said she joined the Air Force because of patriotism, travel and money for college. "After we went to Iraq, I began to see through the lies," she said.

In the crowd, signs recalled the November elections that defeated the Republican congressional majority in part because of President Bush's Iraq policy. "I voted for peace," one said.

"We see many things that we feel helpless about," said Barbara Struna, 59, who came from Brewster, Mass., to march. "But this is like a united force. This is something I can do."

About 40 people staged a counter-protest, including military family members and Army Cpl. Joshua Sparling, 25, who lost his leg to a bomb in Iraq in November 2005.

He said the war protesters, especially those who are veterans or who are on active duty, "need to remember the sacrifice we have made and what our fallen comrades would say if they are alive."

As protesters streamed to the Mall, Bush reaffirmed his commitment to the troop increase in a phone conversation Saturday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a day when one or two rockets struck the heavily fortified Green Zone, home of the Iraqi government, thousands of Americans and the U.S. and British embassies.

Bush was in Washington for the weekend. He is often is out of town during big protest days.

United for Peace and Justice, a coalition group sponsoring the protest, said there has been intense interest in the rally since Bush announced he was sending 21,500 additional troops to supplement the 130,000 in Iraq.



To: longnshort who wrote (10029)1/27/2007 2:32:22 PM
From: midway moron  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224724
 
GEORGE W. BUSH, A PRESIDENT IN THREE ACTSThu Jan 25, 8:04 PM ET


WASHINGTON -- Watching President Bush give his State of the Union address Tuesday night, my thoughts wandered to an autumn day in Midland, Texas, six years ago, just before he was elected president the first time. We talked for hours, and I came away with positive vibes and a distinct impression of what he was all about.

The man was funny -- he obviously had a good sense of humor. He was impeccably early for appointments -- he said it was a way of "respecting" others. You could even have described him as modest, as he acknowledged that he didn't know much about foreign affairs but said he was a "quick learner." Above all, he seemed to have a well-considered agenda.

For the five hours that we conversed, in cars and planes and between speeches, he spoke only of compassionate conservatism -- which meant an end to welfare but heavy on training, an end to social promotion in the schools but heavy on tutoring, and even such things as "cottage industries." It seemed to me at the time that he had plucked the best liberal ideas and somehow incorporated them into an attractive new form of, yes, compassionate conservative thinking.

But when he became president, all of this suddenly ... disappeared. Compassionate conservatism? When did you last hear that term? Some of my sources whispered that the whole agenda came from Laura Bush and Karen Hughes, not from him.

At any rate, and particularly once 9/11 came, George W. Bush left all those favorite ideas behind. As with ancient Greek tragic heroes, all sorts of demons seemed to explode out of his hitherto peaceable character. Now he would smite the Afghan and Saudi perpetrators of 9/11, he would bring "freedom" and "liberty" to Iraq, he would initiate a New American Empire, emboldened by his history-challenged neocon courtiers hiding behind every curtain! This was the second act.

Only that one didn't work very well, either. Today an abashed George W. finds himself faced with a probably unwinnable war in Iraq, a flailing conflict in Afghanistan (which would have been workable without Iraq), and with an America where the majority of the people no longer support or even like him, where his formerly tame generals contradict him, and where respect for America around the world is, as the BBC polls tell us, "at historic lows."

So now what does he do? In this, the third act, he reverts to the beginning. Over the last six years, the president could at any time have addressed the looming problems of energy conservation, global warming, global hunger, entitlements, balancing the federal budget. NOW he discovers these problems! Even though, as he reminds us in the State of the Union, he's still keen on his wars -- "one question has surely been settled: ... we must take the fight to the enemy" -- he doesn't once mention Katrina, New Orleans or all those other smitten American cities.

One also had to wonder Tuesday whether he was sure who "the enemy" was. Incongruously, he lumped together the nation-state of Iran with the shadowy outlaw internationalist al-Qaida, and Shiites and Sunnis as "different faces of the same totalitarian threat," and then threw in for good measure Hezbollah, which is actually a political party in Lebanon as well as an army. My goodness.

A well-connected and particularly savvy Texas professor who has known George W. over the years said to me once after he attained the presidency: "It's too bad. He was a good governor. It was a post that didn't make too many demands on the person, and it fit his talents well. When he came to the presidency ... well, it just seemed too much for him."

To me, it seems clear that at each stage of his life, he brought to the time only the ideas of others; then when the era changed, he changed, and then changed again. He displayed consistent and jealous rejection of whatever had been -- his father's Eastern Establishment, Bill Clinton's liberalism, the Republican Party's moderate wing. That was what we saw Tuesday night: the latest reincarnation -- and very late, indeed.

At the same time, what has worried me most over the last six years -- that the changes that Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the fawning but dangerous neocons brought to American public life might be permanently lodged in the American psyche -- no longer worries me. We can see now that there were and are no deep principles in George W. So we can get over him and his, once we get out of this frightful war.

What's more, on the horizon are Americans with principles, with clear vision and straight talk. Start with Sen. James Webb (news, bio, voting record)'s elegant Democratic rebuttal. "We need a new direction," the decorated Marine veteran of Vietnam said. "Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong, regionally based diplomacy." Calling on Bush to take action, he said finally and convincingly, "If he does not, we will be showing him the way."

Previous: EVEN ON HIS WAY OUT, CASTRO IMPOSES HIS SINGULAR WILL Email Story Discuss Printable View RECOMMEND THIS STORY
Recommend It:

Average (90 votes)
» Recommended Stories

RecentlyEVEN ON HIS WAY OUT, CASTRO IMPOSES HIS SINGULAR WILL
WASHINGTON -- There is little question that Fidel Castro, the "immortal revolutionary," is dying. But being Fidel, he is not doing it in the way most people would expect.

OH, FDR! OH, REAGAN! HOW WE MISS YOU!
WASHINGTON -- A recent Zogby poll perhaps illustrates more about Americans' current state of mind than we might imagine. The poll asked respondents which presidential qualities they most preferred. In short, it shows us yearning for the leadership demonstrated by two of our greatest presidents to solve what a "wide majority consider a national crisis."

WAKING UP TO WAR
WASHINGTON -- The questions came to me suddenly in the dawn of several nights ago. I awoke and wondered, Who did we go to war with last night? What miserable, suffering country have we bombed to oblivion while I was sleeping?

About the AuthorGeorgie Anne Geyer has delivered distinctive foreign commentary from a variety of foreign fronts for more than 30 years.