A Continued Response

The friend answered with his observation that "many were jumping on the Bush-bashing bandwagon." Taking this personally I responded:
"It seems to me that everyone standing in line is not waiting to jump on any "bashing" bandwagon. I think the lines we see are quite simply the growing - though relatively static - lines for unemployment insurance, company grade officer resignations, Veterans care, bank/401K withdrawals, small business/student/home mortgage loans, criminal legal representation (primarily former Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, et al.) and voter registration (OK. This last one has almost all Bush bashing democrats)."

The friend then commented that he felt confident that he could show the democrats at least equally as responsible. And, so I said:
"Generally, you will not get an argument from me. It's an "Imperial Presidency" that I condemn. The elected representatives from both political parties, for most of at least the last 16 or so years, have consistently set the table in Washington so as to ignore, corrupt and devalue our country's higher ideals and the true common good of the people."

The friend then suggested that we might all agree that less government would be better. And, so I felt compelled to add:
"I agree - with a footnote. Cutting federal and state is certainly a very worthy effort. However, the cuts should be well considered. Wholesale chopping that eliminates or guts effective oversight has repeatedly shown human nature or "the market" incapable of sustained, reasoned, fair and legal conduct. The current financial crisis has a genesis in unrestrained greed and overreaching (bottom and top) in the mortgage market and, most significantly, in the derivatives markets where oversight was non-existent. In my own personal experience as a federal criminal prosecutor I saw the aftermath of the lifting of regulatory oversight in the airline industry with wide spread use of counterfeit/surplus repair parts and negligent repair and maintenance. I had ample job security when the savings and loan institutions were taken to account, again, as a direct result of the gutting of effective oversight by elimination of inspection positions and targeted budget constraints. So, I agree with the cutting of the duplicated, ineffective and unnecessary. Yet, until there is an even playing field for each and among all, there must be reasoned oversight. Caveat emptor is not a substitute for "Equal Justice for All."

Wasn't there an old NCO adage to the affect: "The only thing that is done well is that which is inspected."?" [My friend was kind to correct me. "The hero of St. Vith--BG Bruce Clarke wrote in his book for the Commander and Leader that a unit does well that which the commander checks."

This is not Plato, but, it has been cathartic.

A Response

A friend today sent around an email, apparently in support of the Iraq Invasion by George W. Bush, referring to an "Associated Press article this summer [that] revealed that our troops found 550 metric tons of yellowcake a few miles south of Baghdad in 2003 and kept it secret until recently. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ " I replied as follows:

Interesting but fundamentally irrelevant when considering the manner in which the Bush/Cheney Administration cherry-picked and fabricated intelligence, failed to follow fundamental intelligence procedures of verification (For example: "Curveball") and, when necessary to support its preordained intention to invade Iraq, lied to the American people. The more egregious of these, in my opinion, were the statements, primarily by Cheney, asserting existence of unquestionable evidence of a direct and nefarious connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.

This "yellow cake" referred to in the article was stock existing in Iraq prior to 1991. The Bush Administration's repeated dire warnings were of then "current and continuing efforts" by Saddam to obtain uranium. Independent expert conclusions following the invasion and based upon evidence within Iraq (documents, interrogations and interviews) seem to be in agreement that Saddam had stopped efforts to build a WMD program in at least 1991.

We must beat the forces opposing us in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in a joint effort with nation-building assets from within our own government and from NATO countries, assist in establishing an allied front with the resulting governments against terrorism. When this is completed it will be almost solely the achievement of the United States military command and the military and intelligence forces on the ground. The decision to invade Iraq by Bush was the stupidest decision of any president in my lifetime. The fact that the proffered rationale for the necessity of invasion was false is wholly reprehensible and worthy of continuing condemnation whatever the outcome of the wars. But, that's just my humble opinion.

An Aside

I must admit that I have been anxious to put pen to paper or, rather, finger to key, given the events and propaganda pervading the media during these closing days of the presidential campaign. For example, I wanted to write about how McCain is being disserved by those running his campaign from my perspective as a target independent swing voter. And, I expect I soon will do that. But, I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that I have wasted a moment of my time to write to the on-screen personages of a television program that I never watch. After seeing a clip from "The View" and reading associated commentary, I sent the following into the bowels of their website:

"Elizabeth Hasselbeck is correct in her view of the importance of the personal associations chosen by candidates. Of course, there are general issues presented in this presidential election that are important for the electorate to consider. However, the character of the person who would be president is above all other matters the most crucial of these. It is not a "smear" to seriously discuss the associations a candidate choses to maintain in his or her personal and professional life. Recall the discusssions in the past of a candidate's membership in an "all-white" country club or an "all-male" business club. It is one thing to question the weight to be given any relevant issue and a far different matter to deny its relevance entirely. "You are known by the company you keep." Can the others on the show reasonably deny that?"