Guest guest Posted August 20, 2004 Report Share Posted August 20, 2004 > xyz > Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:41:37 -0700 > With Trembling Fingers > > WITH TREMBLING FINGERS > > By Hal Crowther > > I used to take a drink on occasion with a > network newsman famed for > his impenetrable calm -- his apparent pulse rate > that of a large mammal > in deep hibernation -- and in an avuncular moment he > advised me that I'd > do all right, in the long run, if I could only avoid > the kind of > journalism committed to the keyboard " with trembling > fingers. " I > recognized the wisdom of this advice and endeavored > over the years to > write as little as possible when my blood pressure > was soaring and my > face was streaked with tears. > > > The lava flows of indignation ebb predictably with > age and hardening > arteries, and nearing three-score I thought I'd > never have to take > another tranquilizer -- or a double bourbon -- to > keep my fingers steady > on the keys. I never imagined 2004. It would be > sophomoric to say that > there was never a worse year to be an American. My > own memory preserves > the dread summer of 1968. My parents suffered the > consequences of 1941 > and 1929, and my grandfather Jack Allen, who lived > through all those > dark years, might > have added 1918, with the flu epidemic and the Great > War in France that > each failed, very narrowly, to kill him. Drop back > another generation or > two and we encounter 1861. > But if this is not the worst year yet to be an > American, it's the worst > year by far to be one of those hag-ridden wretches > who comment on the > American scene. The columnist who trades in snide > one-liners flounders > like a stupid comic with a tired audience; TV > comedians and talk-show > hosts who try to treat 2004 like any zany election > year have > become grotesque, almost loathsome. Our most > serious, responsible > newspaper columnists are so stunned by the > disasterin Iraq that they've > begun to quote poetry by Rupert Brooke and Wilfred > Owen. They lower > their voices; they sound like Army chaplains > delivering eulogies over > ranks of flag-draped coffins, under a hard rain from > an > iron sky. Yeats' " blood-dimmed tide is loosed. " The > war news has already > deteriorated from bad to tragic to pre-apocalyptic, > which leaves no > suitable category for these excruciating reports on > the sexual torture > of Iraqi prisoners. Fingers, be still. In less than > a year, the morale > of the occupying forces has sunk so low that murder, > suicide, rape and > sexual harassment have become alarming statistics, > and now the warriors > of democracy -- the emissaries of civilization -- > stand accused of every > crime this side of cannibalism. Osama bin Laden has > always anathematized > America's culture, as well as its geopolitical > influence. To him these > atrocities are a sign of Allah's certain favor, a > great moral victory, a > vindication of his deepest anger and darkest crimes. > > > Where does it go from here? The nightmare > misadventure in Iraq is over, > beyond the reach of any reasonable argument, though > many more body bags > will be filled. In Washington, chicken hawks will > still be squawking > about " digging in " and winning, but Vietnam proved > conclusively that no > modern war of occupation will ever be won. > (Vietnam clip) Every occupation is doomed. The only > way you " win " a war > of occupation is the old-fashioned way, the way Rome > finally defeated > the Carthaginians: kill all the fighters, enslave > everyone else, raze > the cities and sow the fields with salt. > Otherwise the occupied people will fight you to the > last peasant, and > why shouldn't they? If our presidential election > fails to dislodge the > crazy bastards who annexed Baghdad, many of us in > this country would > welcome regime change by any intervention, human or > divine. But if, say, > the Chinese came in to rescue us -- Operation > American Freedom -- > how long would any of us, left-wing or right, put up > with an occupying > army teaching us Chinese-style democracy? A > guerrilla who opposes an > invading army on his own soil is not a terrorist, > he's a resistance > fighter. In Iraq we're not fighting enemies but > making enemies. As > Richard Clarke and others have observed, every > dollar, bullet and > American life that we spend in Iraq is one that's > not being spent in the > war on terrorism. > Every Iraqi, every Muslim we kill or torture or > humiliate is a precious > shot of adrenaline for Osama and al Qaeda. The > irreducible truth is that > the invasion of Iraq was the worst > blunder, the most staggering miscarriage of > judgment, the most fateful, > egregious, deceitful abuse of power in the history > of American foreign > policy. If you don't believe it yet, just keep > watching. Apologists > strain to dismiss parallels with Vietnam, but the > similarities are stunning. In every action our > soldiers kill innocent > civilians, and in every other action apparent > innocents kill our > soldiers -- and there's never any way to sort them > out. And now these > acts of subhuman sadism, these little My Lais. > > Since the defining moment of the Bush presidency, > the preposterous > flight-suit, Fox News-produced photo-op on the USS > Abraham Lincoln in > front of the banner that read " Mission > Accomplished, " the shaming truth > is that everything has gone wrong. Just as it was > bound to go wrong, as > many of us predicted it would go wrong -- if > anything, more > hopelessly wrong than any of us would have dared to > prophesy. Iraq is an > epic train wreck, and there's not a single American > citizen who's going > to walk away unscathed. > The shame of this truth, of such a failure and so > much deceit exposed, > would have brought on mass resignations or votes of > no confidence in any > free country in the world. In Japan not long ago, > there would have been > ritual suicides, shamed officials disemboweling > themselves with Samurai > swords. Yet up to this point -- at least to the > point where we see > grinning soldiers taking pictures of each other over > piles of naked > Iraqis -- neither the president, the vice president > nor any of the > individuals who urged and designed this debacle have > resigned or been > terminated -- or even apologized. They have betrayed > no familiarity with > the concept of shame. Thousands of young Americans > are dead, maimed or > mutilated, XXX billions of dollars have been wasted > and all we've gained > is a billion new enemies and a mouthful of dust -- > of sand. Chaos > reigns, but in > the midst of it we have this presidential election. > George Bush has > defined himself as a war president, and it's fitting > that the war should > be his undoing. But even now the damned polls don't > guarantee, or even > indicate, his demise. Conventional wisdom says that > an incumbent > president with a $200 million war chest cannot be > defeated, and that one > who commands a live, bleeding, suffering army in the > field is doubly > invincible. By > this logic, the most destructively incompetent > president since Andrew > Johnson will be rewarded with a second term. That > would probably mean a > military draft and more wars in the oil countries, > and, under > visionaries like Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, a > chance for the USA to > emulate 19th-century Paraguay, which simultaneously > declared war on > Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay and fought ferociously > until 90% of the male > population was dead. What hope then? Impeachment is > impossible when the > president's party controls both houses of Congress, > though Watergate > conspirator John Dean, who ought to know, claims in > his new book that > there are compelling legal arguments for a half > dozen bills of > impeachment against George W. Bush. Peer pressure? > At the White House, > world opinion gets no more respect than FBI memos or > uncomfortable > facts. Many Americans seem unaware that scarcely > anyone on the planet > Earth supported the Iraq adventure, no one anywhere > except the 40-50 > million Republican loyalists who > voted for George Bush in 2000. Among significant > world leaders he > recruited only Great Britain's Tony Blair -- whose > career may be ruined > because most Britons disagree with him -- and the > abominable Ariel > Sharon, that vile tub of blood and corruption who > recently used > air-to-ground missiles to assassinate a paraplegic > in a wheelchair at > the door of his mosque. (Palestinians quickly > squandered any sympathy or > moral advantage they gained from this atrocity by > strapping a retarded > 16-year-old into a suicide > bomber's kit. Such is the condition of the human > race in the Middle > East, variously known as the Holy Land or the Cradle > of Civilization.) > Says Sharon, oleaginously, of Bush: " Something in > his soul committed him > to act with great courage against world terror. " > The rest of the known > world, along with the United Nations, has been dead > set against us from > the start. But they carry no weight. Thanks to our > tax dollars and the > well-fed, strong but not bulletproof bodies of our > children -- though > mostly children from lower-income families -- George > Bush and his lethal > team of oil pirates, Cold Warriors and Likudists > commands the most > formidable military machine on earth. No nation, > with the possible > exception of China, would ever dare to oppose them > directly. But the > Chinese aren't coming to save us. Nothing and no one > can stop these > people except you and me, and the other 100 million > or so American > citizens who may vote in the November election. This > isn't your > conventional election, the usual dim-witted, > media-managed Mister > America contest where candidates vie for charm and > style points and > hire image coaches to help them act more confident > and presidential. > This is a referendum on what is arguably the most > dismal performance by > any incumbent president and inarguably the biggest > mistake. This is a > referendum on George W. Bush, arguably the worst > thing that has happened > to the United States of America since the invention > of the cathode ray > tube. One problem with this referendum is that the > case against George > Bush is much too strong. Just to spell it out is to > sound like a bitter > partisan. I sit here on the 67th birthday of Saddam > Hussein facing a > haystack of incriminating evidence that comes almost > to my armpit. What > matters most, what signifies? Journalists used to > look for the smoking > gun, but this time we have the cannons of Waterloo, > we have Gettysburg > and Sevastopol, we have enough gunsmoke to cause > asthma in heaven. I'm > overwhelmed. Maybe I should light a match to this > mountain of paper and > immolate myself. On the near side of my haystack, > among hundreds of > quotes circled and statistics underlined, just one > thing leaped out at > me. A quote I had underlined was from the testimony > of Hermann Goering > at the Nuremberg trials, not long before Hitler's > vice-fuhrer poisoned > himself in his jail cell: " ... It is always a simple > matter to drag > people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist > dictatorship, or a > parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no > voice, the people > can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. > This is easy. All > you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, > and denounce the > pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the > country to danger. It > works the same in every country. " Goering's dark > wisdom gained weight > when a friend called me and reported that Vice > President Cheney was so > violently partisan in his commencement speech at > Westminster College in > Missouri -- so rabid in his attacks on John Kerry as > a anti-American > peace-marching crypto-communist -- that the college > president felt > obliged to send the student body an email > apologizing for Cheney's > coarseness. If you think it's exceptionally > shameless for a man who > dodged Vietnam to play the patriot card against a > decorated veteran, > remember that Georgia Republicans played the same > card, successfully, > against Sen. Max Cleland, who suffered multiple > amputations in Vietnam. > In 2001 and 2002, George Bush and his Machiavelli, > Karl Rove, approved > political > attack ads that showed the faces of Tom Daschle and > other Democratic > senators alongside the faces of Saddam Hussein and > Osama bin Laden. And > somewhere in hell, Goering and Goebbels toasted each > other with a schnapps. > > Am I polarized? I've never been a registered > Democrat, I'm sick of > this two-party straitjacket, I wish to God it didn't > take Yale and a > major American fortune to create a presidential > candidate. The only > current Democratic leaders who show me any courage > are Nancy Pelosi and > old Bob Byrd -- Hillary Clinton has been especially > cagey and > gutless on this war -- and John Kerry himself may > leave a lot to be > desired. He deserves your vote not because of > anything he ever did or > promises to do, but simply because he did not make > this sick mess in > Iraq and owes no allegiance to the sinister > characters who designed it. > And because his own " place in history, " so important > to the kind of men > who run for president, would now rest entirely on > his success in getting > us out of it. Kerry made a courageous choice at > least once in his life, > when he came home with his ribbons and demonstrated > against the war in > Vietnam. But Sen. Kerry could turn out to be a > stiff, a punk, an > alcoholic, and he'd still be a colossal improvement > over the man who > turned Paul Wolfowitz loose in the Middle East. The > myth that there was > no real difference between Democrats and > Republicans, which I once > considered seriously and which Ralph Nader rode to > national disaster > four years ago, was shattered forever the day George > Bush announced his > cabinet and his appointments for the Department of > Defense I'm aware > that there are voters -- 40 million? -- who don't > see it this way.I come > from a family of veterans and commissioned officers; > I understand > patriots in wartime. If a spotted hyena stepped out > of Air Force One > wearing a baby-blue necktie, most Americans would > salute and sing " Hail > to the Chief. " President Bush cultivated his > patriots by spending $46 > million on media in the month of March alone. > Somehow I'm on his mailing > list. (Is that because my late father, with the same > name, was a > registered Republican, or can Bush afford to mail > his picture to every > American with an established address?) Twice a week > I > open an appeal for cash to crush John Kerry and the > quisling liberal > conspiracy, and now I own six gorgeous color > photographs of the > president and his wife. I'm sure some of my > neighbors frame the > president's color photographs and fill those little > blue envelopes he > sends us with their hard-earned dollars. > > I struggle against the suspicion that so many of > my fellow Americans > are conceptually challenged. I want to reason with > my neighbors; I want > to engage these lost Americans. What makes you > angry, neighbor? What > arouses your suspicions? Does it bother you that > this administration > made terrorism a low priority, dismissed key > intelligence that might > have prevented the 9/11 catastrophe, then exploited > it to justify the > pre-planned destruction of Saddam Hussein, who had > nothing to do with al > Qaeda? All this is no longer conjecture, but direct > reportage from > cabinet-level meetings by the turncoat insiders > Richard Clarke and Paul > O'Neill. If the Pentagon ever thought Saddam had > " weapons of mass > destruction, " it was only because the Pentagon gave > them to him. As > Kevin Phillips recounts in American Dynasty, > officials of the Reagan and > first Bush > administrations eagerly supplied Saddam with arms > while he was using > chemical weapons on the Kurds. They twice sent > Donald Rumsfeld to court > Saddam, in 1983 and 1984, when the dictator was in > the glorious prime of > his monsterhood. > > This scandal, concurrent with Iran-Contra, was > briefly called > " Iraqgate, " and, yes, among the names of those > officials implicated > you'll find most of the engineers of our current > foreign policy. (They > also signaled their fractious client, Saddam, that > it might be all right > to overrun part of Kuwait; you remember what > happened when he tried to > swallow it all.) Does any of this trouble you? Does > it worry you that > Dick Cheney, as president of the nefarious > Halliburton Corporation, sold > Iraq $73 million in oilfield services between 1997 > and 2000, even as he > plotted with the Wolfowitz faction to whack > Saddam? Or that Halliburton, with its CEO's seat > still warm from > Cheney's butt, was awarded unbid contracts worth up > to $15 billion for > the Iraq invasion, and currently earns a billion > dollars a month from > this bloody disaster? Not to mention its $27.4 > billion overcharge for > our soldiers' food. These are facts, not partisan > rhetoric. Do any of > them even make you restless? The cynical game these > shape-shifters have > been playing in > the Middle East is too Byzantine to unravel in 1,000 > pages of text. But > the hypocrisy of the White House is palpable, and > beggars belief. If > there's one American who actually believes that > Operation Iraqi Freedom > was about democracy for the poor Iraqis, then you, > my friend, are too > dangerously stupid to be allowed near a voting > booth. Does it bother you > even a little that the personal fortunes of all four > Bush brothers, > including the president and the governor, were > acquired about a half > step ahead of the district attorney, and that the > royal family of Saudi > Arabia invested $1.476 billion in those and other > Bush family > enterprises? Or, as Paul Krugman points out, that > it's much easier to > establish > links between the Bush and bin Laden families than > any between the bin > Ladens and Saddam Hussein. Do you know about Ahmad > Chalabi, the > administration's favorite Iraqi and current agent in > Baghdad, whose > personal fortune was established when he embezzled > several hundred > million from his own bank in Jordan and fled to > London to avoid 22 years > at hard labor? That's just a sampling from my > haystack. Maybe I can > reach you as an environmentalist, one who resents > the gutting of key > provisions in the Clean Air Act? My own Orange > County, N.C., chiefly a > rural area, was recently added to a national > register of counties with > dangerously polluted air. You say you vote for the > president because > you're a conservative. Are you sure? I thought > conservatives believed in > civil liberties, a weak federal executive, an > inviolable Constitution, a > balanced budget and an isolationist foreign policy. > George Bush has an > attorney general who drives the ACLU apoplectic and > a vice president who > demands more executive privilege (for his energy > séances) than any > elected official has ever received. The president > wants a Constitutional > amendment to protect marriage from homosexuals, of > all things. Between > tax cuts for his high-end supporters and three years > playing God and > Caesar in the > Middle East, George Bush has simply emptied > America's wallet with a $480 > billion federal deficit projected for 2004 and the > tab on Iraq well over > $100 billion and running. > " A lot of so-called conservatives today don't know > what the word means, " > Barry Goldwater said in 1994, when the current cult > of right-wing > radicals and " neocons " had begun to define and > assert themselves. > Goldwater was my first political hero, before I was > old enough to read > his flaws. But his was the conservatism of the wolf > -- the lone wolf -- > and this is the conservatism of sheep. > > All it takes to make a Bush conservative is a > few slogans from talk > radio and pickup truck bumpers, a sneer at > " liberals " and maybe a > name-dropping nod to Edmund Burke or John Locke, > whom most of them have > never read. > > Sheep and sheep only could be herded by a > ludicrous but not harmless > cretin like Rush Limbaugh, who has just compared the > sexual abuse of > Iraqi prisoners to " a college fraternity prank " (and > who once called > Chelsea Clinton " the family dog " -- you don't have > to worry about shame > when you have no brain). I don't think it's accurate > to describe America > as polarized between Democrats and Republicans, or > between liberals and > conservatives. It's polarized between the people who > believe George Bush > and the people > who do not. Thanks to some contested ballots in a > state governed by the > president's brother, a once-proud country has been > delivered into the > hands of liars, thugs, bullies, fanatics, and > thieves. The world pities > or despises us, even as it fears us. What this > election will test is the > power of money and media to fool us, to obscure the > truth > and alter the obvious, to hide a great crime against > the public trust > under a blood-soaked flag. The most lavishly funded, > most cynical, most > sophisticated political campaign in human history > will be out trolling > for fools. I pray to God it doesn't catch you. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.