I Am NOT Alone!

I confess: I have been harsh with our Moron-in-Chief, George W. Bush. However, Professor Robert S. McElvaine is as sick of The Dubster as I am. I think that Professor McElvaine would support the impeachment of George W. Bush. The time has come. Impeach Now! Good and decent men and women are dying in Iraq because of this fool. If this is (fair & balanced) treason, so be it.

[x HNN]
"You’re Doin’ a Heck of a Job, Rummy!”
By Robert S. McElvaine

You're doin' a heck of a job Rummy! That, in essence, is what President Bush said in a prepared statement after six retired generals had taken the unprecedented step of calling for the removal of Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary because of his mishandling of the war in Iraq.

Anyone who believes that Rumsfeld is doing a good job hasn't been paying attention. He has been arrogantly wrong from the start, refusing to send enough troops or body armor and having no plan for fighting an insurgency. Republican strategist Mary Matalin unintentionally spoke the truth recently on the Today show: "Rumsfeld's done an incredible job." Exactly: literally incredible.

Rumsfeld has, in the assessment of Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of the U.S. Central Command, turned our top military officials into "Stepford generals." Those who do not scream with delight at what he does to them and shout, "You're the champion!" are dismissed.

"We've made tactical errors-thousands of them, I'm sure," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently said. But, she insisted, the Bush administration made "the right strategic decision." Which is to say: The military isn't doin' much of a job, but we in the administration are doin' a heck of job.

Ms. Rice has it just backwards. The American military is doing a tremendous job in a horrible situation into which this administration needlessly put it. It is precisely the strategic decisions that have been totally wrong from the start.

You're doin' a heck of a job, Condi!

Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz rejected Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki's pre-war estimate that it might require several hundred thousand U.S. troops as "wildly off the mark." Shinseki turned out to be on the mark and Wolfowitz wildly off it. The Bush administration publicly criticized Shinseki and forced him out; Wolfowitz was rewarded with presidency of the World Bank.

You're doin' a heck of a job, Wolfie!

Vice President Dick Cheney, the Liar-in-Chief, claimed-indeed, he continues to claim-that Saddam was connected to the 9-11 attacks, although there has never been the slightest indication that it is true. Cheney predicted that our troops would be greeted as liberators, that the war would be over in a few weeks, and that its cost would be negligible and paid for by Iraqi oil revenues. Almost a year ago, he declared that the Iraqi insurgency was "in its final throes."

"The commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions - or bury the results," retired Marine Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold has said of Cheney and other architects of this war of bad choice.

Mr. Cheney had "other priorities" during Vietnam, but is eager to send others off to die in a war on which he has been wrong on every count.

You're doin' a heck of a job, Dickie!

Then there is the man who followed the Neo-conmen. George W. Bush squandered the support of the world after 9-11 by manipulating intelligence and giving false reasons for going to war. He led the United States into "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy."

Bush leaked misinformation about Iraq attempting to buy uranium while he kept classified the correct, contrary information. He proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" three years ago. He said if insurgents wanted to attack American troops, "Bring it on," that he would go to war again even knowing that Saddam had no WMD, that he would do it with the same number of troops . . . . The list goes on.

You're doin' a heck of a job, Dubya!

Robert S. McElvaine is a Professor of History at Millsaps College. He is the author of Eve’s Seed: Biology, the Sexes, and the Course of History.

Copyright © 2006 History News Network

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

The Frankster Is Rich Today

Like so many things that have confronted the Bushies, 9/11 has been frittered away as a force to unite this country. Osama bin Laden still is at large and he mocks us. Instead, thanks to the Bushies, we are in the quagmire that is Iraq. Osama bin Laden is not in Iraq. He never was and he (probably) never will be. All of our resources — particularly young military voluneers — have been squandered where Osama isn't. What if those forces had been sent to Afghanistan and Pakistan to find Osama dead or alive? Then, and only then, would we have redeemed part of what we lost on 9/11. As Commander-in-Chief, Dub should be relieved of command for incompetence. Men and women are dying daily in that small bit of Hell known as Iraq. Impeach now, not later! If this is (fair & balanced) truth, so be it.

Too Soon? It's Too Late for 'United 93'
By Frank Rich

Don't feel guilty if you, like most Americans, have not run or even walked to see "United 93." The movie that has been almost unanimously acclaimed as a rite of patriotism second only to singing the national anthem in English is clinical to the point of absurdity: it reduces the doomed and brave Americans on board to nameless stick figures with less personality than the passengers in "Airport." Rather than deepening our knowledge of them or their heroism, the movie caps an hour of air-controller nail-biting with a tasteful re-enactment of the grisly end.

But it's not a total waste. The debate that preceded the film's arrival actually does tell us something about the war on terror. The two irrelevant questions that were asked over and over — Does "United 93" exploit the tragedy? Was it made too soon? — reveal just how adrift we are from reality as we head toward the fifth anniversary of the attacks.

The answer to the first question is yes, of course "United 93" exploits 9/11. It's a Hollywood entertainment marketed to make a profit, with a smoking World Trade Center on its poster as a gratuitous selling tool and a trailer cunningly deployed to drum up pre-premiere controversy (a k a publicity) by ambushing Manhattan audiences. The project's unappetizing commercialism is not mitigated by Universal Pictures' donation of 10 percent of the opening weekend's so-so proceeds to a memorial at the site of the crash in Shanksville, Pa. Roughly 50 times that sum is needed to build the memorial (and its cost is peanuts next to the planned $1 billion extravaganza in New York).

Still, a movie that exploits 9/11 is business as usual. This is America, for heaven's sake. "United 93" is merely the latest in a long line of such products and relatively restrained at that. This film doesn't use documentary images of shrouded remains being borne from ground zero, as the Bush-Cheney campaign ads did two years ago. And it isn't cheesy like the first fictional 9/11 movie, Showtime's "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis," in 2003. That dog, produced with White House cooperation and larded with twin-tower money shots, starred Timothy Bottoms as a derring-do President Bush given to pronouncements like "If some tinhorn terrorist wants me, tell him to come get me!" It's amazing that it hasn't found an honored place beside "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" as a campy midnight perennial.

As for the second question in the "United 93" debate, it's disturbing that it was asked at all. Is this movie too soon? Hardly: it's already been preceded by two TV movies about the same flight. The question we should be asking instead is if its message comes too late.

Whatever the movie's other failings, that message is clear and essential: the identity of the enemy. The film opens with the four hijackers praying to Allah and, in keeping with the cockpit voice recording played at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial, portrays them as prayerful right until they murder 40 innocent people. Such are the Islamic radicals who struck us on 9/11 and whose brethren have only multiplied since.

Yet how fleeting has been their fame. Thanks to the administration's deliberate post-9/11 decision to make the enemy who attacked us interchangeable with the secular fascists of Iraq who did not, the original war on terrorism has been diluted in its execution and robbed of its support from the American public. Brian Williams seemed to be hinting as much when, in effusively editorializing about "United 93" on NBC (a sister company of Universal), he suggested that "it just may be a badly needed reminder for some that we are a nation at war because of what happened in New York and Washington and in this case in a field in Pennsylvania." But he stopped short of specifying exactly what war he meant, and that's symptomatic of our confusion. When Americans think about war now, they don't think about the war prompted by what happened on 9/11 so much as the war in Iraq, and when they think about Iraq, they don't say, "Let's roll!," they say, "Let's leave!"

Frank Rich's opinion column appears in the Sunday issue of The Times.

Copyright © 2006 The New York Times Company

Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google at Google Reader. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.