Soapbox

It could well be the catchphrase that describes the entire Bush presidency: “no one could have forseen….� Fill in the blank with any major event of the last 5 years.

After 9/11, Condoleeza Rice, National Security Advisor, said “I don’t think anybody could have predicted… that they would try to use… a hijacked airplane as a missile.â€? This despite how many Presidential Daily briefings warning that Osama bin Laden and al Qaida was determined to attack in the United States? Forget all the warnings that people tried to pass on of men of middle eastern descent were taking flying lessons who didn’t want to learn how to land; forget Richard Clarke running around ‘with his hair on fireâ€? saying that al Qaida needed to be the number one national security concern, and forget the repeated warnings by the FAA to airliners to watch for hijackings: when George Bush attended the G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy, in July 2001, the Italian government declared airspace above the summit site a no-fly zone and deployed anti-aircraft guns at Genoa airport to defend against possible terrorist attack from aircraft filled with explosives. If that wasn’t someone predicting an airplane used as a missle, what was? But somehow, when it finally happened, the Bush administration just didn’t see it coming.

They also were caught by surprise when the Iraqis did not welcome American tanks and bombs as liberators, when the number of troops deployed turned out to be insufficient to stabilize the country, and of course, when the famous WMD’s that they had “no doubt� were all over Iraq turned out to not be there at all. Wow! Who could have predicted this?

Well, maybe General Shinseki, who was forced into retirement for his pre-invasion statement that the United States would need at least 100,000 troops in Iraq to keep the peace. He pretty much predicted this. Maybe the many experts on Mideast policy who said that Iraq, once destabilized, would quickly break down into factional fighting, and perhaps the U.S. intelligence analysts who strongly disputed reports on WMD’s but whose opinions were exised from official statements. Oh, and don’t forget Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who traveled to Africa and determined that the stories of Sadaam Hussein buying yellowcake uranium there were untrue.
Remember Joe? He made the administration so angry when he spoke out that his wife’s undercover CIA operation to prevent Iran form getting nuclear weapons (real WMD’s) was blown apart in an attempt to punish and discredit him.
Yet despite all these warnings, when the reports from Iraq came back that absolutely no WMD’s had been found, the Bush administration was surprised, saying they had no way of knowing that Sadaam no longer possessed them. They just didn’t see that coming.

“No one could have anticipated the levees breaking� President Bush said in 2005, when Hurricane Katrina savaged the gulf coast and destroyed most of New Orleans. No one except the National Weather Service, who kept sending out frantic warnings as the hurricane approached that if it hit where they thought it would and with the force they expected, it would flood New Orleans and cause significant loss of life, not to mention huge property damage. Disaster drills had been run just a few months before, all predicting that it would not take that much to overwhelm the levee system, and local officials had been warning for the last 2 years, ever since President Bush cut funding for upkeep on the levees, that one good hit from a hurricane could put the city underwater. Still, President Bush didn’t see that one coming either.

The president also could not forsee that Hamas might win the Palestinian elections, despite warnings from many analysts that this is exactly what might happen. This put the U.S. in the akward position of telling the people “You must have elections right away! That’s how democracies work: the people choose!â€? and then having to say, “Oh, but wait, you can’t choose them!â€? Bush is so enamored of elections, of being able to say “Look at me! I created another democracy!â€? that he just pushed blindly ahead, unable to predict what everyone else saw coming.

Now comes a report that experts believe that Iran, once contained by Sadaam Hussein on their eastern border, has become the threat that Iraq never was. How could we have taken our eye off Iran? Iran is larger, wealthier and more powerful than Iraq. Iran once held over a hundred Americans hostage for more than a year and considers America “the great satan�. The hard-line Islamist theocracy, once beginning to wane in Iran, has come roaring back with a vengeance, fueled in part by being able to point to the United States invasion of the land right next door. Iran is now believed to be supporting the Shiite insurgency that has caused so much pain and death in Iraq, is pressuring Afghanistan to turn back to the Taliban, meddling in Lebanon and Syria, etc. Iran is also defiant in the face of international pressure to stop trying to build a nuclear bomb, now that the United states is so hopelessly embroiled in 2 useless wars that we have little left to threaten them with. Once again, experts are coming forward and saying that they warned years ago that they believed this could happen, but to George Bush, it was as unpredictable as a hurricane.

So the question is: why, with his own admitted and stunning blindness, does the President portray himself as being the only one who can keep us safe? If he can’t see the anti-aircraft guns outside his hotel and realize that planes might be used as weapons; if he can’t hear his own generals tell him that he cannot win the war the way he is fighting it and realize that they might know more about it than he does; if he can’t hear warnings from the National Weather Service and his own FEMA director and realize that a major national disaster is about to hit New Orleans- can he see anything at all?

How can a man who can’t see his own hand in front of his face protect this nation?

Like pea soup, the plot just continues to thicken.

So Dick Cheney appeared yesterday on the official propaganda arm of the White House, FOX news, and gave his story about the amazing incident last weekend when he shot a hunting companion in the face and chest. His spokespeople say that he has now “set the record straight”. Nothing more to learn here- let’s move on, America.

Here’s why that may not happen. There are many, many questions that have not been answered, which is why the vice president has no one but himself to blame if this story refuses to die.

~Why did Cheney and staff lie to the President and his staff? When they finally called Washington, Bush chief of staff Andy Card was told that there had been an accident in the VP’s hunting party. No mention was made of the fact that it was the VP himself who did the shooting- as if there was no need for even the president to know this explosive fact! Karl Rove had to call back and get the truth from Katherine Armstrong. Guess we know who is in charge of the administration.

~If he truely takes full responsibility, why did Cheney’s staff put out the official story that it was all Harry Whittington’s fault until it became clear that even Republican hunters weren’t buying it? Almost universally, actual hunters stepped forward to say that blaming the voctim in this case simply didn’t make sense. And how could such a “master hunter” ever make such an elementary mistake as to whirl and shoot behind him without looking?

~Why did the original explaination for the way the story was released say that Ms. Armstrong was used a spokesperson because she was a witness? Her account featured the statement that when she saw the Secret Service rushing in, she thought Cheney had had a heart attack, making it clear that she didn’t actually see a darn thing.

Then it was said she released the story because she is a hunting expert… yet by insisting that it Whittington didn’t follow protocol when it was Cheney who did not, and saying that the victim was “more bruised than bloody”, it really seems she had no idea what she was talking about.

Yesterday Cheney said they delayed releasing the story and gave it to Ms. Armstrong because they wanted to be “completely accurate”: yet they were spectacularly inaccurate, apparently on purpose!

~Speaking of blood, why did the White House and other spokespersons insist for several days that Harry Whittington had only minor injuries? The man has pellets in his heart, lung and liver! While they didn’t know this at first, of course, how is it possible that such life-threatening injuries appeared “no big deal”? He must have been bleeding profusely!

~Speaking of witnesses, where is Pamela Willeford, the person standing next to Cheney when he fired? She has disappeared, long gone by the time the sheriff’s office was finally allowed to speak to Cheney. Why hasn’t she released a statemet, confirming Cheney’s version of events?

~Why did Cheney not make himself available to the authorities for over 14 hours, turning away the deputy that arrived at the ranch that evening? How many people involved in shooting a person, even by accident, are allowed to avoid an interview for 14 hours?

~What’s the deal about the alcohol and why can’t they get the story straight? The White House came out swearing that there was “no alcohol, at all, period.” Then Katherine Armstrong said that there “may have been a few beers” in the cooler at lunch, but Cheney didn’t drink. This statement appeared briefly on MSNBC’s website, and then mysteriously disappeared, having been “scrubbed” from the story. Why? Then Armstrong said that she doesn’t think Cheney drank anything, except after the shooting, when she saw him mix himself a cocktail.

Then Cheney himself said that he did have “a beer” at lunch… and FOX edited that statement, and indeed all reference to alcohol, out of the interview. Only later, under pressure, was it put it back into the transcript only.

Shouldn’t Cheney not be drinking at all? In addition to having been a heavy drinker in his younger days (as his 2 DUI convistions prove) which may have damaged his liver, the VP is on a long list of heart medications, many of which state that they can cause dizziness and alcohol can make this side effect worse. Also, Cheney has gout in his foot, which is painful, and made much worse by drinking alcohol. This has got to be against doctor’s orders.

~Speaking of doctors- why didn’t they send Cheney to the hospital when Whittington went? Even if he had no desire to go to make sure that the guy he shot was OK, wouldn’t the medical team with him want him to go? The man has had 4 heart attacks and numerous other medical problems, and had just shot a guy. He had to be terribly shaken up about it. Why didn’t they have him checked out immediately?
By his own admission, Cheney had a big entourage and their vehicles standing by, and protocol is for a local hospital to be on call to receive the president or VP wherever they go. So it should have been pretty simple to make the trip, yet Cheney states “there was no room in the ambulance” for him to go to the hospital too, so he had dinner and a drink instead.

The president has declared himself “satisfied” whith Cheney’s explainations, but it doesn’t seem that many americas are so easily distracted. Until and unless the White house comes clean about their bizarre behavior and the reasons behind it, the speculation will just grow, rather than diminish. Cheney’s approval rating before the shooting were only 24%. The White House should not be surprised to see them dip into single digits if they do not break with tradition and try a little honesty for a change.

It is no coincidence that in the same week we learned that U.S. oil companies made more in profits last year than many countries while gas prices rose again; that drug companies are about to reap huge windfall profits from Medicare while seniors struggle to get their medicine and congress defeats legislation designed to help them; that congress gave even more tax breaks for the richest Americans while cutting Medicaid, food stamps and student loans and called it “fiscal responsibility”, and that the president wants $120 billion dollars more for a war that, $440 billion ago, was supposed to play for itself.
It is no coincidence…it is just a shame.

Shame on congress for going along with the president’s hideous war against the poor in America, and shame on America for being more concerned about Brad and Angelina’s baby than the growing lines at food pantries.

Shame on the President for giving away money hand over fist to rich corporations over in Iraq and shame on us for allowing congress to cut Head Start and the Earned Income Tax Credit for the poorest among us to pay for it.

Shame on all those who allow religion to be the driving force in politics, yet are willfully blind to the fact that the Bible speaks of ending poverty over 3,000 times, and of homosexuality scarcely at all. Shame on those who sit in their pews on sunday and allow the Christo-political movement to impose their values, and their hate, on the rest of the country. they should ask themselves, “Who would Jesus force his beliefs upon?” the answer, of course, is “no one”.

Shame on us for paying lip service to the passing of Coretta Scott King, because clearly most of us are more concerned with the Super bowl than with civil rights.

Shame on those who say they support our troops but allow the government to under-equip them in battle, force them to serve extended tours of duty and under-fund their care after they return home terribly wounded.

Shame on America for allowing our government to scare us into turning our backs on everything we say America stands for: free speech, equal opportunity, the rule of law, balance of power, fair voting, honesty, justice, compassion and generosity. All they had to do was whisper “terrorism” in our ears and we now condone discrimination, injustice, imperialism, lying, law-breaking and torture.

Shame on our government officials for wearing flags on their lapels while betraying everything that our flag represents. And shame on America for sitting quietly and letting it happen.

Not so long ago, Republicans refused to require oil company executives to be sworn in before they testified to the senate. Do you remember what happened? They flat-out lied to congress and the people of the United States and faced no penalty for it.

Senate republicans learned from that experience alright, but not the way we would have hoped. Monday, over vehement objections from democrats, the republicans on the Judiciary Committee refused to have Attorney General Gonzales promise to tell the truth at their hearings on the illegal eavesdropping the administration has engaged in.

What possible reason could members of the United States Senate have for insisting that a witness be allowed give testimony without simply promising to tell the truth? Can it even be called testimony with no oath? Gonzales was there to answer questions vital to the national interest…yet he was not required to be honest about it. Are we supposed to just trust him, the way we trusted the president when he said that “anytime” the government uses a wiretap, they get a warrant? And will the senate grant this same freedom to fib to those who accuse the president of wrong-doing as they extend to those who defend him?

Does anyone think it’s ironic that the man who will probably be asked about why the President lied to the American people was able to potentially lie without penalty when he answered?
And why are senate republicans are so afraid of the truth?