The Cherry Orchard

I’m surprised I haven’t heard this suggestion — a completely serious one — more often as we Americans review our policy options following the collapse of Republican party support for President Bush, the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld and the release of the Iraq Study Group report. There is widespread agreement that we face no easy options in the Middle East, and I think a strong non-partisan case can be made that a Bush/Cheney resignation is in the best interest of national security. In fact, it could make all the difference for our future.

The Bush/Cheney administration has lost too much credibility with the American people to effectively govern for the next two years. Would any Fortune 500 company in the United States retain a CEO with this kind of track record? Of course not, and as former business executives both George Bush and Dick Cheney must see the simple truth here. Resignation should not be a last resort, nor need it be a disgrace. In fact, resignation may be Bush and Cheney’s best chance to avoid the disgrace of history. They tried, they failed, they moved aside. It would prove that they put the nation’s well-being above their own personal considerations.

How should it happen? Cheney should resign first, and Bush should work with Congress and party leaders to select an acceptable replacement (John McCain? Colin Powell? Neither have perfect records, but both could be trusted to carry out the duties of the office, as could many other experienced Republican politicians). Once the new Vice-President is in office, Bush should follow with his own resignation.

This happened once before, of course. In fact, it’s fascinating to look into an intriguing question — what exactly were the behind-the-scenes machinations that led to Vice-President Spiro Agnew’s exposure in a financial scandal and subsequent resignation in the midst of President Nixon’s Watergate scandal? The subtext was always clear: Agnew was widely disliked and distrusted, and an Agnew Presidency in the wake of Watergate was inconceivable. He had to be cleared out of the way before Nixon could resign (the fact that an Agnew scandal — unrelated to Watergate — was conveniently uncovered at this time seems almost too good to be true).

I’d like to write more about this aspect of the Watergate scandal in a future post here here. There are many interpretations of the Watergate affair, but I’ve always seen the whole mess as the necessary convulsion of a world power stuck in an unwinnable war. It was definitely about Vietnam — specifically, it was about getting us out of Vietnam, which Richard Nixon could not do because he was committed to past promises and beholden to a pro-military power base. Woodward, Bernstein, Segretti and Sirica … in the end, it all amounted to a peaceful coup d’etat that allowed our country to declare defeat in Vietnam and move on.

It’s 2006, and we need our Gerald Ford. Of course, it took many months of agonizing press/legislative hounding before Agnew and Nixon resigned, and I hope we wouldn’t have to work that hard to get rid of our current failed leaders. Perhaps Bush and Cheney could be persuaded by their own associates and trusted advisors to make the move that is clearly in the best interests of the United States of America. Nobody’s asked them yet if they will resign as a fair consequence of their mistakes. That seems like a good first step, so here goes: President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, will you please consider resigning so as to allow the United States of America to best move forward?

It was worth asking, but it will probably require trusted advisers closer to the White House to make a stronger case. Are they ready to ask the President this question? Take a look at this guy’s face and tell me if you see an answer there:

It’s ironic that, several months after starting this blog with the express purpose of allowing me to vent my thoughts and frustrations on political and global issues, I find myself so overflowing with things to write that I end up writing nothing at all. (And, yes, that is my excuse for not posting much here in the last couple of weeks).

I’ve spent more time in the last few weeks reading up on politics and keeping up with the latest news than I have in many years. I check several of the political blogs listed on the front page of this site many times a day (most often Daily Kos and Huffington Post), and I watch a lot of Jon Stewart (when I need to laugh) and Bill O’Reilly (when I need to get pissed off). But my characteristic ability to mouth off freely about politics is stunted. I have too much to say, and I don’t know what to say first, and sometimes it’s easier to just talk about books instead of “dwelling in the real”.

I’m sure this won’t be a permanent condition, though. The upcoming USA midterm elections have many people on edge (witness the hysterical tones of every political blog, television news show and newspaper these days), and I certainly can’t remember ever feeling like so much was at stake in an non-Presidential USA election. I believe our current Iraq policy is a disaster, and I do not believe our President or Vice-President have the courage to admit their mistakes. Thus, we need to elect a Congress and a Senate that can take decision-making power away from the Executive branch, and this is why November 7 is so important. I will not be able to rest easy until I am sure that George W. Bush will spend his last two years as a lame duck.

Let’s say the Democrats do take the House and the Senate — what next? Well, first of all, impeachment proceedings can wait, and may not even be worth the trouble and the distraction. Instead, I want the new Congress and Senate to quickly pass legislation withdrawing past Congressional support for our current Iraq war, and to set a firm timetable for the fastest exit possible. I’d then hope for the beginning of a new kind of battle, which we can call a Diplomatic War (because the United States electorate really does love war, so let’s call it a war) to build an international coalition that can continue to work with the moderates in Iraq and contain damages to the best possible degree. Our current administration has gotten an F in diplomacy from day one, so the new Congress and Senate will have to work hard to establish new diplomatic channels that do not fall under the influence of the Executive office.

I pray that we wake up on Wednesday, November 8 and discover that we have elected a new government of the United States of America.

I used to hope for things like world peace. My expectations have been battered lately; the most I can hope for right now is a fresh start. Hmm, five days away …

I’d just like to point to two posts on Daily Kos today:

Waterboarding. This is just a clip from a movie, but the illustration helps to understand what the word means. I could preach about this, but it’d be better if you just watch the short clip and come to your own conclusion.

Me Shooting My Mouth Off Again I read DailyKos regularly and I am fairly sympatico with most of the points of view represented there. However, I don’t feel confident that Democrats have a coherent strategy for 2006 (or 2008) and I think liberal/progressive activists should try to find every opportunity to de-politicize their message and appeal to a wider range of American voters. The big message for 2006 should be “WE NEED COMPETENT GOVERNMENT, AND THIS AIN’T IT”. Incompetence, incompetence, incompetence, incompetence. We don’t need any other charge to win elections, and liberals should stop over-prosecuting their case. I’ve posted about this a few times on Daily Kos and elsewhere. Sometimes I get nice reactions (big plus signs, which means people like what I said), and sometimes I get ignored. I’m pretty sure I’m right, either way.

You may have seen or heard about the controversial Bill Clinton interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News in which the former President scolded the conservative journalist for suggesting that Clinton did not do enough to combat Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda during his eight-year presidency.

The video is 10:01 minutes long but worth it (it gets real good around 5:47). Once you’ve watched this video, check out Keith Olbermann’s brave words about this altercation. Well said, Keith.

I’d like to add another perspective to the discussion of Bill Clinton’s legacy against terrorism. I haven’t heard others mention this recently, but it’s a fact that Clinton’s record as a peacemaker in the Middle East was second only to Jimmy Carter’s.

When Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin shook the hand of Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat in 1993, that was the inspired work of Bill Clinton and his team, including Secretary of State Warren Christopher and U. S. Envoy to the Middle East Dennis Ross, whose thick history book The Missing Peace provides an enlightening look at the hard, hard work it takes to end wars.

Do you remember the 1993 Rabin/Arafat handshake? All Americans felt proud at that moment, because our country had helped to bring about a change towards greater global understanding and justice. How far we’ve come since then!

Peace had been a growing trend (though a rocky road) in the Middle East during the years leading up to September 11 2001. The attacks on that day were a strike against the momentum towards peace. Those who loved war found eager partners in the George W. Bush/Dick Cheney administration, and the rest is history.

I don’t want to spend too much time writing about electoral politics here– I’m much more fascinated the undercurrents and assumptions that influence popular politics. But I do occasionally have something to say about electoral strategy, as in a short piece I wrote for Daily Kos last night. Here’s what I posted:

As opponents of the Iraq war across the USA hopefully await our chance to take back the White House in two years, we still hear disturbing rumbles that Democrats cannot find a clear position on the Iraq war, both past and future.

For instance, I have now heard from two different sources that Hillary Clinton can never be President — not, surprisingly, because she was married to Bubba, or because she’s a liberal woman. Hillary’s biggest problem right now, apparently, is that she voted to go to war against Iraq in 2002.

Democrats and liberals need to get past the unfair and inaccurate charge that we are “wishy-washy” on future policy in Iraq, or that politicians are “flip-floppers” because they voted to go to war in 2002. How do we get past this? Mainly, we need to focus on the terrible performance of the Bush/Cheney administration, their lack of planning, their lapses in judgement.

The lack of seriousness with which the Bush/Cheney administration has been conducting this ongoing war resonates with all Americans, red state or blue. For many Americans, the Iraq war didn’t go wrong when the tanks started rolling, but it went wrong when Baghdad fell and the occupying troops failed to prevent — or even encouraged — widespread looting. And it went more horribly wrong when we discovered what had been happening in Abu Ghraib.

Democrats, let’s stop arguing over who voted for or against the war in 2002. This war was an aberration and an injustice before it began, but that’s not why Americans hate this war. We hate the war because it is a disaster and a failure, and that’s not something any Democratic politician must bear responsibility for.

USA President George W. Bush appeared dejected and defensive in tonight’s televised address to the nation. The fight against Islamic fundamentalism, Bush said, will be the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st Century, but many viewers will wonder if the struggle against the type of antiquated chauvinism this president represents won’t be just as difficult.

“Incompetent” remains the best word to describe the presidency of George W. Bush, but “antiquated” is rising in the ranks as well. Evidence:

• Bush speaks of the children who lost parents on 9-11 as never being able to “hug their daddies”. Umm … mommies too, George?

• Bush urges Arabs to “leave the desert of despotism”, as if he doesn’t realize this type of quaint “Lawrence of Arabia” stereotyping has got to go.

• The man who barely knew the difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims when making the decision to invade Iraq now says that we will not leave the war until “the extremists” are defeated. This shows that he is still not well-informed about the situation in Iraq, in which “extremism” plays a minor role behind territorial and political confrontation.

• Our beloved president evokes World War II yet again, despite the fact that if he had been President in World War II he would probably have attacked Quisling or Petain instead of Hitler (that’s what his record against Bin Laden shows, anyway).

I recently posted a suggestion pleading with George Bush and Dick Cheney to just stop giving speeches, because the experience is incredibly painful and frustrating to those of us who have to listen. The decisive ideological struggle of the 21st Century will be against militarism, chauvinism and stupidity of all kinds, and George Bush better think about which side he’s on.

British author and social critic Martin Amis recently wrote a book called The War Against Cliche; it’s a pretty good book, and it’s a great title. As an author of fiction and poetry trying to turn my head towards the controversial topics of the day, I can relate to the title. When I write about world events I often feel myself fighting the war against cliche, and sometimes losing it.

What’s a writer to do? I am filled with disgust and anger towards a few world leaders whose decisions and statements seem too banal for tragedy and too predictable for comedy. I want to write about this, but I can come up with nothing to say that hasn’t been said before. But if I don’t write what I feel, I find myself unable to write anything at all. My anger is a clot, a clump.

So, let’s dive in. I have two subjects today, two influential global leaders who claim to be each other’s philosophical opposites: one is a religious fundamentalist and populist politician who embraces military solutions to human problems, whereas the other is a religious fundamentalist and populist politican who embraces military solutions to human problems. I’m speaking of George W. Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Bush administration has begun a new public relations initiative aimed at keeping Republican seats in the US Senate and Congress during the November midterm elections. Their speechwriters have now put the phrase “Islamic fascism” into regular rotation, and Vice-President Dick Cheney recently delivered a speech comparing the anti-war movement in the USA to the appeasement of Hitler before World War II.

As many before me have already said, the Bush administration does not have the credibility to make comparisons like this pass any type of inspection. The horrific results of the war in Iraq, begun in March 2003, betray a more obvious truth: this war was hastily planned and badly executed. The good citizens of the USA know that their current leadership is frighteningly incompetent, and many of us dread the damage that may be done in this administration’s remaining two years. As far as I’m concerned, Bush and Cheney are already lame ducks, and I earnestly plead that they cease delivering speeches. They have already insulted America’s honor with their reckless foreign policy; I beg that they stop insulting our intelligence.

The administration of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is no less reckless. Cartoonists and comedians in the USA like to portray the earnest fanatic as a clown, a madman, but in fact he is a career politician with over twenty-five years of experience in Iranian politics. It’s all too easy to laugh him off when he convenes a panel of academics to study whether or not the genocide of six million Jews in mid-20th Century Europe is a myth. We know that the Holocaust was all too real, as were other holocausts of modern times from Russia to China to Cambodia to Rwanda to Bosnia to Darfur. How shall I react to a politician like this? Ahmadinejad is all over the news: he is famously beginning a program of nuclear enrichment, he has declared that Israel has no right to exist, he has called for a purge of liberal intellectuals from Iranian universities. I believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a familar character from history. I don’t intend to bore my poor readers by beating this subject to death, but I do plan to use this site to watch his activities in the future.

Cliches? Yeah, I’ve got nothing but cliches to offer today. I hate when the world seems simplistic, but I’ve got to call the shots like I see them.

I’m not impressed with an article in the New York Times, 9-11 Polls Find Lingering Fears, which describes the citizens of New York City as jittery about the prospects of future terrorism.

This doesn’t describe any New Yorkers I know. Fear? We all face hazards every day, whether we live in cities or towns or off the grid completely. Our individuality and strength comes through in the way each of us react to these hazards.  Fear does not describe the looks I see on faces when I walk down the streets of New York City.

As the fifth anniversary of September 11, 2001 approaches, I have a feeling I’m going to be annoyed by many of the cliches I’m going to hear. I’ll try to avoid spouting any myself. What makes me angriest about the September 11 attacks was how incredibly successful they have proven to be for Al-Qaeda. We’ve been living in an Al-Qaeda world since that day. My own country, which I was once prouder of than I am right now, seems to be playing a grisly role in the cosmic comedy Osama Bin Laden and his associates orchestrated.

Fear? No.

Disgust? Anger? Strong, strong desire for change?

That’d be a yes.