The men who stole the 2000 election and promised not to waste American military resources continue to flounder in a foreign policy debacle, dragging the US down like a lead balloon. A study brings forward many concerned experts trying to sound the warning:

Eighty-four percent believe the United States is losing the “war on terror,” 86 percent that the world has become a more dangerous place in the past five years, and 80 percent that a major new attack on their country was likely within the next decade.

“We are losing the ‘war on terror’ because we are treating the symptoms and not the cause,” argued Anne-Marie Slaughter, head of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.

“Our insistence that Islamic fundamentalist ideology has replaced communist ideology as the chief enemy of our time feeds Al-Qaeda’s vision of the world,” boosting support for the Islamic radical cause, she said.

[…]

Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA’s Osama Bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, agreed that Washington was acting as its own worst enemy in the fight against Islamic terrorism.

“We’re clearly losing. Today, Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and their allies have only one indispensable ally: the US’ foreign policy towards the Islamic world.”

Scheuer’s expertise is most likely dismissed as non-loyal. After all, he quit the CIA in 2004 after he wrote the book “Imperial Hubris” to describe the Bush administration’s folly abroad:

I’m very much frustrated with the inability of our leaders to make more than a superficial effort to understand the enemy, not because we need to sympathize with them or empathize with them, but because he’s so dangerous. We really need to take the measure of the enemy and why the enemy is fighting us…. Islamic militancy is a complex issue, but it’s not impossible for Americans to understand if they’re talked to directly and frankly. So far, we’ve gone through 12 or 15 years with not a single frank discussion with the American people.

Perhaps he’s referring to this type of language, under today’s headline “Bush says enemies are vulnerable“:

This moment, when the terrorists are suffering from the weight of successive blows, is not the time to call retreat

That’s hardly what I’d call a pep talk. Compare Bush’s comments today to those by Roosevelt’s Fourth of July Address in 1942:

On the desert sands of Africa, along the thousands of miles of battle lines in Russia, in New Zealand and Australia, and the islands of the Pacific, in war-torn China and all over the seven seas, free men are fighting desperately–and dying–to preserve the liberties and the decencies of modern civilization. And in the overrun and occupied nations of the world, this day is filled with added significance, coming at a time when freedom and religion have been attacked and trampled upon by tyrannies unequaled in human history.

Never since it first was created in Philadelphia, has this anniversary come in times so dangerous to everything for which it stands. We celebrate it this year, not in the fireworks of make-believe but in the death-dealing reality of tanks and planes and guns and ships. We celebrate it also by running without interruption the assembly lines which turn out these weapons to be shipped to all the embattled points of the globe. Not to waste one hour, not to stop one shot, not to hold back one blow–that is the way to mark our great national holiday in this year of 1942.

To the weary, hungry, unequipped Army of the American Revolution, the Fourth of July was a tonic of hope and inspiration. So is it now. The tough, grim men who fight for freedom in this dark hour take heart in its message–the assurance of the right to liberty under God–for all peoples and races and groups and nations, everywhere in the world.

Rugged and inspirational but, above all, honest. Sadly, Bush does not seem to grasp what “Freedom from fear” really means, or is it possible that freedom just doesn’t suit his purposes?

The following excerpt is from William Tecumseh Sherman’s (1820-1891) speech in Salem, Illinois, on July 4, 1866, according to research by James Heintze:

The Spaniards have nearly vanished from our territory, but the English, the Swedes, the Germans, the French remain, and their posterity will remain till the end of time.

From this I infer the fact that the soil and climate such as you enjoy here in Illinois is the wealth of America not alone its mineral resources. They are incidental. They are dug up and are taken away, but this soil remains to you today, next year and forever to the end of time; and will produce food and raiment for all men on the face of the earth.

Then comes the intellectual part of our history. Look at Franklin drawing from the clouds the agency of electricity, so that now you are able to communicate with your friends far away that you are well and comfortably assembled together. He is also another man whom we should cherish with pride–he and other men who made your constitution according to the best of their understanding, believing that it would fulfill the destiny for which they contemplated it. No one doubted that it was fair upon its face; every paragraph had been well studied, and it did work like a charm, and I still think it is the best heritage which they could have given us.

But like many of the people of the world, are we not governed by reason alone. We are full of passion; I am full of passion and sometimes act wildly. So do you, and so do all men. We do not follow the dictates of our intellect and reason; but are swayed hither and thither by passion. Passion carried us into one war with England; then came the Mexican War, and finally the great war which is now over, thank God, and you are the living witnesses of it.

Sherman makes a strong point about the nationalities who “remain”. Wonder why? He does say that the natural bounty is for “all men on the face of the earth”.

Either we are governed by the constitution or passion? This is usually where a politician would bring in religion, but not Sherman. Perhaps his “act wildly” comment is meant to help lay the foundation for his defence against accusations that he destroyed Georgia:

Now you all remember when we took Atlanta it looked as though with our army strung along a line of six or seven hundred miles the head of the column would be crushed.

If I had gone on stringing out my forces would there not have been a time when the head of that column would have been crushed in? You soldiers are generals enough to see that. Therefore I resolved in my mind to stop the game of guarding their cities, and destroy their cities. [Cheers.]

Seems to have been a reasoned tactic after all. His position thus becomes clearer and more pronounced:

Now, my friends, I know there are parties who denounce me as inhuman. I appeal to you if I have not always been kind and considerate to you. [Cheers.] I care not what they say. [Bully for you and cheers.] I say that it ceased to be our duty to guard their cities any longer, and had I gone on stringing out my column, little by little, some of your Illinois regiments would not have come home, but would have been crushed. Therefore I determined to go through their country, and so I took one army myself and gave my friend George Thomas the other, and we whaled away with both. [Loud cheers.] Therefore we destroyed Atlanta, and if we had destroyed all the cities of the South in order to bring about the result in view it would have been right. [Loud cheers.]

The course we pursued did produce the desired result, and now, ladies, you see your young friends returned to you, wives see their husbands– all reunited in this beautiful grove in Illinois, and God knows, I hope you will never be sent forth again; but if you are, I know you will respond more promptly than you did before. [Loud cheers.]

The old ends justify the means theory. Note, however that he does say his end was to achieve peace so that Illinois civilians could return to their normal lives, and that’s not just any “end”.

As to the future, I have been over all that part of the country which is assigned to me, and I have never yet, at any period of our history, seen the country looking so prosperous, the grain growing so luxuriantly, and the people so well contented and happy, the table so bountifully spread; and all this, too, out on the plains of Kansas where, six years ago, it required an escort of three hundred men to guard an officer sent to pay off a garrison. Now I can go, and anybody can go with a single horse a way out to the limits of Kansas, or even to Colorado, without an escort, and that too at the close of a long and terrible war. So that I say that we are progressing to the end we have in view, and that whether the politicians, whether the statesmen, I will call them, the judges and lawyers, will adopt a policy to produce the desired result, I don’t know and don’t much care, because it will be done anyhow. [Laughter and cheers.] I say if the farmers, mechanics and businessmen will go on and attend to their own business the people of Missouri will do the same. Iowa the same, and so it will be all over the Western and Northern country, and politicians will be compelled to adapt their policy to this end–and that is the true end, namely, the great prosperity of our country.

Therefore it is unnecessary to even allude to the position in which our national affairs are placed, for I do not pretend to comprehend or understand them. It is not my task; but it is my task to see that the forces placed at my disposal to put down opposition to the laws quickly and forever, do their duty. [Cheers.] Whenever the United States Marshal comes to me and tells me that his power is resisted, and he has not sufficient civil force to execute the laws, if I have soldiers I will go to his assistance and see that the laws are enforced. And my friends, if that rule is carried out in the land, if the laws of Congress are to be enforced wherever this flag floats, then in truth are we a nation to all intents and purposes, at home and abroad.

The comments about an escort of 300 men are curious. Kansas was called “bloody”, but I’ve not seen a reference that spells out how much security and stability of a military unit actually cost back then. He says “at home and abroad” but later in the speech calls out Congressional oversight and due care in foreign intervention:

when it becomes necessary to assert our authority with foreign nations, let Congress and the Executive do it by due course of law, and then it becomes our right and not before

According to poll results published in The Daily Telegraph:

Britons have never had such a low opinion of the leadership of the United States, a YouGov poll shows.

As Americans prepare to celebrate the 230th anniversary of their independence tomorrow, the poll found that only 12 per cent of Britons trust them to act wisely on the global stage. This is half the number who had faith in the Vietnam-scarred White House of 1975 [emphasis added].

Most Britons see America as a cruel, vulgar, arrogant society, riven by class and racism, crime-ridden, obsessed with money and led by an incompetent hypocrite [empasis added again].

And if this is what allies of the US think…

While a key component of a sucessful political (and economic) strategy is building trust (winning “hearts and minds”) in this age of information, the Bush administration has done exactly the opposite. Losing trust means the US is losing its power, and it does not appear that Cheney and Rumsfeld see any problem with running the country on empty, especially since this is an extended version of what they attempted in the 1970s before they were defeated in Congress and then tossed from office, according to the CBC:

An intense debate erupted during former U.S. president Gerald Ford’s administration over the president’s powers to eavesdrop without warrants to gather foreign intelligence, newly disclosed government documents revealed.

Former president George Bush, current Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice-President Dick Cheney are cited in the documents. The roughly 200 pages of historic records reflect a remarkably similar dispute between the White House and Congress fully three decades before President George W. Bush’s acknowledgment he authorized wiretaps without warrants of some Americans in terrorism investigations.

[…]

Former president Bush, then director of the CIA, wanted to ensure “no unnecessary diminution of collection of important foreign intelligence” under the proposal to require judges to approve terror wiretaps, said a March 1976 memorandum he wrote to the Justice Department. Bush also complained some major communications companies were unwilling to install government wiretaps without a judge’s approval. Such a refusal “seriously affects the capabilities of the intelligence community,” Bush wrote.

The major difference, as the article explains, is that their attempts in the 1970s resulted in a law passed to prevent wiretaps without oversight. Bush junior is thus continuing the policy path of his father, but this time with flagrant disregard for the law. It appears that the US has suffered a sucessful coup that was thirty years in the making from a disgruntled elite. System administrators usually understand that the powers given to them are meant to be used fairly, but every once in a while you find someone who thinks they should be reading everyone’s email and reviewing files without any express approval or oversight from management. Scary to think that is the type of person now running the entire US government. Executives often have to hire special outside security experts to extract these adminstrators from their position. Who will save the US from itself?

This all reminds me of a sign often seen today posted in cubes and offices of Republicans and Democrats alike. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, now firmly entrenched in office, should perhaps just hang a large version from the roof of the Whitehouse: “the floggings will continue until morale improves.” Funny or sad?

The CBC made another interesting comparison:

The documents include one startling similarity to Washington’s current atmosphere over disclosures of classified information by the news media. Notes from a 1975 meeting between Cheney, then White House chief of staff, then Attorney General Edward Levi and others cite the “problem” of a New York Times newspaper article by Seymour Hersh about U.S. submarines spying in Soviet waters. Participants considered a formal FBI investigation of Hersh and the Times and searching Hersh’s apartment “to go after (his) papers,” the document said.

“I was surprised,” Hersh said in a telephone interview Friday.

“I was surprised that they didn’t know I had a house and a mortgage.”

Ok, that’s funny.