i-sako.com

In her recent column at Salon, Arianna Huffington says precisely the things I have been waiting for people to come around to for quite some time.

She makes a number of good points about the things that I have been trying to convey to anyone who will listen since before the Bush team slithered into the White House, namely that Cheney and his buddies stand to make a lot of money by bombing and rebuilding Iraq.

First, the plainly obvious:

The vice president is one of those ideological purists who never let little things like logic, morality or mass murder interfere with the single-minded pursuit of profitability.

Then some finger-pointing:

The two were clearly on the outs back during the Gulf War, when Cheney was secretary of defense, and the first President Bush dubbed Saddam “Hitler revisited.”



Then Cheney moved to the private sector and suddenly things between him and Saddam warmed up considerably. With Cheney in the CEO’s seat, Halliburton helped Iraq reconstruct its war-torn oil industry with $73 million worth of equipment and services—becoming Baghdad’s biggest such supplier. Kinda nice how that worked out for the vice-president, really: oversee the destruction of an industry that you then profit from by rebuilding. 

And finally, the question that I would really like to hear the answer to:

Here’s my bottom line: At a time of war, at what point does subverting our national security in the name of profitability turn from ugly business into high treason?

It seems very clear to me that the Bush administration, with its deep ties to the oil industry, has a complete conflict of interest here.

Does that mean that I think this war is all about oil? No, of course not. But it is clearly one of many factors that is influencing the adminstration’s handling of the situation. To deny that, as Cheney surely would (and has), would be foolish. To what extent should it be considered treasonous?

I was among a few thousand like-minded people from around the world in attendance at the anti-war demonstration in Tokyo’s Shibuya ward this evening. I have posted about a dozen of the hundred or so pictures I took. I’m afraid many of them are not as clear as I would like. (Sorry, but it’s not easy to shoot with one hand and carry a placard with the other!)

I was pleased to see so many Japanese people at this event. Japanese people usually avoid getting entangled in political matters, but I guess something about the Bush administration’s refusal to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq must have touched a nerve among these ordinarily non-confrontational people. Perhaps it has something to do with their first-hand experience being nuked by the United States.

I was also very surprised to learn that large groups of Japanese are leaving Tokyo tonight for Baghdad—with the (apparently firm) intention of staying for at least three months! Seeing as most observers fully expect the United States to invade Iraq in less than three weeks, I can only pray that no harm comes to these brave, peace-loving volunteers.

This banner reads, “Together with people around the world, let’s stop this attack on Iraq. Feb. 15 Peace Action in Tokyo.”

This pair got a lot of attention. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to guess who the guy in the gold mask and draped in the American flag represents—or what he is doing to the Arab in chains.

Care to kick the Arab, my fellow Americans?

The sentiment depicted in the photo below resonated with many of those in attendance.

Of course, the event was well attended by foreigners, too. A lot of Brits, in particular, were out in force.

I thought this statement was particularly apt. In Bush’s America, there seems to be precious little democracy left. So much for the candidate who promised to be “a uniter, not a divider.”

An interesting message came to me just before I left for the rally. It talked about how the Bush adminstration uses a lot of metaphors and slang expressions in its remarks about the war (i.e., “smoking gun,” “needle in a haystack,” “Saddam is stringing [the inspections] along,” “the game is over,” etc.), whereas most of the rest of the world leaders seem to be speaking in more formal English—or at least their words are being translated into formal English. One might be tempted to speculate that Bush talks this way because A) he is stupid, B) he thinks the American people are stupid, or C) he’s deliberately trying to avoid saying things that make sense. (My guess is that all three play into the equation in varying amounts.)

The thing that was most interesting about that message, however, is that it came from a completely apolitical list—it was from a mailing list for translators who were discussing how difficult it can be to make sense out of what Bush says for the benefit of audiences who do not understand English (or Bush-speak, as the case may be)!

Anyway, when I saw this group’s placard, I was reminded of that message.

These “Dancing Bushes” were really funny. Although I didn’t catch all of their (Japanese) theme song, it went something like this:

Yeah! I’m so terrific, I’m so smart!

I’m the champion of the world!

Pssshyeah!

A couple of my fellow Democrats, Claudia Colnar and Robert Zuckerman, were kind enough to listen while I ranted about, well, just about everything relating to American politics.

A lot of Japanese people seem to be really upset the fact that Prime Minister Koizumi is playing stormtrooper to Bush’s Darth Vader, as shown in this picture. Although I can sympathize with their frustration, I know that Japan does not really have the power to resist Bush—even if it wanted to. The problem at the U.N. and with NATO, I think, stems from the fact that the Bush administration wants to think that all nations are as beholden to the United States for security as Japan, which is simply not true. Look at the way the Germans responded when Rumsfeld suggested reducing the American presence there: “Great, bye-bye!”

I’m not sure how many people where present at the demonstration, but I’m reasonably certain FOX News would reduce its estimate to “as many as 100,” if it bothered to cover the story of worldwide anti-war demonstrations at all. Don’t be fooled, though: There were thousands. I pray that the Americans among them will remember this night during the 2004 elections.

Richard Holbrooke is right on track about the Iraq issue in this article in the Star Tribune. I don’t think anyone disagrees with Bush’s assertion that the world would be a better place without Saddam Hussein in it, but the way the president goes about making his case is all wrong. No, it’s worse than wrong--it’s a diplomatic catastrophe.

The article points out that president Clinton was much more diplomatic, even when he ordered the bombings of Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq--all without a U.N. resolution. He was able to maintain good relations with our allies because he made it a point not to affront them, unlike the current adminstration, which does so at every opportunity.

Bush, on the other hand, has “created coalitions of opposition to the United States” by repeatedly demonstrating his disregard for the will of the international community.

The United States really owes the rest of the world better leadership. We owe it to the world not to let Bush be our president after his current term expires. He simply doesn’t have the diplomatic skills for the job. 

It might surprise people who read this blog to know that I do actually believe that a strong case for war in Iraq can be made. I just don’t think the president has made that case. For me, how the president goes about doing things is just as important as what he does. In Bush’s case, I don’t think the United States has enough good will left in the international community to allow Bush to complete another round of what is clearly on-the-job diplomacy training. 

Anyway, Holbrooke expects that “the war will begin within three weeks or less.” The fuse is now lit, folks (or, rather, the upcoming Blix report will do it). All we can do now is wait for the explosion and hope that the damage really is as limited as the Bush team assures us it will be.

Thanks to John McCreery, the chairman of the Democrats Abroad Japan, for bringing Senator Byrd’s recent Senate speech to my attention.

I think Senator Byrd accurately sums up nearly everything that is wrong with the Bush administration’s posturing on Iraq.

I couldn’t agree more strongly with what Senator Byrd said if I wanted to, with the sole exception of his conclusion:

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is “in the highest moral traditions of our country”. This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

I agree that true leadership would not seize upon any opportunity to wage war, but instead would approach it only with great reluctance—and only as a last resort. Wisdom, likewise, does not lie in alienating France, Germany, Russia, and China simply because they do not think that war is justified. But this administration is impervious to wisdom. It shrugs off responsibility, substituting only rhetoric.

I, for one, am sick of Bush’s whining about how he “can’t understand” how other nations might oppose this war, his use of terrorism as a carte blanche to engage in full-spectrum domination of the political agenda at home and abroad, and his autistic hostility to any position that differs from his own. I’m thoroughly disgusted by the ebullient glee on Donald Rumsfeld’s face every time he has a chance to talk on camera about the upcoming war. (Incidentally, I’m also left seething with anger just about any time John Ashcroft opens his mouth. That man is a traitor to his country in ways Benedict Arnold could have never even dreamed!)

This is not an administration of the wisest, most capable leaders the United States has to offer—it’s a government that has been hijacked by lunatics who question the right of the rest of the world to disagree with their foolish, short-sighted policies.

Bush has had his chance to make his case, let him now lead his “coalition of the willing” to disarm Iraq. Go on, George, wage your little war. I can only hope that the American people will come to realize what history will surely record: George Bush is ruining America.

You’ve drawn the sword, George, now use it. You’ve failed to get the broad coalition of international support you had hoped for, but you’ve already made it clear that nothing short of a phone call from God will stop you.

[Aside: Kevin Cleary shared this delightful-yet-sobering game about the possible outcome of Mr. Bush’s war. If you enjoy that one, be sure to check out “Ashcroft Online” and this CNN article about the games’ creator. Good fun all around. Thanks, Kevin!]

Here’s an interesting angle on the Mr. Bush’s plans for war with Iraq: Declare victory!

MoveOn.org sends me e-mail updates every few days about what can be done to keep the pressure on the Bush administration to simply let the inspections work. Today’s message made an interesting point: The inspections have already had the effect that war would have, meaning simply that it is impossible for Hussein to develop weapons in full view of the inspectors. And he can hardly afford to attack the U.S. just now, either.

MoveOn offers this excerpt from a New York Times article by Nicholas Kristof: 

“As the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace put it in a new
report on Iraq, the U.S. goal of preventing any attack by Iraq has
already been achieved.

‘Saddam Hussein is effectively incarcerated and under watch by a force that could respond immediately and devastatingly to any aggression,’ the report noted. ‘Inside Iraq, the inspection teams preclude any significant advance in [weapons of mass destruction] capabilities. The status quo is safe for the American people.’

MoveOn also points out that General Norman Schwarzkopf “hasn’t seen enough evidence” to convince him that war is the right answer. Coming from the guy who won the first war with Iraq, that should be something the administration should take into consideration. Think it will?

It’s a shame Colin Powell has seemingly reversed his position and started supporting the war. He seemed ever so much more sensible when his views were more like Schwarzkopf’s.

Of course, it would be political suicide for Bush to back away from war now. So I guess we’ll have one anyway, so as not to unfairly damage his re-election prospects. Or should that be his re-steal-the-election prospects?