Spreading the Word
February 1, 2006 - 8:00 AM
ToppleBush.com is a refreshing web site recently brought to my attention, one whose primary purpose is "exposing and actively resisting the Bush Administration." ToppleBush.com elaborates on this purpose by chastizing the Bush administration for its "disregard for law, separation of powers, and lack of accountability," and promises to "expose the incompetence, the politicization of almost every government function, the secrecy, the deliberate lack of transparency, the nonaccountability, and the disinformation in this administration - an administration that abuses the powers of crony capitalism to enrich itself, the GOP, and the wealthy, while dividing the rest of the nation on religion and wedge issues." Although the goal of unseating Bush in 2004 was not realized, the site continues its important work of exposing the fraudulent, illegal and manipulative tactics of the Bush administration, and it does so with an informative and entertaining mix of intelligent articles and humor.

Check it out today: http://www.topplebush.com (and be sure not to miss the hilarious "Blowback Mountain" poster)

A Quote for the Times
November 28, 2005 - 8:20 AM
"There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept away. The [public] can face peril or misfortune with fortitude and buoyancy. But they bitterly resent being deceived or finding that those responsible for their affairs are themselves dwelling in a fool's paradise."
-Winston Churchill

"Mr. President, You're Fired."
October 11, 2004 - 8:00 PM
We Americans have done it before, and there should be nothing preventing us from doing it again. In my own lifetime, I have witnessed this nation fire three U.S. presidents. First, it was the terminally bumbling Gerald Ford, who was ousted in 1976 in favor of Jimmy Carter. Four years later, it was Carter's turn to be let go, in what was a wholly undeserved termination by an American public enraptured with a former movie star. Next time around, it was Dubya's own father, George Herbert Walker Bush, a lackluster leader who fell into the job as Reagan's VP, and who never quite lived up to the beloved stature of his predecessor. With great hopes for the Clinton presidency, America eagerly fired the "Wimp" in 1992.

Now, the corporate board known as the American electorate is about to convene again. Despite being a president who to many is the most deserved of all time for an Oval Office eviction, George W. Bush remains neck and neck with John Kerry, with the election now only twenty-two days away. Actually, Bush held a sizeable lead just a few weeks ago, and until his miserable performance in the September 30 presidential "debate." Indeed, the President's inability to speak in fluid and complete sentences during that debate served well to highlight the nadir of American politics which is the Bush Presidency. For me, it is not sufficient that, following the debate, deflated Republicans merely acknowledged their disappointment with the President's poor performance. No, I cannot be content until Republicans join the rest of America (if not the world) in the mutual acknowledgement that George W. Bush has repeatedly demonstrated an intellectual deficiency incompatible with that of the office of President of the United States.

Don't get me wrong. George W. Bush is not an idiot, despite my frequent desire to label him as such every time he commits another one of his now-legendary blunders of articulation. He can't be an idiot because, for one thing, he can read. In his four years as President, however, he has not demonstrated any significant cerebral prowess beyond this basic skill. In fact, when without a written or teleprompted text of a speechwriter's remarks, Bush struggles painfully to express his thoughts. It's either that he is struggling, or it's that his thoughts are so fragmentary and simplistic that what comes out of his mouth is the best we can hope for. In either case, Bush's inability to speak on an impromptu basis is a functional disability, and one which is unacceptable for a President.

It is said that the Bush's "regular guy" personality, including failings such as his ineptness in speaking, appeals to the average American. For me, such a notion begs the question: Is the average American so small-minded that they don't expect above-average intelligence from the man entrusted to serve as leader of the United States, not to mention the free world?

Never mind that the President has lied to the American public, and that he refuses to acknowledge his rush to war in Iraq as a mistake. Never mind that he denigrates the U.S. armed forces by placing them in a pointless and dangerous war without adequate support and with no exit strategy. Never mind that the President's reckless actions have resulted in the deaths of over 1000 Americans and the maiming over 7000 more. Never mind that the President habitually mongers fear and paranoia to the American public. Never mind that the President places misleading labels on programs which in fact do the opposite of what these labels imply, such as the "Clear Skies Act," which in reality relaxes pollution standards and jeopardizes the environment. Never mind that he caters to the rich with unneeded tax cuts, while wreaking havoc on the working class, including managing to lose more jobs for America than any President in U.S. history. Never mind that he considers himself chosen by God to lead America, and that he disregards Constitutional tenets of separation of church and state in allowing his religious views to negatively influence decisions involving human rights and beneficial science. Never mind that the President has no intention of changing the perilous course on which he and his un-American neo-conservative cronies have steered this country in their fanatic pursuit of a global American empire. Never mind all of this and a lot more if you choose, but hold George W. Bush fully accountable for his chronic and regularly-demonstrated intellectual incompetence, a fundamental failing which is unforgiveable for a President of the United States.

November 2 is just around the corner, and America needs to have its pink-slip pad ready. It's never fun to have to let someone go, but when there is no other choice, we can't shirk our collective responsibility. It's time again for Americans to deliver the bad news to a President ...a message which George W. Bush can make no mistake in interpreting and which he will have no choice but to honor. It's a simple message...one which Americans need to voice in unison and resoundingly: "Mr. President, You're Fired."

Meet the Neo-Cons: Designers of the New American Empire
Exposing the Dangerous Brand of Thinking that Guides the George W. Bush Administration
September 4, 2004 - Noon

Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense

Donald Feith Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Lewis Libby Assistant to the President, Chief of Staff to VP Cheney

John Bolton Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security

Irving Kristol founding father of American neoconservatism

Norman Podhoretz Hudson Institute, retired editor of Commentary

Why did the United States invade Iraq? To fight terrorism, right? Wrong, try again. Because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was preparing to use them, right? Sorry, wrong again. These and many other reasons have been beaten into America's collective, mass perception of why we went into Iraq. The true reason we did so, however, is known to relatively few Americans, and the rest of America has bought into the fantasy and alternate reality masterfuly crafted and forced down our throats by the Bush administration. The true reason America invaded Iraq lies in the geopolitical philosophy known as neoconservatism, and the six invididuals shown above are some of America's leading subscribers and purveyors of this philosophy, four of whom are members of the Bush administration, and in positions of high influence.

Despite what is apparent harmony in the Republican party, and despite the President's comfortable post-convention bounce in opinion polls, there is an ongoing battle raging within the party between traditional conservatives and the neoconservatives, who in the minds of many Republicans are directly responsible through their influence on the President and others for the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq.

A few mornings ago on the Imus in the Morning show, conservative opinionist Pat Buchanan offered the following insight on the situation:

"The neo-conservatives have plotted and planned and propagandized and prepared for this war for years before 9/11...What happened of course was, they weren't getting anywhere until 9/11, and they tried to push the President into Iraq, and the President said "No, we're going to Afghanistan." But when that was done, he said "What do we do next?," and they had this thing all prepared. I think the President bought it, and I think Rumsfeld and Cheney had bought it, and they told him what a great day it would be when we arrived there, and I think they had their own motives for having gone in there, and I think it's turned out to be, frankly, it could be the worst blunder in forty years of American foreign policy. I think the people who got the President into this... people like [Paul] Wolfowitz, who is called the intellectual godfather of it by Time Magazine...I don't know why they're not out of there, because someone should take the responsibility for what the President concedes they were utterly unprepared for."

So, why were the neo-conservatives so intent on invading Iraq? The answer lies in the underlying philosophy and idealism of the neoconservative movement, which was founded by Irving Kristol. One can find and read Kristol's writings on the subject, but I prefer the more sensible and accurate view of the philosophy as offered by Pat Buchanan, who clearly considers the neoconservative movement a frightening fanatacism which is shaping American policy and needlessly getting Americans killed:

"[Neoconservatives] believe in an ideal that they call "benevolent global hegemony"...that the United States should seize this moment of preeminence and power to impose basically its ideology and beliefs and strength, and make itself something of a world empire, if not a great imperial power. Their focus of attention is the Middle East overwhelmingly. They are obsessed with it. They are militantly pro-Sharon, pro-Likud in Israel, and they basically believe our power oughta be used to knock over one after another after another of these Arab and Islamic governments that defy us and that are very unsavory. What they have done is taken over the instruments of the conservative movement, very effectively. They network well. They work together, they have very high energy, and they've taken over the think tanks like American Enterprise Institute, the magazines National Review, Commentary, the Weekly Standard...100% neo-con, the New Republic. In the administration you will find the prominent names are [Paul] Wolfowitz and [Douglas] Feith...at the Pentagon, [Lewis] Libby... [John] Bolton at the Department of State...The Wall Street Journal under Robert Bartley...it's editorial page is far more neo-con than it is old right. For example they believe that there should be open borders...that everybody should cross everybody else's borders freely. To me, this is insanity. It means the end of this country.

"These are the folks who are in battle with the traditional conservatives who came out of the Goldwater/Reagan movements...They've redefined conservatism in their own way, but it's not conservatism. It believes in big government, open borders, global free trade, intervention in wars that are none of our business...it believes in empire. The great struggle inside the Republican party is gonna come, especially if the President loses, it is gonna be a battle to the death just like the old Goldwater/Rockefeller battle.

"...Our [greatest] objection is to their warmongering. Norman Podhoretz is a famous neo-conservative. He's got a magazine, and the cover of it is, this is called the bible of the neo-cons, is "World War IV." ... If you read an article of his from about two years ago, he names about six or seven countries that we have to attack. Now in whose interest are all of these wars? I mean, we're gonna take all of these American kids and send them over to fight all of these Islamic peoples who are very militant and rising, and get 'em all killed, for what? We are the greatest, strongest, freest country on Earth, we have nothing to gain by war. It should be the business of this country now that the Cold War is over to be the peacemaker of the world, and to get out of these endless quarrels and battles, just as Washington and Jefferson and Quincy Adams and these people taught us. We are following the path of the British Empire to the same end. This is the great battle, in my judgement, of our time, and the neo-conservatives have a very, very powerful influence in this administration, and it has not been for the good."

Now mind you, I really never thought I would find myself agreeing with or quoting Pat Buchanan, but his comments and observations on our current American political nightmare are so on target that I was compelled to share them. Every American should sit up and take notice of the neo-cons and their agenda, which undermines the very foundation of this country and which is in such contrast to the intentions of our founding fathers, that it is not inaccurate to label it (the neoconservative movement) as fundamentally un-American. In a perfect world, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Bolton and others would not only be fired, they would be arrested and tried for treason. Of course, I don't at all excuse Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in what has transpired. There had to exist a mind set of willingness that allowed the neo-cons to wield such influence, and let's not forget the personal grudge George W. Bush held against Saddam Hussein for plotting to kill his father.

So, what is the man in the street to make of all of this? Well, if you are a Republican, the lesson to take home is that you are supporting a party which has been overtaken by extremists and whose core values have been superseded by those of the neoconservative persuasion...values that call for a continued "benevolent" march to war in order to build a crazed notion of an American global empire. If you are a Democrat, the important thing to keep in mind is that this is an election like no other. We aren't up against your typical wingtip-wearing, pro-big-business, environment-raping, racist, homophobic, anti-education, anti-poor, anti-health-care right-wingers this time around. Hell, we aren't even up against a Republican party dominated by the religious right, although the Bible-thumpers no doubt will play the most significant role in a George Bush re-election as they blithely swallow every line the party feeds them, and of course as they cling to their unending obsession on the sanctity of a fertilized egg cell in the womb. This time, it's a far scarier scenario, and one about which we had little forewarning four years ago when we thought Al Gore would easily defeat George Bush. This time, the stakes are far higher.

If there is anything at all about which a Democrat can be optimistic at the moment, particularly following Bush's surprising eleven-point lead over Kerry in two separate post-convention polls, it's the unlikely hope that Bush has learned from his mistakes, and that if he wins re-election (a prospect that now seems likely), he will move to rid his administration of the neoconservatives who have so dreadfully misguided and misled it. If Bush is listening to his father, I have little doubt he is hearing advice to this effect. Given the now-likely prospect of another four years of George W. Bush, this is sadly about the best we can hope for at the present time.

Links on Neoconservatism:

• How Neoconservatives Conquered Washington and Launched a War, by Michael Lind
• Neoconservatism Made Kristol Clear, by Michael Tennant
• Neocon Treason, by Paul Craig Roberts
• Where the Right Went Wrong, by Patrick J. Buchanan (Amazon.com link)

A Passionate Exposé on the New American Extremism (But Is America Listening?)
President Jimmy Carter's Remarks to the Democratic National Convention
July 27, 2004 - 8AM

Former President Bill Clinton stole the show last night at the Democratic Convention with an astoundingly convincing and compelling argument for change in America's leadership. The line of the night was delivered in a stinging response to Bush's claim that Kerry and Edwards would be weak choices, when Clinton wagged his finger and provoked a roar of approval from the audience with the response, "Strength and wisdom are not opposing values."

As brilliant as Clinton's speech was, there was another notable speech delivered at the convention yesterday evening by a former President, one that shone a much-needed light on the realities of the Bush administration, specifically with regard to extremism, intellectual and political immaturity, dishonesty and manipulation of the public for political gain. Here is the entire text of the remarks made by President Jimmy Carter at the Democratic National Convention in Boston on Monday night, July 26, 2004:

My name is Jimmy Carter, and I’m not running for president. But here’s what I will be doing: everything I can to put John Kerry in the White House with John Edwards right there beside him.

Twenty-eight years ago I was running for president, and I said then, “I want a government as good and as honest and as decent and as competent and as compassionate as are the American people.” I say this again tonight, and that is exactly what we will have next January with John Kerry as president of the United States.

As many of you know, my first chosen career was in the United States Navy, where I served as a submarine officer. At that time, my shipmates and I were ready for combat and prepared to give our lives to defend our nation and its principles.

At the same time, we always prayed that our readiness would preserve the peace. I served under two presidents, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, men who represented different political parties. Both of whom had faced their active military responsibilities with honor.

They knew the horrors of war, and later, as commanders-in-chief, they exercised restraint and judgment and had a clear sense of mission. We had confidence that our leaders, military and civilian, would not put our soldiers and sailors in harm’s way by initiating “wars of choice” unless America’s vital interests were endangered.

We also were sure that these presidents would not mislead us when it came to issues involving our nation’s security. Today, our Democratic party is led by another former naval officer­one who volunteered for military service. He showed up when assigned to duty, and he served with honor and distinction.

He also knows the horrors of war and the responsibilities of leadership, and I am confident that next January he will restore the judgment and maturity to our government that is sorely lacking today. I am proud to call Lieutenant John Kerry my shipmate, and I am ready to follow him to victory in November.

As you know, our country faces many challenges at home involving energy, taxation, the environment, education, and health. To meet these challenges, we need new leaders in Washington whose policies are shaped by working American families instead of the super-rich and their armies of lobbyists. But the biggest reason to make John Kerry president is even more important. It is to safeguard the security of our nation.

Today, our dominant international challenge is to restore the greatness of America­based on telling the truth, a commitment to peace, and respect for civil liberties at home and basic human rights around the world. Truth is the foundation of our global leadership, but our credibility has been shattered and we are left increasingly isolated and vulnerable in a hostile world. Without truth­without trust­America cannot flourish. Trust is at the very heart of our democracy, the sacred covenant between the president and the people.

When that trust is violated, the bonds that hold our republic together begin to weaken. After 9/11, America stood proud, wounded but determined and united. A cowardly attack on innocent civilians brought us an unprecedented level of cooperation and understanding around the world. But in just 34 months, we have watched with deep concern as all this goodwill has been squandered by a virtually unbroken series of mistakes and miscalculations. Unilateral acts and demands have isolated the United States from the very nations we need to join us in combating terrorism.

Let us not forget that the Soviets lost the Cold War because the American people combined the exercise of power with adherence to basic principles, based on sustained bipartisan support. We understood the positive link between the defense of our own freedom and the promotion of human rights. Recent policies have cost our nation its reputation as the world’s most admired champion of freedom and justice. What a difference these few months of extremism have made!

The United States has alienated its allies, dismayed its friends, and inadvertently gratified its enemies by proclaiming a confused and disturbing strategy of “preemptive” war. With our allies disunited, the world resenting us, and the Middle East ablaze, we need John Kerry to restore life to the global war against terrorism.

In the meantime, the Middle East peace process has come to a screeching halt for the first time since Israel became a nation. All former presidents, Democratic and Republican, have attempted to secure a comprehensive peace for Israel with hope and justice for the Palestinians. The achievements of Camp David a quarter century ago and the more recent progress made by President Bill Clinton are now in peril.

Instead, violence has gripped the Holy Land, with the region increasingly swept by anti-American passions. Elsewhere, North Korea’s nuclear menace­a threat far more real and immediate than any posed by Saddam Hussein­has been allowed to advance unheeded, with potentially ominous consequences for peace and stability in Northeast Asia. These are some of the prices of our government’s radical departure from the basic American principles and values espoused by John Kerry!

In repudiating extremism we need to recommit ourselves to a few common-sense principles that should transcend partisan differences. First, we cannot enhance our own security if we place in jeopardy what is most precious to us, namely, the centrality of human rights in our daily lives and in global affairs. Second, we cannot maintain our historic self-confidence as a people if we generate public panic. Third, we cannot do our duty as citizens and patriots if we pursue an agenda that polarizes and divides our country. Next, we cannot be true to ourselves if we mistreat others. And finally, in the world at large we cannot lead if our leaders mislead.

You can’t be a war president one day and claim to be a peace president the next, depending on the latest political polls. When our national security requires military action, John Kerry has already proven in Vietnam that he will not hesitate to act. And as a proven defender of our national security, John Kerry will strengthen the global alliance against terrorism while avoiding unnecessary wars.

Ultimately, the issue is whether America will provide global leadership that springs from the unity and integrity of the American people or whether extremist doctrines and the manipulation of truth will define America’s role in the world.

At stake is nothing less than our nation’s soul. In a few months, I will, God willing, enter my 81st year of my life, and in many ways the last few months have been some of the most disturbing of all. But I am not discouraged. I do not despair for our country. I believe tonight, as I always have, that the essential decency, compassion and common sense of the American people will prevail.

And so I say to you and to others around the world, whether they wish us well or ill: do not underestimate us Americans. We lack neither strength nor wisdom. There is a road that leads to a bright and hopeful future. What America needs is leadership. Our job, my fellow Americans, is to ensure that the leaders of this great country will be John Kerry and John Edwards. Thank you and God bless America!

Thoughts on the "Texas Bandito"
July 11, 2004 - 7:30 PM
One thing is certain following the star-studded Democratic fundraiser in New York a few nights ago, and it's that John Mellencamp probably won't be receiving any invitations to perform at the Bush White House. Perhaps calling the President a "cheap thug" in the song Mellencamp performed is a bit over the top, but it's a remarkable example of the intensity of the anger in this country currently directed at George W. Bush by a significant percentage of the public. Indeed, I can personally say that I have never held such contempt for any president in my lifetime as I do for Bush. For one thing, I have never felt that the American system of democracy has ever been so threatened as it is under this administration. Don't get me wrong. I rallied behind the President in the wake of 9/11, and I felt that Bush did an admirable job in speaking for all Americans in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. Little did I realize at the time, however, that while our nation was licking its wounds, President Bush was licking his chops. Rather than mounting a genuine effort to shore up American defenses, and rather than pursuing a consistent course of action against those who attacked us, President Bush exploited our collective sense of helplessness and vulnerability with a series of opportunistic distractions which have undermined many basic American rights, which continue to ignore serious security weaknesses in our nation's infrastructure, which have sadly resulted in the pointless deaths of nearly a thousand young American soldiers (not to mention the crippling and maiming of thousands more), and finally, which have outraged the entire world, and of course have intensified multifold the anger already directed at the United States from the Arab world, an anger stemming from our unwavering support of Israel. It is truly astounding in the wake of recent events to hear the President continue to claim that the "world is a safer place" with Saddam Hussein removed from power. Absolute bullshit.

"Find me a way." Those are the four words that tell us all we need to know. These are in fact the words that President Bush uttered to his advisors regarding invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein from power, and he spoke these words many months before September 11, 2001. Would we have invaded Iraq had 9/11 not occurred? Perhaps. In any case, once those planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, there was no stopping George W. Bush in his burning desire to topple Saddam. As we now know, and as many suspected at the time, the truth was the first casualty on the road to Iraq. There were no "weapons of mass destruction," Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on New York City and Washington D.C., and Saddam Hussein posed no significant threat to the United States. Bush did "find a way," and that way was to play on the fears of all Americans shell-shocked by 9/11, and to essentially fabricate a case for war on Iraq, a case for which now George Tenet and the CIA are serving as a scapegoat.

Post-9/11 opportunism wasn't limited to an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation however, as Bush also seized upon American fears and paranoia in ramrodding into law the so-called "Patriot Act." The Patriot Act is, ironically, anything but "patriotic," as it runs profoundly against the grain of American values, primarily that of privacy. Indeed, the Patriot Act grants our government an unprecedented ability to probe into the private lives and habits of all Americans, all in the name, of course, of "preserving our liberties."

There are a good number of things about George W. Bush that I find reprehensible and disgraceful, including of course that he lied to the country to pursue a personal vendetta. The truly scary thing about this President, however, is what seems to be his basic disconnect with the principles on which this country was founded, as well as basic tenets of the American system such as separation of church and state. Bush speaks of "freedom" and "liberty" ad naseum, but his actions are in utter disregard for these American ideals, and in his reckless desire to topple a petty Middle Eastern dictator, he has done more to needlessly jeopardize American lives than any President in our history. Even scarier is that a significant number of Americans, perhaps a majority, are willing to return George W. Bush to office despite all of this. In one hundred and fourteen days, we will learn our collective American fate.

"What, Me Worry?"
June 17, 2004 - 7:30 AM
Yet another blow has been dealt to President Bush's foundation argument for the invasion of Iraq, with word yesterday from the President's own 9/11 commission that there is no credible evidence of any link between Saddam Hussein and the September 11, 2001 attacks on America. Despite this finding, and despite their ability to produce a single shred of supporting evidence, the administration continues to insist that a link exists. Such stubbornness is really no surprise at this point, as I think that Americans are generally growing accustomed to the obvious disconnect between the Bush administration and the concept known as reality. Indeed, with approval ratings sinking rapidly, there is more than a hint of desperation in the air these days from the Bush team. Many are beginning to think that Bush is already "toast" at this point, and that he has already lost the election. The death of Ronald Reagan certainly didn't help Bush, as the week-long memorial served not as a rallying opportunity for Republicans, but instead as a reminder to Americans of what it means to be "presidential." Indeed, the nail in the coffin may be delivered this coming Friday when Michael Moore's scathing documentary on Bush's rush to war in Iraq, "Fahrenheit 9/11," opens in theaters across the United States. Commercials for the film are already running on television, and chills are already running down my spine from what I have seen. Yesterday evening, I watched the trailer for the film at MoveOnPAC.Org, which among other disturbing scenes, shows President Bush mixing comments about terrorism with jokes about his golf swing. According to reviews of the film, there are many similarly startling candid scenes of Bush, including shots of him carrying on like a silly teenager moments before he went on live television to announce to the nation the Iraq invasion. Speaking of reviews, I nearly fell out of my chair when I read this review of the film from, of all places, foxnews.com. Yes, as hard as it is to believe, Roger Friedman of the notoriously conservative Fox News Network heaps praise on the documentary as "a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty - and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice." Hopefully, reviews like this one from such an unexpected source will encourage more Americans to see Moore's film, and will help in achieving a majority of Americans who recognize that the emperor has no clothes. Although Election Day is still five months away, I am growing more optimistic each day that this charade of a U.S. presidency is mercifully nearing an end.

I'll close this brief entry with a surprising comment from my mother, made while watching on television last Friday the Reagan funeral service at the National Cathedral. As President George W. Bush reviewed and lauded a series of specific accomplishments of Ronald Reagan during his presidency, my mother suddenly commented, "He ought to say one more thing...That he did all of this without firing a shot."   Hear, hear.

Our American Crusade
April 24, 2004 - 11AM
When I began this blog a few weeks ago, it was not my intention to dwell on politics. Recent events continue to be so troubling, however, that it is difficult to write anything here and not discuss politics. Clearly emerging in the Bush administration is a doctrine of democratization of the world, specifically the Middle East, coupled with a recurring, dangerous mix of nationalism and religion. Lacking authorization in the U.S. Constitution for such a duty, President Bush has cited a "higher" authority calling on him to "spread freedom" around the world. In his April 13 press conference alone, he repeatedly made mention of this "calling," as evidenced in the quotes below:

"That's why it's important for us to spread freedom throughout the Middle East... So long as I'm the president, I will press for freedom... I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world... And as the greatest power on the face of the earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom... And we have an obligation to work toward a more free world. That's our obligation. That is what we have been called to do, as far as I'm concerned."

This "calling," of course, is not the reason we went to war, but it is increasingly being cited as a justification after the fact, particularly since the originally-stated reasons turned out to be invalid.

"We're changing the world, and the world will be better off....I was very clear about what I believed... I still know Saddam Hussein was a threat. And the world is better off without Saddam Hussein... I also know that there's an historic opportunity here to change the world. And it's very important for the loved ones of our troops to understand that the mission is an important, vital mission for the security of America and for the ability to change the world for the better... Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein."

I never thought I would be quoting Pat Buchanan, but he hit the nail on the head the other day when he said "We cannot re-create Vermont in Mesopotamia with American arms." Indeed. Why should we for one minute assume that a culture so foreign to our own is going to embrace our notions of freedom and democracy, particularly when the driving force behind our intentions, as stated by the President of the United States, is a divine calling?

In light of what has transpired with regard to Iraq, and considering recent statements made by President Bush offering justification and motivation for his actions, I believe that all Americans should ask themselves these questions (and many more):

• Is there anything in the Constitution of the United States, in the Presidential oath of office, or elsewhere, that charges the President of the United States with the responsibility of spreading the American notion of freedom around the world?
• Is there any language in the Constitution or elsewhere that authorizes the President to utilize the U.S. military in acting on perceived "callings" from God?

Kipp Teague
www.retroweb.com

Feedback?