1 Boring Old Man

For clarity’s sake, we can summarize Mr. Bush’s policy in the Middle East: The way to deal with the Middle East is to crush their governments and turn them into something else, something more acceptible to American interests. His program for doing that involves four points: Preemption [unprovoked War], Unilateralism [don’t wait on the U.N.], Massive strength, and American Dominion through evangelical democracy [Regime change]. The theoretical underpinnings of that policy, expressed by Mr. Wolfowitz and later the Project for the New American Century harken to something called Reaganism – the notion that in the Reagan years, the Soviet Bloc was brought down by some similar stance by President Reagan. Also, to be noted, this policy is the longstanding policy of Israel, and is championed in our government by pro-Israeli elements in our government – among others. In addition, Bush’s ‘team’ is suffused by a number of people, including the Vice President, who feel that the Presidency has been weakened since the Nixon years [after Watergate]. A less obvious piece of this policy is the belief that "states" are behing the actions of the Terrorist groups in the Middle East, so we fight with "states" rather than the groups themselves. There are some instances where "states" have been taken over by these groups – Afghanistan [Taliban], Palestine [Hamas], and Lebanon [Hezbollah].

Many of us rant daily against this thinking and are called ‘Liberals’ – characterized as naive, do-gooders who think if we just keep turning the other cheek, everything will be just fine. They say we just don’t get it about the ‘evil’ in the hearts of man; don’t see that something called Radical Islam is organizing itself to destroy us; that we advocate pie-in-the-sky solutions when what is needed is bone and sinew from G.I. Joe – like in World War II. In the background, the implication is that we are simply sissies who are afraid to take the hard road of fighting for our way of life.

There are a few flaws is that way of thinking. The Communist Bloc fell from the weight of its own incompetence. Our part in it was patience and containment. We waited for 40 years, while checking it wherever possible. Our interventions were of more symbolic value that actually effective. We succeeded in stopping a sort-of Communist government from taking over all of Korea. We failed in Viet Nam. We had no effect on China. Our only real impact was in walking softly, but carrying a very large stick. Reagan happened to be President when the Communist State in Russia fell from its own weight.

Israel’s policy is one of survival. The state of Israel was injected into the Middle East, and was definitely ‘unwanted.’ Israel’s policy is the policy of a country that correctly sees itself as being always vulnerable to being attacked. They walk heavily with their big stick, and wield it at any provocation. It is a policy of Defense. At times, they have taken the Offense, and a lot of us oppose them when they do, but we can’t argue with their Defense Policy.

My point, however, is not about Mr. Bush’ beliefs or about the beliefs of his associates. I don’t agree with most of them, not for the reasons they say, but such disagreements are part and parcel of a democratic system. My point is about his [their] methods – lies and secrecy. A couple of examples [of many]:

What would be much more difficult would be to construct a table where columns two and three read the same about anything.

So my personal reasons for despising the Administration has two roots, that they simplify my own position into something absurd, and that they use lies and secrecy to get what they want. Legitimate powers granted to the President have been systematically coopted into a toolkit for bullyism and corruption. And John Bolton is the paradigm for what’s wrong with this Administration.

When Bolton comes around again, I hope even the most right winged Republican will realize that he is in no position to represent our country in the U.N.