LMD's Musings: March 22, 2007 Edition

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
Barack Obama: Born Without Original Sin?

I must state up front that I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically endorse Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, for the Democratic nomination in 2008. My reasoning boils down to sheer pragmatism, despite what my colleagues here and professional politicos would tell you, Mr. Obama is perhaps the only acceptable candidate who can prevail next November. I also like his (reliably) liberal positions on domestic issues, even if his foreign policy is nothing more than a collection of platitudes.

I do not, however, afford him “bonus points” for his stance against a presumed use of military force against Iraq in 2002. It is not that I supported Mr. Bush’s war, although, if truth be told, I wanted to do so. In this regard, however, I am in the minority. “Barry” Obama’s appeal to Democratic primary voters rests on his youth and vigor, his optimistic tone, his shot at transcending race… and his opposition to a war that Hillary Clinton and nearly half of Senate Democrats ultimately sanctioned.

Few folks know this better than Clinton 2.0.

Recently, without resorting to the overwrought self-flagellation of a certain “candidate” from North Carolina, Mrs. Clinton, through her spear-carriers, has attempted to blur her 2002 differences with Mr. Obama, even if they appear, to an observer untrained in Clintonian politics, quite stark. Washington Post senior writer Dan Balz and longtime New York Times Clinton-watcher Anne Kornblut commented on the slippery machinations of the legendary(?) pollster Mark Penn.

“During a public forum on Monday night (March 19), Mark J. Penn, the chief strategist for Clinton (D-N.Y.), challenged Obama's antiwar credentials by paraphrasing comments Obama made in 2004 about his uncertainty over the war; former president Bill Clinton reportedly made similar remarks about Obama (D-Ill.) at a fundraiser in Manhattan last week. When asked to support the claims, Clinton officials provided pages of Obama quotations -- some of them abridged -- from 2002 and 2004.”

The sexy Mrs. Clinton, who for whatever reason has made her mind up that the only female candidate voters will embrace is of the authoritarian variety, is sufficiently threatened by the vaguest of insinuations that, wonder of wonders, her normally precise political calculator bet incorrectly in October 2002.

New York’s junior senator would do well to remember that most of her base knows the unacknowledged truth: she voted for a war she didn’t believe in simply because it rated as popular at the time. Perhaps she feared, similar to the USA-PATRIOT Act, that no one who ever cast a “nay” vote could ever find themselves in the Oval Office except on a visit. We know this due to the gradual evolution of her position, which has matched the general public’s almost step for step.

Now, very likely, she laments her fate as one led astray by political consultants, or the cast of characters who told her to vote for the AUMF resolution, and deeply craves the much cleaner record of Mr. Obama, which will forever elude her.

THE PRESIDENT
Democrats to Mr. Bush: “Call”

Presidential News Conference (March 20, 2007): “I will oppose any attempts to subpoena White House officials.”

The Democratic Response?

Per the NYT:

“A House panel on Wednesday approved subpoenas for President Bush's political adviser, Karl Rove and other top White House aides, setting up a constitutional showdown over the firings of eight federal prosecutors.”

Elections, as Mr. Bush surely knows all too well, have consequences. His conservative pals have been pushed out, and the liberals are itching for a fight after years of muzzled voices and involuntary subservience.

Rep. Linda Sanchez’s (D-CA) Judiciary Subcommittee cannot authorize the subpoenas, and so the ball is passed to Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), whose disdain for the present administration is well known.

The flap over the firing of eight U. S. Attorneys has done what 9/11, Abu Ghraib, Hurricane Katrina, and even the 2006 Elections could not: it has led to a loss of presidential authority. Just a few days ago, the U. S. Senate voted 94-2 to revoke the administration’s authority, derived from the PATRIOT Act reauthorization of last year, to temporarily “fill U. S. Attorney vacancies without Senate confirmation.”

Yet again, our president has had to choose between conflicting viewpoints and selected a middle ground that ultimately pleased no one entirely and added several degrees of difficulty to his goals. In the Iraq debate, President Bush could’ve sided with Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage, or he could’ve fully allied himself with Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The former wanted more time for diplomacy, to build a stronger coalition, whereas the latter preferred strong military force and a U. S.-installed leader, something akin to the former Shah of Iran.

Instead, Mr. Bush chose to enter conflict without either assuaging wounded European egos (or buying them off in some way) and then embraced Mr. Powell’s “pottery barn rule” for Iraq: you break it, it’s yours. And so a democracy, created with next-to-no democratic institutions agonizingly moves toward action on key issues such as the sharing of oil profits.

With the U. S. Attorneys, Mr. Bush went the same direction. He concluded that firing all ninety-three federal prosecutors would prove too drastic, yet he wanted to relieve himself of those that, to his mind, had failed to properly investigate what his administration viewed as wrongdoing, i.e. alleged voter fraud. So, what occurred? Eight of the ninety-three were not renewed for another term, some with explanation, others not.

Now, these men and women serve at the pleasure of the president and while they are not normally cashiered in the middle of a term, it is not illegal by any means. Yet, colossally inept public-relations errors by the Justice Department have left even loyal Republicans wondering if their party leader understands how to effectively construct and effect government policy or if he even cares.

Alberto Gonzalez has long been a favorite target of liberals, dating back to his service as administration counsel, and the President has reciprocated his friend’s absolute loyalty by ordering him to walk the plank, i.e. testify before Congress, a la Scooter Libby in the Plame investigation (Mr. Libby only sat before the grand jury at Mr. Bush’s behest) all to protect his better friend Karl Rove, from humiliation at the hands of liberal Democrats.


FEMINISM
“So, are you really sure about getting an abortion? Really?”

I should state up front my sincere and categorical support for a woman’s right to choose. I don’t hide behind “pro-choice” euphemisms either, so long as conservative groups continue to refuse to debate the issue of contraception, everything from condoms to the quasi-form of RU-486, I will support more abortions. Put simply, I have more sympathy for a female to enjoy sexual freedom than I do for a fetus. I argue for the crystallization of abortion rights into the Constitution, as explicitly as Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others advocate. On only one issue would conservatives (and perhaps even moderates) prevail with me: Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (on the law) as over a period of roughly a decade justices magically discovered a “penumbra” in the Fourth Amendment that sanctioned abortion on a national level.

Wily conservatives never fail to stoop to embarrassing levels in their efforts to curtail if not fully eradicate abortion. Take South Carolina, honestly, one of the worst (value) governed states in the nation, and this latest gambit from State Rep. Greg Delleney (R-Chester and York Counties). He is spearheading an effort to require South Carolinian women who desire an abortion to get an ultrasound.

Mr. Delleney’s official position: “I'm just trying to save lives and protect people from regret and inform women with the most accurate non-judgmental information that can be provided.”

Mr. Delleney’s unofficial position: “If the slutty bitches are gonna fuck irresponsibly, then, dadgummit, I’m gonna make ‘em feel guilty by showing them the baby they want to kill.”

Note: the fair gentleman may not state it or even think it, yet the effect is precisely the same.

Let us make one element clear: this ain’t exactly New York. “Currently, there is already a South Carolina law requiring women to pass prerequisites before abortions, including reviewing abortion information and undergoing a waiting period.”

LMD-nominated heroine Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter (D-Orangeburg County): “I see it as some kind of emotional blackmail, and I think we're putting an undue burden on our healthcare providers and on folk who are providing those services.”

More than likely too conservative for my tastes, this beleaguered representative is willing to put herself on the line in what may well register as a very popular in such a backward state. I can only hope she is not alone and will receive substantial support from Kim Gandy, Patricia Ireland, and other self-styled feminists.

Anyone can cast a ballot in favor of abortion rights in Blue States, but your cred, if I may say, is earned in the Red.


SPORTS
Ah, what a beautiful play

The scene: 09.3 seconds remaining in one of the South Region’s quarterfinals in the NCAA Tournament, Ohio State v. Xavier, Rupp Arena, Lexington, Kentucky.

A Columbus native, for Xavier, has just missed the second free throw, so the lead remains at three, or a one possession game.

62-59, Xavier.

The scene: Xavier elects to retreat four of their players, i.e. everyone but the shooter at the line, on the Ohio State offensive side of the court. For its part, OSU sends out its five top perimeter shooters (also fastest players) putting four of them in the paint.

09.2: Lavender’s shot, like Duke’s Jason Williams five years before on the same basket, spins out, and Ivan Harris grabs it for the Buckeyes.

08.3: Harris immediately dishes off to OSU point guard Mike Conley, who will, in a matter of moments, create the opportunity for Ron Lewis, an unheralded senior, to nail the biggest shot in school history.

07.0: Conley, in full gallop, crosses halfcourt. All five OSU players are bunched together, four of them forming a near square with an area barely beyond that of the UK midcourt logo. One Buckeye is ahead of the others, racing toward the left corner. For the first time, we can see Xavier players, three of them, the two others remain out of view.

06.5: Finally, all five Xavier players are on screen. Three of them guard the top of the three-point line, one stands near the foul line, and the other has camped out on the left wing. Despite the difficulty of confronting a wave of five OSU players (normally, no more than two simultaneously cross the halfcourt stripe), the Musketeers remain in good position. Conley is about to head straight into a Xavier defender, with the only open shooter a dangerous cross-court pass away, the only teammate within thirty feet of the hoop. It is a perfect time for Xavier to foul, and protect their lead, except…

05.7: In less than a second, Mike Conley has changed the entire direction of the play, simply by slowing up, cutting perpendicular to the OSU bench, beautifully using the obstruction of two teammates to avoid the touch-foul. Xavier is still okay, because Conley is nowhere near the basket, but seemingly out of nowhere, heretofore only tangential to the play, Ron Lewis cuts a perfect angle, running to meet Conley on a trajectory so close the men almost touch. Instead of making a long, difficult pass, Conley’s dish amount to a handoff. Lewis will use his momentum and arc toward the three-point line.

05.2: Lewis now has the ball, which isn’t terrible for Xavier, the basketball remains no further than the midcourt logo. What is bad for Xavier is that Conley has given up the basketball only moments before a foul could’ve occurred, now, of course, if the Musketeers foul him, OSU will shoot two free AND get the ball with five seconds to make a two-point basket to win. Yet, even with Conley’s great pick, only two OSU players are left to inhibit three Xavier players, remember, one is still in the corner, and in fact, has no direct role in the play.

04.8: For whatever reason, two Xavier players stay with one Buckeye (at the bottom of the television screen) for a split second too long, and Harris, just by standing there, blocks off another Musketeer. Lewis is now about thirty feet from the goal, and Xavier has perhaps only a second and a half to get to him (to foul) before he will shoot the ball.

04.3: Ron Lewis, twenty-five feet from the hoop, has left his feet, Conley’s man made it away from the screen but could not get there to foul. The body of Harris precludes a hard-rushing Xavier player from either fouling Lewis or forcing him to alter his shot. At this point, the die is cast, it is physically impossible for Xavier to affect Lewis’s follow-through. If not for Conley’s pick, Lewis is likely forced to retreat further from the basket, or closer to the bottom left of your television screen.

02.3: The ball swishes through the net with remarkable velocity. 62-all.

Postscript: Xavier inbounds, misses a desperation heave. Overtime. Xavier leads 64-62 with 4:18 left in the extra session, prior to a Mike Conley three-pointer which gives OSU the lead for good. OSU ultimately prevails, 78-71.

Xavier’s coaching staff took some heat for not fouling Conley, but this analysis should show that the decision to concede the possible defensive rebound (and option to press) rendered it almost impossible for Xavier, less skilled mind you, to navigate through four Buckeyes at full gallop to find and get to Conley before he got rid of the ball.

I don’t expect the Ohio State Buckeyes to win the national championship or even reach the Final Four, but, for seven seconds, their basketball execution was second to none.


HISTORY
March 19, 2003

After Saddam Hussein had failed to surrender his government to spare his country violence and mayhem from a foreign power and the American president cited seventeen United Nations resolutions which had mandated, cajoled, and pled for Iraq to disarm, President George W. Bush ordered “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” or the most audacious use of U. S. military force since 1845. Soon thereafter, CNN and other networks broadcast “Shock and Awe.”

That was then, this is now.

The story of the Iraq War (2003 version) is not a simple one, freely disregard any “No Blood for Oil, Bush LIED!!!!!” individual's attemtpt to inform you otherwise. History, post-FDR, is mostly written by liberals, and it is quite likely that Mr. Bush will receive a deep indictment in the literary wars to come. I think we should separate the actual war from the attempt at nation-building.

History will well record that Donald Rumsfeld’s vision of a lighter, faster force led to a swifter defeat, albeit more of an implosion than 1991, of Iraqi defense forces and the Baathist regime. The 500,000+ force some desired probably takes longer to move, whether that extra might translates into more casualties is forever unknown.

I continue to believe—and no amount of U. S. casualties would persuade me otherwise (even a repeat of the Beirut tragedy)—a case existed for this war, notwithstanding the fusion of U. S. intervention for a preemptive reason (Bosnia, Panama, Grenada, Mexico, Dominican Republic, et al.) with U. S. forces engaged in a mission the scale of which hadn’t been seen since Vietnam.

Saddam Hussein, in his twilight of rule, posed no immediate danger to the United States beyond that of threatening Israel, compensating the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and occasionally harboring terrorists. While it is true that coalition forces failed to discover nuclear weapons labs, the Iraqi government had nearly made the connection in 1991—and hadn’t discarded the technology. Few people remembered that as vividly as Dick Cheney, then-Secretary of Defense under President George Herbert Walker Bush.

His sons, however, were a different matter altogether. I would venture so far as to argue that President Bush’s most lasting accomplishment of his projected eight-year term stems from the dead bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein, one, if not both, of which had the inside route to the full dictatorship of Iraq. We need only examine their track record to understand the inhumanity of their nature. The younger possess more energy, and often feel more invincible than their fathers

Furthermore, the Baathist government had failed to heed UN resolution after UN resolution, only opening itself up to inspections from Hans Blix and his team after President Bush put the Marines on their doorstep. International law, in the form of demanding Iraq publicly disarm, collapsed at Turtle Bay. Two permanent members of the Security Council, Russia and France, put their own financial interests above the UN charter, and aggressively worked to block the United States.

What about the intelligence? Weren’t the books cooked, so to speak? Well, does one truly believe that an administration must provide both sides of an issue, not merely the one of which they advocate? Are we suggesting Dick Cheney had no business taking personal trips to Langley to evaluate the CIA’s judgment? Since when has the CIA amassed such a brilliant track record, sure the Agency succeeds every day, but it blew the intel on Iraq in 1991, failed to comprehend the end of the Cold War, misread the Iranian sentiment in the run-up to the deposing of the Shah, and there’s also the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Some historians, I would conjecture, will argue that this famous moment weakened the national security of the U. S., or made us less safer. Would we truly have had more leverage over Iran and its caustic efforts to join the nuclear club? Perhaps, yet what good is that leverage if we don’t use it to seriously threaten if not make war? Iran would continue its enrichment process, and only a military attack would even begin to solve the problem.

President Bush’s decisions and policymaking at home have weakened our moral standing in the world far more than his Iraq policy, because, in the absence of affordable health care for those who need it, for good schools for those who need it, and other social programs, we’re in no position to lecture the world about how to run a nation.

Someday, one should hope, we will have a president that will take decisive, strong progressive moves on domestic policy, not merely because it is the righteous thing to do, but in order to more adequately challenge other nations to better themselves. For all his idealistic rhetoric, our current president has more in common with Iran (and even al-Qaeda) than do liberals. He, like them, is at heart a conservative; neither truly respect the rights of women or minorities, each desire a greater role for religion in public life, and each are willing to kill civilians to achieve political goals.

This is fact.

The second part of the aforementioned future president’s platform is a muscular, Truman-Kennedy-based foreign policy that vows to make the world free from tyranny and fear. Yet, only through a substantial restructuring of the United States, by a fairly left-of-center politician, will anyone have the credibility and the stature to take dead aim at the poisonous strand of Islam that subjugates women, executes apostates, and keep their people in line through anti-Semitic “Zionist” screeds that find in Israel a scapegoat for their own failures.

A liberal, perhaps as nominally religious as a deist, would have the pedigree to challenge Islamic leaders and institutions without sounding off warning bells of another round of Crusades. A liberal, which has secured better health care for its poorest citizens than the extremist group Hamas does for the West Bank, would have the ability to demand reform in the Islamic world—and make it well in their collective interest to do so. The answer, as human beings that possess compassion for the poorest and most desperate, is not to end our petroleum addiction and withdraw from the Middle East, at least not in thought.

On March 19, 2003, the United States chose to invade the Arab (and to a smaller extent, Muslim) world. Very possibly we would have needed to invade Iraq at some juncture, we only drew poorly in the leader who embraced the mission. Why he did so will probably elude us for all time, perhaps for a multitude of reasons, yet it is worth noting as the American involvement in Iraq creeps into year five, President Bush’s action changed the world.

He did so, despite his high popularity, not as a monarch or in dictatorial fashion. He received bipartisan support from a Republican House and a Democratic Senate, both his 2004 Election opponent and that man’s running mate ultimately agreed with him that Saddam Hussein had to, at long last, face full accountability. Sans Joe Lieberman, it is nearly for certain that no Democrat and few Republicans would have chosen to issue the order that the President ultimately did.

Aside from the criminal behavior that took place at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, the President, in the decades and centuries to come, should face the most intense scrutiny from scholars on the remarkable disconnect between his words and ultimate action, i.e. taking on such a momentous project while asking so little of 95% of the population.

In a perfect world, you need a person like George W. Bush to make the epochal decision to enact regime change in Iraq (or North Korea, Iran, Syria…) and you need a person like Albert Gore Jr. to follow through on the fateful action with effective nation-building plans combined with an earnest love of government, as opposed to merely politics to acquire power.

It is not a sin to play politics to acquire power, Franklin Roosevelt, one of the shadiest and most deceitful men to occupy the White House, did something with that power, afforded to him in the wake of 1932 shellacking of President Herbert Hoover. He understood that once power is attained, even if by means far from pristine, one has a civic obligation to best serve the people, and not merely to win or retain their favor in the next election cycle. FDR cared about making government work.

George W. Bush never did, and so as we pass the fourth anniversary of the most significant moment for American history since the Gulf of Tonkin resolution (1964), we are left with the bitter irony of having one of the few leaders ever who would’ve ordered the invasion double as one of the few leaders that cared less about doing the requisite spadework (and homework?) to make the decision, well, worthwhile.