Historical Stupidity = It Ain't Just Sarah

It's been a hell of a lot of fun watching Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, and assorted other GOPers mangle American History and get caught out as speaking idiocy. The real big problem is that as McClatchy points out - it ain't just them. A really sad state of affair exists.

It would be the easiest thing in the world to make this about Sarah Palin.

She makes mistakes like Apple makes iPhones, so there is a temptation to catalogue her recent bizarre claim...

Funny stuff, but serious soon ensues:

Where history is concerned, this is fast becoming a nation of ignoramuses and amnesiacs.

The alarm bell has been ringing for years. Consider “Losing America’s Memory: Historical Illiteracy in the 21st Century,” a 2000 study by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a Washington-based advocacy group. Researchers found that the majority of seniors at the nation’s best colleges could not identify the words of the Gettysburg Address or explain the significance of Valley Forge. They did not know, the study concluded, because they had not been taught. History, the study said, was no longer a requirement in the nation’s top schools.

And then, there is a 2006 assessment by the Education Department’s National Center for Education Statistics, often called The Nation’s Report Card. It found that nearly 40 percent of 12th graders could not identify the purpose of the Lewis and Clark Expedition and only 14 percent could identify and explain a factor leading to U.S. involvement in the Korean War.

Now I've teased you, go read it and think about what it means to be headed down this particular road.

US History Means What To Egypt's Situation

I've been hearing a lot lately about what is happening in Egypt and the US Revolution and our democracy. I'd like to know how somebody can make those comparisons and act as though they know something about history. "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it" has a lot of truth, but it also involves comparing history to something that has some congruence and making statements that also reflect what happened in history.

Now talking about how we succeeded in forming a government ignores a bit of something - the date of the Constitution. The government that came out of the Revolution was The Articles of Confederation and it failed. The great Constitution a bit over a half century later was sorted out by a bloody Civil War and in some respects is still not sorted out. Does somebody really think a good resolution of Egypt's current situation would be a conflict like our Civil War?

What happened in the US in response to our Revolution comes out of centuries of English evolution of government and Western European thought on governance. Egypt's experience with Western history involves colonialism from a dissimilar government and the economic/militaristic colonialism of also radically dissimilar governments. Whatever other issues the new and continuing US had with its former ruler their was a cultural and political sympathy between the two.

However corrupt English rule of the colony now the US was, it was more distant and of considerable lower degree. What exists in Egypt as corruption is within blocks not across an ocean and the results are more dramatic in their severity. Whatever context the US support of Mubarak is held in, there are not US soldiers standing in the streets enforcing the corruption and authoritarianism of the Mubarak government as there were Redcoats in the colonies.

I don't know where the Egyptian revolution is headed or what it will reach - I do know that using the US as a context is ludicrous.

Niccolo Machiavelli and The Prince

Because the sitemeter shows repeated and long term hits to a post Machiavellian Politics, I decided that I'd make my third or fourth reading of 'The Prince.' I first read the book in the mid-60s in junior high school, again later in high school or college or both - I forget. Suffice to say, that was awhile ago and perspectives change with age and the times. I know I read it in junior high primarily as history, as I remember the later readings were from a political perspective. This reading is made in my mid-50s with a lot of water under bridges of various construction.

Machiavelli was born in 1469 to a family with political background and he was raised with republican (of the times) sentiment. In adulthood he held various governmental, ambassadorial and military postings. He left governmental service after 14 years, apparently in poor financial straights, evidently an honest man. "The Prince" was written over the course of several months in 1513 and was originally intended to be given to Guiliano de' Medici but kept in his desk until after Guiliano's death in 1516 and dedicated and sent to Lorenzo de' Medici. Lorenzo did not acknowledge the book and it wasn't printed until 1532, 5 years after Machiavelli's death.

'The Prince' is very much a product of its time, it was written in a period of warring city states with much of Italy under foreign domination by France and Spain with the Papacy in rising political power. Political murder was common as were shifting alliances and mercenary armies, a mainstay of many Italian city states (and Italy's downfall in M's view). It is a modest sized book even by the standards of the day amounting to just over 100 pages in modern print. Taken as a schematic for governing it is frozen in its milieu, but taken as observations of the nature of political thinking and sociological condition it is the product of an intelligent and observant participant in some of the rawest uses of political power. This was a period in a country in which the strangulation of 13 perceived political rivals by Cesare Borgia at a dinner party or the murder of an entire family of relatives by Oliverto da Fermo was tolerated and there was near constant warfare between city states and with foreign governments mixed in. One might forgive Machiavelli the observation that men are, by nature, bad.

'The Prince' contains observations of the political condition that may or may not be timeless, but are still applicable today. He notes, for instance, that in the question of whether as a Prince it is better to be loved or feared and the best of being both is unattainable that it is better to be feared which can be maintained but that loved is inconstant. While fear is better, the Prince must not be hated. The fear that Machiavelli refers to is not the sort of naked fear inspired by a Stalin, but rather the inevitable consequences attendant to conspiring against the state - a potential rather than terrorism. Taken in a modern sense with the State replacing the Prince it is the knowledge that acts against the State, foreign or domestic, will be met with overwhelming power and absolute sureness. It is the message to Timothy McVeighs that you will be caught, prosecuted, and punished, it is the clear statement to the Soviets that an attack would involve massive and catastrophic nuclear retaliation, it was the idea behind Afghanistan. But note the attached corollary about hate, the Prince - or State - cannot behave in a manner that creates hate and disgust, a lesson forgotten with the Iraq War or the Bush war on civil liberties and civil discourse. This concept is twined throughout 'The Prince', it is the iron fist in a velvet glove.

A recurring theme of the book is that the Prince is best served by the loyalty and affection of the masses. It is very nearly matched in frequency by the notion that the masses are more informed by appearances than fact. The power structures that Machiavelli breaks the political world into are the masses, the military,and the nobles with religion as a separate and distinct one. It takes little to push those groupings into a modern structure and apply Machiavelli's analysis. The masses of today are more and yet less informed than the masses of his time, in his time the personage of the Prince was a neighbor, an individual present on the scene and while the level of literacy and press was considerably lesser, there is an informational advantage to nearness. I have been close enough to Barack Obama to personally read his expressions and body language as he spoke and answered unscripted questions, that places me in a vanishingly small minority of this nation, the people of the city states of Machiavelli's time lived with their Princes. The weaponry and sophistication and application of military power has changed since that time, but the essential job has not. That essential job brings a mindset with it, to finely analyse it would require much more patience than any reader of this blog has. The nobility of the time remains, today we call them Congress, lobbyists, plutocrats, and some others. Machiavelli's Prince is to put the masses first and the nobility last with the military in a shifting second regard. The nobility is untrustworthy, they have agendas of their own and a general dislike from the citizenry which most bears their affronts and provides the real political threats to the power of the Prince. It does not force an analogy to see connections to the modern political world.

In the face of very recent history, Machiavelli's analysis of the Prince's ministers deserves some real attention. Machiavelli sees the ministers/advisers to the Prince as the most visible elements of his power and essential to the promulgation of policy...and as scapegoats. Machiavelli asserts that the quality of the ministers is a direct consequence of the quality of the Prince. A perspicacious Prince will choose high quality ministers and be served well by them, an inept Prince will surround himself with ineptness. The ministers are never to usurp the authority of the Prince, but are to understand that only the truth will suffice as answers. The Prince cannot function with the inaccuracy of the flatterers and they are to be avoided as much as politically possible. Because the ministers are the visible hands of the Prince he will be held responsible by the populace for their actions and because they are his advisers his action will be affected by their input, again subjecting the Prince to the approval of the people for the actions of his ministers. No advisor is to be allowed to presume preeminence in an area as that usurps the authority of the Prince and encourages it in the minister. Because a competent Prince will have chose well in his advisers the Prince should trust them, but watch them - because they have been given access to power.

No discussion of 'The Prince ' could be made without reference to, "the ends justify the means." This is a paraphrase of a paragraph and really of several mostly dealing with the necessity of the Prince being able to adjust to changing circumstances and that when he cannot be good to be bad. It is a very nearly accurate description of that particular section of the book. Machiavelli places the continuance of the State and the Prince ahead of narrow questions of morality while encouraging at the least the appearance of piety. Oddly considering his credit for the phrase, it is a course he consistently places below actual honorable behavior. In consideration of the realities of his times in that place it is somewhat surprising that he does not place it at the head of his list of behaviors rather than as seemingly a last resort. This was an incredibly dangerous and violent world he moved in and presumed to advise. It is doubtful that most leaders of the time, including Popes, could avoid life sentences in today's America. He does quite baldly advise that the Prince is not consider himself bound by his word, or treaties, or ethics if the situation calls for it, because - men are, by nature, bad; and will not on their part be bound by any such considerations. Taking that as the measure of 'The Prince' or Niccolo Machiavelli is a simplistic mistake and misses entirely the major thrust of the work.

This is scarcely an in depth analysis of 'The Prince', Machiavelli, or Italy of the time. It is intended to whet interest and discussion of a historically important book that has resonance today and probably into the future. It is certainly not an endorsement of the political structures within which Machiavelli lived, but an acknowledgement that observation of events and analysis of motivations is informative across centuries and cultures. If like myself you haven't read it in quite awhile or have never read it, it is worth the couple hours it takes to read and reflect.

Revisonist History Leads To Firing?

In some countries writing seriously stupid falsehoods regarding history and a nation's action can get you fired from the government, unlike the US where saying it can work to make you a credible candidate for the Presidency. The NYT reports that Japanese Air Force Chief of Staff was fired for:

General Tamogami wrote that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941 and thereby drew the United States into World War II after being caught in “a trap” set by President Roosevelt.

“Roosevelt had become president on his public pledge not to go to war, so in order to start a war between the United States and Japan, it had to appear that Japan took the first shot,” he wrote.

He denied that Japan had invaded China and the Korean Peninsula, arguing that Japanese forces became embroiled in domestic conflicts on the Asian continent.

“Even now, there are many people who think that our country’s aggression caused unbearable suffering to the countries of Asia during the Greater East Asia War,” he wrote, using the term favored by Japan’s right to refer to World War II. “But we need to realize that many Asian countries take a positive view of the Greater East Asia War. It is certainly a false accusation to say that our country was an aggressor nation.”

Around these parts somebody like John McCain gets to claim that he knows how to win wars on the basis of claiming success well before it happened and predicting that we'd be greeted as liberators. He also was a part of the Republican attack on Clinton over Kosovo and the war he actually took part in was Vietnam - not exactly a raging success, not that he held any position of authority there or in any conflict in a manner other than as a less than senior politician. He gets to claim, in the face of any evidence to have been tested in regards to the Presidency. He gets to claim in the same sentence that we've won in Iraq and that Obama wants to surrender in Iraq. Funny how it is the right that plays these games. You will note that the Right seems to claim that the US has never gotten up to...poor behavior.

History books written by someone a bit more credible than Gen Tamogami will be scornful of BushCo but will probably save the real unkindness for McCain by making him the footnote to BushCo failure. He will be McMaverick who caved in until he became invisible. Yes, this article pre-supposes an Obama victory, in fact it pre-supposes a Republican bloodbath with McCain at the helm, the McCommander. I already voted, if you haven't - take care of business -that outfit needs to be sunk deeper than whale poop.

Community Organizers, Sarah

I know that historically things were a bit more complicated than this presentation, but she's so stupidly wrong that using more than single syllable words is probably wasted.

A hat tip to Preemtive Karma

In Congress, July 4, 1776

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislatio
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms:

Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Staying In Iraq - Forever

The US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan C Crocker, seems to be trying to get Americans ready for an extended stay in Iraq. The Administration has been doing a lot of talking about September, but an ambassador to a country is generally their mouthpiece and here's what he had to say, "...will take a lot longer than September," to stabilize the place and get to political accommodation. Lt. Gen. Sanchez led the Iraq war and told Fox News that, "a stalemate - if you will, not a stalemate, but to stave off defeat," was as much as the US could hope for seemed to prompt Crocker.

NYT juxtaposes Iraq Pres Talibani saying the Iraqi Army wouldn't be ready before fall 2008 with Crocker, “It’s way premature to be talking in terms of victory or defeat.” According to this NYT "With Korea as Model..." news analysis Bush has been privately intrigued with the Korean Model - US troops have been there for 54 years - but now Tony Snow and Robert Gates have both brought Korea up as an example of something done right and somehow connected to Iraq.

Analysts have noted that permanent US bases were being established along the route of oil pipe lines, now BushCo is dribbling out hints of a permanent US troop commitment in Iraq, using Korea, a very sizable one. It is pretty difficult to separate oil and BushCo and Iraq. This bunch keeps trying to use historical referents, they started out with Nazi Germany and Japan, Vietnam was used a model of leaving too early, and now Korea. Their problems have been really pretty simple, not one of the models they use have anything to do with what they've done or are doing and the results of all their models also have nothing to do with Iraq.

History is an illuminating study, facts and actions can be looked at and the outcomes of those congruences analyzed. The very important part of this study is that desires have no place in the analysis, these things are fixed in time and not subject to change by wishful thinking. Condi and Rummy both compared the insurgency to the Nazi Wolfenstein, ignoring the facts of post-war Germany's lack of support for insurgency, lack of will to continue combat, and massive occupying forces, later they moved to the rather instructive example of Vietnam where there was little popular indigenous support as an example of not trying hard enough - 58,000 dead troops might disagree about the level of effort, and now Korea - a divided country which had huge resources thrown into the fight. Every time they reach for history they ignore themselves and military doctrine. Taking and holding ground didn't happen in Vietnam and it is not happening in Iraq, it cannot, there are not enough troops and the populous is not on your side.

Maybe the dead-ender 28% that supports George II's war will wake up and see that his idea is to keep this going on for a few more generations, the 3500 death toll and 25000 mangled will certainly make a much more impressive number given a generation or so to grow. Too bad there's no such thing as ghosts, regular visitations might be as close to justice as BushCo ever faces.

Machiavellian Politics

Politics have been studied and analyzed for a very long time, and written about for very nearly as long as writing has existed. One of the best known, and most reviled writers on the subject is Machiavelli; his book, The Prince, is a classic and much misunderstood work. The most often quoted piece of the book is, "the ends justify the means." The cliche term for short-sighted vicious politics is "Machiavellian."

This is not quite accurate, Machiavelli put forth solutions to problems and generally several solutions for a problem. A common problem was a noble plotting against the ruler, several solutions were mentioned, banishment of the noble, banishment of the noble and his family, confiscation of family property, killing the noble, killing the noble and his family, etc, etc. Along with the solutions came analysis of probable outcomes. Oddly enough, considering his reputation, Machiavelli preferred to take the long-term outlook and the solution that favored it. For instance, banishment put the noble out of reach and free to stir up trouble, compounded if the family was also banished by more people stirring the pot and the extended family/associates resentment, confiscation worked the same way and stirred resentment among others of property and other members of the family, killing creates martyrs, etc. There really is a need for a new adjective describing short-sighted vicious politics; I think maybe the term could be Rovian, as in Karl.

I've heard Rove described as a genius, or by perfectly good lefties, a despicable genius. I disagree, what has passed for genius is simply the willingness to use whatever means are available for short term gain, reflective of certain elements in 18th and 19th Century politics, the nastier elements. He is a nasty man who plays dirty for a short term payoff. The problem with this approach is illustrated by the current BushCo poll numbers and the general reputation of the Republican Party. Any political movement generates opposition, this is normal and to be expected, but opposition is a different animal from enemies. Rovian politics creates enemies, these are mortal foes, they will not agree with you and they will seek your downfall and expend serious assets to bring it about. People in general will begin to see through lies and be offended for being taken and become enemies. The art of politics becomes slash and burn warfare, a policy of scorched earth with little regard for the welfare of the state. Policy decisions become hostage to the accrual of power and failed policies become sacrosanct - the expenditure in their implementation now drives their continuation, the leader cannot fail. Fear becomes a handy weapon, but it is a very blunt instrument and the objects of its use soon tire of it or become inured to its effects.

Politics is about getting things accomplished, power is an aspect of that end but it is not the prime mover. In a system like ours you may have the power to force things through, for a while, but at some point the opposition must be taken into account. The trick is to offer something to the opposition that will take some of the sting out while showing the voters a willingness to "work together" and be "reasonable." If it is impossible to give the opposition enough to bring them into the process then it is of paramount importance to show them the respect of listening and debating the issue. You cannot afford more than a handful of enemies. There are going to be times when there is a congruence in your ends and the opposition's ends and their cooperation will be needed to succeed, it is important that they are not your enemies at that point.

Karl Rove has essentially two strategies, the accrual of power and the demonization (and thereby discrediting) of opponents. All government and it's appurtenances (media, etc) become objects of political advantage and the consolidation of power. Opponents no longer are policy opponents they become traitors and agents of class (etc) warfare. In the short run it is possible to show real gains with this methodology, in the long run real problems arise and depending on the force of application the recoil can be tremendous.

The latest problem, the US Attorneys, is a perfect example. The DOJ is subject to political appointments, the tenor of the establishment is going to be set by the AG and the political leanings of the operational end - US Attorneys - can be determined. This works well for instituting a philosophy of operation, but it is a poor way to accrue power. The DOJ enforces the laws and those laws apply to all citizens, if it becomes obvious that the law is being used as a political power lever or cudgel, the populous becomes unhappy and the other power centers become very unhappy. The general population is pretty law-abiding, primarily because they see reasonableness in the laws and a general application of them, remove these considerations and the people who write them begin to worry about being paid attention to. Rovian politics determines that a narrow advantage in voter roles outweighs public perception of law-enforcement. The math is extremely faulty, the few votes that might be discarded are long-term overwhelmed by public anger and political backlash.

This is exactly what has happened repeatedly in the last couple years and a solid Republican edge has not only dwindled but been put in serious danger of becoming a long term small minority. Best to leave Machiavelli out of the adjectives describing this Administration's politics, he was pretty good at it, this stuff is strictly Rovian. (and Bush league)

Dr Rice - Quack PoliSci

Finally someone has had the nerve to call-out Condi. Now there are things that require either stupidity or lying if you have a PhD in PoliSci. You see, recent history is a part of the curriculum because you cannot understand politics if you do not understand the events of the time. (I typed this last very slowly in case she's reading it) Strangely enough it was Keith Olberman who called BS.

Just to back up in time, shortly after Bhagdad fell and insurgents started killing people and the bodies were piling up pretty fast, the good Doctor likened them to the Wolfenstein in post-war Germany. These dead enders are officially credited with 32 killings, maybe more, maybe less since gangland killings were also going on - black market gangs. At that time there were several hundred dead in Iraq and no sign of a slow down. I don't have a PhD and I knew about it, but she said it. I bring this up because these folk like to bring up Hitler and WWII and say stuff that putting its best face on it is wrong. There's been talk of appeasers, of Churchillian Bush, of just about any appeal to that war imaginable in the face of the Iraq debacle. And they're back at it again in the most ignorant fashion possible.

Olberman:
'If Congress were now to revise the Iraq authorization, she said, out loud, with an adult present, "…It would be like saying that after Adolf Hitler was overthrown, we needed to change then, the resolution that allowed the United States to do that, so that we could deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown." '
***
'Invoking the German dictator who subjugated Europe; who tried to exterminate the Jews; who sought to overtake the world — is not just in the poorest of taste but in its hyperbole, it insults not merely the victims of the Third Reich, but those in this country who fought it. And defeated it.
Saddam Hussein was not Adolf Hitler.
And George W. Bush is not Franklin D. Roosevelt — nor Dwight D. Eisenhower.
He isn't even George H.W. Bush, who fought in that war.'
***
' "The resolution that allowed the United States to" overthrow Hitler?
On the 11th of December, 1941, at 8 o'clock in the morning, two of Hitler's diplomats walked up to the State Department — your office, Secretary Rice — and ninety minutes later they were handing a declaration of war to the Chief of the Department's European Division. The Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor four days earlier and the Germans simply piled on.'
***
'If you want to compare what we did to Hitler and in Germany, to what we did to Saddam and in Iraq, I'm afraid you're going to have to buy the whole analogy.
We were an occupying force in Germany, Dr. Rice, and by your logic, we're now an occupying force in Iraq.'
***
'But then there's this part about changing "the resolution" about Iraq, that it would be as ridiculous in the Secretary's eyes, as saying that after Hitler was defeated, we needed to go back to Congress to "deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after he was overthrown."
Oh, good grief, Secretary Rice, that's exactly what we did do!
We went back to Congress to deal with creating a stable environment in Europe after Hitler was overthrown!
It was called the Marshall Plan.'
***
'Twelve billion, 400 thousand dollars to stabilize all of Europe economically — to keep the next enemies of freedom, the Russians, out, and democracy, in!
And how do you suppose that happened? The President of the United States went back to Congress, and asked it for a new authorization, and for the money.
And do you have any idea, Madame Secretary, who opposed him when he did that?
The Republicans!'

I've cut Keith's admirable prose to pieces for this little exercise, the logic is still there but the elegance is gone. If you'd like the whole thing go over to MSNBC and get it.

The level of intellectual dishonesty needed to say this crap is astonishing. If it were coming from one of the right wing nutblogs it would just be pathetic, but this is the Secretary of State of the USA and supposedly one with a doctorate in political science. It must have specialized in Orwellian politics. So far in this country, history is not in the hands of the government, knowledge will take them down, knowledge and nerve.

According to KOS, the history they do have in their hands is disappearing, Cheney's interviews from 2004 forward are going away - you know "last throws," that kind of stuff is g o n e... These people have been given so much leash with their framing, spinning, lying, defaming, ... that they have lost all sense of proportion, all recognition that they can be caught and kicked in the teeth for it. They only get away with what we tolerate, don't.

I'm a Terrorist Supporter

Wowser!!! How the heck do you like that, I've graduated to the big time and I've done it publicly. (see Archives) I'd like to thank the Administration and in particular Mr Tony Snow for the nomination and award, taa daa.

"There have been some in the Democratic Party who have argued against the Patriot Act, against the terror surveillance program, against Guantanamo. In other words, there are some people who say that we shouldn't fight the war, we should not detain -- we shouldn't apprehend al Qaeda, we shouldn't detain al Qaeda, we shouldn't question al Qaeda, and we shouldn't listen to al Qaeda. In other words, they're all for winning the war on terror, but they're all against -- they're against providing the tools for winning that war. "

There you are - that's me. Yessiree, I have this outmoded eccentric belief that the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution applies to me and that the "Decider in Chief" swore an oath to support and uphold that document. His pissant Faux News Press Secretary can kiss my Democratic ass, and since he's nothing but a mouth piece, his handler can do the same.

Somehow becoming the thing that you're opposing strikes these people as a strategy. Somehow it seems to have escaped them and a sizable chunk of the USA that their dumbass selves using quaint ole standard police work had sufficient information to rollup the 9/11 bunch before they acted. OH YEAH, plain old LEGAL methods were sufficient, what wasn't suffiecient and what they have not addressed was the turf cutting and plain ole beaurocratic thumb twiddling that left the information hang until too late.

It also seems to have escaped their notice that the people they're objecting to didn't suggest that it was a good idea to ignore Afghanistan and Al Queda and go kick Iraq around. And those same people keep suggesting that maybe Iraq still isn't a good idea. The Greeks had a term, hubris, and the idea was that acting like a god was a good way to have the gods make it very plain to you that you aren't. Exactly how many times do these (explitive deleted) think they get to re-write history?

"Finally, one other point, which is, there is a reiteration of a call to replace or have Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stand down. The President strongly supports the Defense Secretary. It's not going to happen. Creating Don Rumsfeld as a boogeyman may make for good politics, but would make for a lousy strategy at this time. And, furthermore, if you listen to the speech that Secretary Rumsfeld gave last week, it was not only thoughtful, but comprehensive about trying to frame the ongoing war against terror, and also the war going on in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Mostly what the Boogeyman did was to call people who point out his failures "appeasers" and link them to Hitler. Ummm, Donnyboy, there is still a picture in existence that shows you nearly kissing Saddam Hussein a while back, and he was then, what he was when you all decided to kick his butt. I know, history and facts are awkward things, they should be dispensed with whenever possible.

Maybe it would pay these cretins to study the period from 1760-1789, some interesting things were happening and some interesting characters were in action. I'm pretty sure George II would be using some of his "tools" to deal with those who later became icons if they were around today, because they'd surely be figuring out a way to deal with him, and it wouldn't be over tea and bicuits. Come to think of it, since I seem to agree with the Founders and whole heartedly back their play, I am a terrorist supporter.

Now, let me be clear, capture or kill Ossama Bin Laden, capture or kill his organization and I really don't care if they use any weapon other than nukes. I really don't care if they have collateral damage amongst their allies, and for you nice people, don't look, I give a rat's patoot if women, children and old people get vaporized along with them. If you can't pay the ticket, don't come to the game. If you harbor and support those who would attack us, your lives are forfeit, we can try not to include you, but you screwed up. But plainly and simply, do it within the framework of the USA and our heritage, quit making up the rules as you go along. The Bill of Rights is explicitly about the relationship of the government to its citizens, every word of every Ammendment addresses that relationship, there are 10 of them.

Iranian Stupidity

Every once in awhile I lose my mind and get the idea that somebody in George II's administration has brains and the ability to reason from facts. I know it's silliness and wishful thinking, but I just can't help having some faith in human beings. For pete's sake, some facts about Iran actually exist and are available to just about anyone with a 3rd grade education.

Iran has lots and lots of oil.
Iran has lots and lots of money.
Iran is a pretty big place.
Iran has quite a few people.
Iran has a strong military.
Iran has a strong government.
Iran has fought a bloody war against an implacable foe, to stalemate.
Iran has a populous willing to sacrifice for its country.
Iran is Muslim.
Iran shows no liking for the US government.
Iran has influence in the Middle East.
The US has no diplomatic relations with Iran and has some of its assets frozen.
There are a lot more facts around, but this isn't an encyclopedia.

Now the prevailing neo-con view seems to be that the US (and maybe UN) ought to make Iran act the way we want it to, and to do it while the US talks about possibly bombing the place or at least getting rid of its government. That would seem to fly in the face of the above facts, all of them. Since you're reading his I can assume you graduated 3rd grade and I don't need to point out the problems posed by those facts and those objectives. I could point out that those facts might lead to a different policy.

The above facts ought to indicate a stable powerful nation, however reprehensible its rhetoric. This is a simple reality, they may not be a likeable bunch, but it exists as is, not how we might wish. The simple act of establishing diplomatic relations is a recognition of fact, it does, also, carry the risk of a repeat of the Embassy taking, which might preclude a physical presence. Diplomatic relations might open the door to some talk about threats to Iranian security that might dispose Iran to feel nuclear arms are important. I find it intellectually challenging to propose that a country threatened by another high powered nuclear armed country should forego possessing the most powerful armaments possible. I find it even more challenging to imagine what sanctioning could accomplish in the case of a well financed resource backed economy. I do find some reason to think that recognition of a State and its right to exist unmolested could actually have a defusing effect. It is a fact that it exists, it is a fact that trying to molest it would be extremely risky and surely explosive for the region. There is no cost in reality to recognizing and reassuring Iran, we cannot do anything about it, anyhow.

Isolated nations tend to turn inward and amplify the very defects that caused their isolation. North Korea is an example, in its isolation it has become increasingly dangerous and extreme. During China's isolation it became increasingly dangerous and extreme, today, after RM Nixon's outreach China is less extreme, though more powerful. Iran can afford to politically and economically ignore the US, it cannot afford to ignore the US military in only one sense, nuclear capability. Iran, demonstrably need have no over-riding fear of the US conventional military capability; Iraq and Lebanon are military and political lessons. Its life could be made very difficult; but its survival is not threatened.

The real threat to Iran as extant is cultural. Their culture can only thrive in isolation from successful cultures. The stifling effect of the authority of a theocracy is not tolerable to a society that is not under open attack or threat. Such a government begins to lose its justifications in the citizenry's eyes without fear as a propaganda tool and the insidious forces of rationality and personal choice begin to gnaw away at the obeisance to authority. It is important to remember that the theocratic revolt against the Shah was against an imposed, authoritarian, secular government that without external pressure created a closed and isolated culture.

I do not suggest that in the near term the US and Iran will become "friends," I do propose that behavior change can better be accomplished with carrots than sticks and that in the long term actual change in Iran is more likely by cultural intercourse than isolation.