Archive for October, 2006

Bush’s Wet Brain Syndrome 2: Show me the way to go home

October 13, 2006

carl-senna.jpg

Show Me the Way to Go Home

Carl Senna, 2006, all rights reserved

More on wet brains, the symptom of former chronic alcoholism of recoverning and active alcoholics: the flight to fantasy is a major symptom of the disease.
Mel Gibson claims that his DUI (driving under the influence/drunk driving arrest) arrest was the “best thing that” happened to him, much as fellow wet brainer President Bush claims that we’re winning the fight against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the world has never been safer. Both men are no longer drinking, thankfully, so they claim. But the irreversible damage to their frontal lobes by many years of daily heavy drinking may have already been done. Notice that in his press conference the other day Bush abruptly turned the conversation away from North Korea and Iraq to observations about the clothes the reporters were wearing. It wasn’t gallows humour. His small talk sure ate away at the time until the press conference was over, with still unanswered questions about what Bush was going to do about North Korea and Iraq. The White House press corps was as much putty in his hands as Dianne Sawyer was in Gibson’s for her ABC television interview with the DUI star the other night. Gibson dismissed his drunken anti-Semitic tirade when he was arrested, as the truth about his feelings about Jews (“in vino veritas,” wine gets us to speak the truth). And it’s probably true for both him and fellow wet brainer Bush that a drunken watchman never knows the correct time. The standard therapeutic measure however for recovering alcoholics is that they ought to stay away from bars, social gatherings where alcoholic drinks are served and avoid contact with heavy drinkers and active alcoholics, because the temptation to pick up a drink in those social environments is usually irresistible. Gibson now has been arrested violating the rule, but Bush has not yet been caught. And I say ‘yet’ because it is a telling sign of wet brain syndrome, if not actually an indication that Bush has had a slip-up, when we find that his cabinet and closest advisers are very heavy drinkers, one an active alcoholic (Cheney,almost surely a wet brainer), Rumsfeld, and Karl Rove. It’s unusual in the annals of research on wet brains to find another example such as Bush, every afternoon when the others are belting down a few gin and tonics unwinding, to socialize with them and drink only a coke or a glass of cold milk.
In the rare cases where the wet brainer resists backsliding, he or she usually has an extremely aggressive outlet to reinforce the abstinence. Some wet brainers beat their wives, others go to war, still others soon again fall off the wagon. The inner fight not to backslide terrifies the recoving drunk, so, not able to fight himself, if he is a wet brainer, he fights someone else. The temptation to bomb North Korea must deeply torment Bush when he leaves the oval office without a good stiff one to get him through the night.

Commentaries here available for reprint—Make inquiries at snowbirdcanada@gmail.com

Posted by: Carl Senna | October 12, 2006 06:35 PM

Advertisements

Dangerous Wet Brain Syndrome in Political Leaders

October 12, 2006

carl-senna.jpg

A Bush with a Wet Brain

He’s more dangerous than without a Brain

By Carl Senna, 2006, all rights reserved

In response to those who want the U. S. to bomb a nuclear armed North Korea into the stone age, using “Shock and Awe” style Iraqi War tactics, I ask: Why shock and awe attacks? After that, what? A devastated country like Iraq? Slavery! Which country’s next? But my real concern is that George Bush, a lifelong alcoholic, may have a “Wet Brain.” The reason I raise this concern is that even though the President has been given a clean bill of health each year, he has yet to be given the kind of neurological brain exam that would tell whether he is partially brain dead, as a result of a diet of a fifth of Chivas Regal a day for 2 decades before he went on the wagon. And as most of us know , simply giving up booze does not mean that we’re going to recover from the neural, cerebral and physical damage of our addiction. I mean, consider the way Bush slurs his language every now and then. Just the other day in the Rose Garden answering reporters’ questions, he broke into his Connecticut-Down East Maine-Texas twang and referred to his limited vocabulary, stating that the Democratic calls for “a time table for withdrawal from Iraq” meant in his limited vocabulary the same thing as “cut and run.” I’ve often wondered about the changes in Bush since he gave up booze. From all accounts, he once spoke in the well-educated received pronunciation and vocabulary of one you might have expected was educated at the premier Prep School, Andover, at Yale and at Harvard. And we know that once there was evidence of that kind of elite education in the way Bush presented himself (See Nicholas Lemann’s account of Bush at Harvard Business School in the New Yorker Magazine .Alas, it’s all gone. Now we see someone who seems desperately to speak in the vernacular and manner of the entirely self-educated on a Texas ranch, or with the rudimentary education and social skills of a cowpuncher, or the schooling of of a gunslinger in a saloon. We saw this display of cerebral degeneration in the recently publicized incident where he was overheard to address British Prime Minister Tony Blair: “Yo, Blair. Syria’s got to get Hezbollah to stop this shit.” The First Post, “Desperately Seeking statesmanship,” Robert Fox, Archives, Fall, 2006) And then there is Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward’s account, in his new book, State of Denial New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), of Bush addressing former Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar (‘”Bandar, I guess you’re the best asshole who knows about the world.’ Who’s talking? President George Dubya Bush. He is speaking to Prince Bandar bin Sultan, owner of an English racing stud and Saudi ambassador to Washington for 15 years.” Saudi Prince Reveals Bush Crusade, The First Post, Fall, Archives,2006)

And, of course, there’ve been alleged incidents of Bush using salty language with others in his close-knit group, according to Washington Post reporter Karen DeYoung in her book on Colin Powell, Soldier:The Life of Colin Powell, New York: Alfred Knopf, 2006: (“Powell thought that Bush had a bad habit of driving headlong down blind alleys or going along for the ride when policy was being driven by Cheney, often with Rumsfeld in the jump seat,” Ms. DeYoung writes. ). One wonders, naturally, whether it’s also true, as one rumour goes, that he addresses Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice: “Hey, Momma” or “What you got cookin’, mammy?”)

Cynics might argue that Bush is trying to affect the lingo that his political handlers have found that appeals to most Americans. But I don’t buy that at all. No one in his right mind acts and talks belligerently in broken English unless they’re uneducated, drunk or have been formerly a drunk and now have a “wet brain.” I know many recovering alcoholics, some of them with “wet brain” syndrome. Outwardly, they seem normal but you’d have to have known them before the booze started to kill their liver, before it started to kill the brain cells of the frontal lobes of their cerebellum, the center of intellect, and before the alcohol started to kill off as well the part of the brain that controls speech and mood. They’re completely different from their old self, usually in some unpleasant, even psychotic, way. Some have become sociopaths, and wind up in jail or die from violence. That’s wet brain for you. We really can’t rule out or verify a diagnosis of wet brain for Bush until he submits to an MRI, blood and neurological tests for “wet brain.” And since his Vice-President, who. like the President, has been convicted for drunk driving (in Cheney’s case, a few times), the vice-president ought to be made to take the test for “wet brain” as well.
It’s time the media paid more attention to “wet brain” syndrome and the dangers of electing people afflicted with it. We have to stop electing to office people who are alcoholics, drug addicts, sexual predators, and sex addicts. It’s too dangerous to national security. And we have to stop electing people who claim to be reformed alcoholics, yet who secretly suffer from “wet brain.” Peace and the survival of the world require that the wet brains no longer qualify for elected office.

All commentary in my wordpress blog are available for sale to newspapers for reprint rights. Make inquiries to snowbirdcanada@gmail.com for more information

October 12, 2006 01:51 PM

Who is shamed now?

October 11, 2006

carl-senna.jpg

More shameful Bush lies

By Carl Senna, 2006, all rights reserved

“Rice Says U.S. Will Not Invade N. Korea,” Wednesday October 11, 2006 2:01 PM By FOSTER KLUG Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) – Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the United States would not attack North Korea, rejecting a suggestion that Pyongyang may feel it needs nuclear weapons to stave off an Iraq-style U.S. invasion.
Rice said that President Bush has told the North Koreans that “there is no intention to invade or attack them. So they have that guarantee. … I don’t know what more they want.”
[Yet]Rice told CNN Tuesday that Bush “never takes any of his options off the table. But is the United States, somehow, in a provocative way, trying to invade North Korea? It’s just not the case.”…
Asked whether North Korean leader Kim Jong Il may have felt that he needed to stage an apparent nuclear test this week to prevent an invasion similar to the U.S.-led attack on Saddam Hussein, Rice said Iraq “was a very special situation.”
“Iraq was a desire to finally deal with a threat that had been there for too long,” she said.
It is just as well for her credibility, such that Rice still has, that she did not attempt to describe the threat that Saddam Hussein represented to the U.S.  After the U.S. invasion of Iraq, who in the international community trusts the word of Bush, when he tells any country that the U.S. is no military threat to it? The U.S. military ring around North Korea must speak louder than the administration statements to the contrary: presently, 30, 000 American troops in South Korea face the DMZ between the North and South Koreans; there has been in place not a peace treaty but only a ceasefire between the DPRK and the ROK/U.S. -led NATO forces since the end of the Korean War (1950-53); U.S. military spy satellites fly over the DPRK; and U.S. spy planes continue to violate North Korean airspace; and while U.S. supersonic bombers with nuclear weapons on Pacific islands stand ready for action against North Korea,  American nuclear submarines prowl the oceans around the Korean Peninsula,  and a U.S. battle fleet is maneuvering continually for possible support of our forces in South Korea. The U.S. also has stiff trade, currency, banking and financial sanctions against North Korea.
Without any sense of irony, or humour, given all the hostile U.S. overtures to the DPRK, Rice assures the North Koreans that they are expected to trust Bush, while the U.S. military options remain “on the table.” That must be welcome news to the North Koreans who can now assure the U.S. that its nukes are only for deterrence, but that henceforth, while it negotiates with the U.S.,  it, too, “retains its nuclear military option on the table.” Both countries now have each other in their sights and their fingers on the nuclear bomb trigger.  Nothing could be more suicidal than a firing squad arranged in a circle.

Any one who claims that North Korea must be considered more of a threat by the U.S. than China when it first detonated nuclear weapons is ignorant of the Congressional and administration reactions of the time. If anything, the Chinese explosions instigated predictions of imminent Doomsday, just as the hydrogen bomb explosions of the USSR in the 1950s led to nuclear bomb drills in all our schools and the sales of nuclear bomb shelters for each home and workplace. The 1950s U.S. government instigated public hysteria over the communist atomic bomb threats look ridiculous today.
Only a Democratic President or a Republican President who repudiates Bush will be able to make such assurances with any credibility to North Korea or any other country. It won’t be Bush, reported to be responsible for 655,000 Iraqi deaths (and counting. (See October 11, 2006 The New York Times, “Study: 655, 000 Iraqis Die Because of War,” By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, Filed at 6:12 a.m. ET). This is the same Bush who defends torture, arbitrary arrests and imprisonment without trial, and who started a war with Iraq on the basis of lies! Never mind that the leader of North Korea is equally untrustworthy! This Bush is now someone the North Koreans (or the American people)ought to trust?
When Bush appeared on Oprah’s televison show after the 2000 Presidential election, he was asked why during the campaign he had concealed his criminal conviction for drunk driving in Maine. He responded that he had done so because he wanted to win the election and that revealing it might have hurt him with voters.
The Oprah appearance was a rare view of his character and integrity, which are nothing if not about telling the truth, and about a refusal to lie by commission or omission. Bush was forced to admit to his criminal record on the program, because it had already been publicly revealed by a whistleblower familiar with the case, which the Bush family had attempted to purge from the court records. Before Oprah and the audience, Bush reluctantly confessed that he was a very untrustworthy man. Since then, he often tries unsuccessfully to make light of his character flaw, attempting to recall for public consumption, the Jamaican folk expression he learned from Colin Powell (without attributing it to Powell), “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”
Shame on us! Bush has now fooled us twice. If only now he can fool the North Koreans and the Chinese? Bush, of course, has a tendency to manipulate people and governments, in a kind of diplomatic billiards (that is, pressuring one country or one set of countries to pressure another, since as Bush admits of North Korea, he has not enough credibility to directly engage in a dialogue with the intended target of the pressure). But his diplomatic billard strategy seems to have failed here. For the past four years Beijing has repeatedy assured Bush that they had control of Pyongyang, so that the DPRK would never conduct a nuclear bomb test without China’s okay. Hahaha! Shame on Bush.

Bush’s futile North Korean embargo

October 10, 2006

carl-senna.jpg

Bush’s futile North Korean embargo

By Carl Senna, 2006, all rights reserved

Whatever we may feel about North Korea’s defiant nuclear weapons test, given the state of war that has existed between the United States and the Hermit Kingdom, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, [North Korea’s official name] and its leader Kim Jong il clearly have long felt threatened by Bush administration hawks. And the threat of a Bush administration military attack seems to have been purposely maintained to keep the North Koreans off balance, a form of intimidation to discourage them from developing nuclear weapons. Now we know that the threat has backfired—-as a number of White House critics predicted it would. For the North Korean nuclear arsenal was only common sense on their part.
In the aftermath, it’s all well and good for Japan and South Korea, following Bush cues, to denounce the DPRK for the test, but their denunciations ring hollow, so much pounding the table and shallow anger, when the two DPRK neighbors have permitted for almost a half-century US military bases and nuclear sub refueling privileges threatening the DPRK. The world must accept that the DPRK now has a nuclear shield to defend itself from the Bush administration’s superpower strategic military, nuclear, and high tech swords. Violence is no longer a tactical or strategic option in the Korean peninsula. President Bush should study the teachings of Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr., two men whose wisdom on nonviolence has only invited cynical sneers from the White House except in the President and Vice President’s political speeches to black Americans and Third World leaders.

North Korea, like Iran, has pursued nuclear weapons for the same defensive reasons that the present declared nuclear powers (and Israel) have maintained them. And it seems highly unlikely that the DPRK nukes will have any tactical military use for aggression against South Korea or Japan. Bush knows, as many observers have noted, where to find Kim Jong il for retaliation, unlike the elusive non-state leader Osama bin Laden, should a nuclear conflict erupt on the Korean peninsula. But it is also unlikely that the DPRK will share their nuclear weapons technology with terrorist groups unless the Bush administration acts on its military threats against the communist regime. For one thing, the technology to make nuclear weapons is no longer a big secret, and terrorists, for starters, can easily find that information (as well as technicians to teach the terrorists how to easily manufacture them, and find,too, the materials to make a bomb). Getting the weapons would be easier for terrorists outside of the DPRK, and likely sources would be the former Soviet Union (and, yes, Israel, South Africa, Brazil or Argentina), the weapons black markets of the Sub-Continent, the Balkans, and the South China Seas.
The reason for hope that nuclear weapons will not be deployed on a future battlefield anytime soon is that they have no battlefield military use unless the bombed side is unable to retaliate in kind. That was the case when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Japan to end WW II. Had Japan the ability to retaliate, the US would not have attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Post-World War II proliferation of nuclear weapons has been motivated by the desire for military deterrence against a preemptive nuclear strike. North Korea seems motivated by the same concern as Britain, the USSR, China, and France, right after World War II in acquiring a nuclear arsenal.
(See The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy, Random House, p 370 and Controlling the Bomb: Nuclear Proliferation in the 1980s by Lewis A Dunn, Twentieth Century Fund, 1982, p 153) Just this October 8, in a speech at Edinburgh’s Queen’s Hall, Tony Blair’s presumed successor, Chancellor Gordon Brown, told his audience on Britain’s nuclear arsenal: “I don’t think at this point it makes sense for us to unilaterally throw away our weapons. What I think makes sense for us to do is to use our weapons to negotiate downwards the amount of weapons that exist in the world”. (“Brown Heckled on Nuclear Weapons,” Press Association, The Guardian Online, Sunday, October 8, 2006 10:18 PM)
The reason that many US Generals have called for abandoning nuclear weapons in the US arsenal is that they risk retaliation; and atomic weapons destroy what they would defend or gain for the users. The way to keep the weapons out of use by terrorists is to bring all nuclear and potential nuclear powers into a new International security agreement that can enforce a ban on the trade of such weapons to terrorists. Economic embargoes, sanctions, and threats against nuclear or would-be nuclear powers only encourages them to trade in the very nuclear technology proliferation that we want to restrict. Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan’s nuclear weapons consulting business ought to have taught us that lesson. Bush rather frustratingly seeks to impose trade restrictions on North Korea, or squeeze the DPRK, while expecting it not to trade in the one thing that is immune to embargoes: the trade in knowledge and ideas.
A terrorist living amongst us who knows how to construct a nuclear bomb, or any other weapon of mass destruction, is a security nightmare, and he or she is much more dangerous than one who has the bomb.(And nukes are only one kind of mass killer, albeit still the most difficult to create.)
Since the North Korean nuclear bomb test, we need to engage the DPRK more than ever, because they are also not immune to random acts of nuclear terror from extremist, domestic opponents of Kim Jong il. The DPRK has just as vital a stake in international security as the rest of the world. Engaging the North Koreans in dialogue with the USA could enlighten them in the common interest both countries share in protection from rogue, non-state violence. But confrontation and intimidation will be as counterproductive as they were in past US sanctions to forestall the North Koreans from a nuclear detonation.

Avavilable for reprint and syndication. Contact snowbirdcanada@gmail.com

washingtonpost postglobal Oct 10, 2006

Those Who ride Bush’s Back

October 8, 2006

Carl Senna

Those who ride Bush’s back

By Carl Senna, 2006, all rights reserved

In the Middle East, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice arrived this week, October 1, pursued by controversy. In Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel she was denying reports in the Washington Post that CIA director George Tenet had warned her that terrorists were planning an attack on the U.S. two months before the 9/11/2001 attack occurred. Two days later, she has had her spokesperson reverse her previous denial and concede that she had received the warning as reported in a new book by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, State of Denial. ( See “State Dept. Confirms Rice-Tenet Meeting,” Report by Anne Gearan, Washington Post and The Associated Press, Tuesday, October 3, 2006; 11:58 AM )The Secretary has long been suspect in the U.S. of false denials on many other policies. The U.S. , for instance, denies intimidating Pakistan over its refusal to let the U.S. use it as a proxy security force in the Afghanistan War. But seasoned observers of U.S. foreign policy know that the contrary is true.
When I was writing editorials for an American newspaper (The Providence Journal) in 1999, I wrote an editorial that was published on the absurdity of the Clinton administration sanctioning Pakistan and India for their nuclear weapons. Not long after that our paper’s editorial board had an off-the-record visit from Strobe Talbot, a deputy assistant at the State Dept. One of the things he was concerned about was Pakistan’s reaction to US sanctions, involving possible Pakistani trade in nuclear know-how to offset economic losses imposed by American sanctions. My editorial had raised that possibility, and Talbot seemed eager to learn about my interest in the subject, which was raised in no other general newspaper editorial pages to my knowledge at the time. But having just returned from Singapore, I knew that economic causes of nuclear weapons proliferation were a concern among Asian officials whom I had interviewed.

At the editorial board meeting, I recall Talbot emphatically telling us that were Pakistan found to have traded nuclear weapons to Iran or to terrorists, the US would react harshly and punish Pakistan, and that Pakistan would deeply regret its trade. He spoke of direct military intervention in Pakistan, risky as that would be against a nuclear armed state. And he said that the US had the capability of monitoring and tracking Pakistani nuclear weapons and know-how on the black market. Musharraf overthrew the previous government. Following standard diplomatic denunciations of the Musharraf coup, which at the time were as empty and cynical as they were insincere and toothless, the US soon made the Musharraf government a strategic ally in the war on terrorism.

Following 9/11, President Bush not only threatened governments in the Islamic world with an ultimatum, “either you’re with us, or you’re against us,” but he had Armitage and Secretary Powell directly threaten governments like Iraq for giving safe passage to Usama Bin Laden’s family.

I firmly believe that when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein refused to turn over the family of Usama bin Laden to the US, following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush and his staff resolved to punish Iraq’s leadership and to replace it. That was when Bush made the decision to go to war. All that one knew at the time from press reports was that “Bush was hopping mad” when he learned that the Iraqi leader would not turn over bin Laden’s wife and children passing through Iraq to be interrogated by the FBI and CIA, or to be held as hostages by the Americans. I also believe that, consistent with the threats against Pakistan uttered by Talbot, that Armitage did indeed threaten to bomb Pakistan back into the stone age, notwithstanding the denials of Secretary Rice. Indeed, the phrase “to bomb them back into the stone age” was the language at the Pentagon regarding a number of countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Whether the US had a hand in Pakistan’s regime change, following my editorial on nuclear know-how trading there, I cannot say. But in light of what subsequently emerged publicly regarding the nuclear bomb commerce of manufacturer, A. Q. Khan, I am certain that the US, even under President Clinton, was more deeply involved in clandestine surveillance of Pakistan than most people suspected. And one of the hallmarks of that surveillance was the purchase of so-called Pakistani or Urdu speaking “humanint,” or military spies within Pakistan to keep tabs on Pakistan’s military potential. So I take the remarks of Secretary Rice with a grain of salt. “,1] ); //–>
In light of the controversy over the alleged threats to Pakistan by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, following 9/11, the reported Armitage threats are consistent with what Talbot said seven years ago to my editorial board colleagues and myself. Within a few weeks of the editorial’s publication, General Pervez Musharraf overthrew the previous government and came to power. Following standard diplomatic denunciations of the Musharraf coup, which at the time were as empty and cynical as they were insincere and toothless, the US soon made his government a strategic ally in the war on terrorism.

Following 9/11, President Bush not only threatened governments in the Islamic world with an ultimatum, “either you’re with us, or you’re against us,” but he had Armitage and Secretary Powell directly threaten governments like Iraq for giving safe passage to Usama Bin Laden’s family. I firmly believe that when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein refused to turn over the family of Usama bin Laden to the US, following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush and his staff resolved to punish Iraqi’s leadership and to replace it. That was when Bush made the decision to go to war. All that one knew at the time from press reports was that “Bush was hopping mad” when he learned that the Iraqi leader would not turn over bin Laden’s wife and children passing through Iraq then to be interrogated by the FBI and CIA, or to be held as hostages by the Americans. I also believe that, consistent with the threats against Pakistan uttered by Talbot, that Armitage did indeed threaten to bomb Pakistan back into the stone age, notwithstanding the denials of Secretary Rice. Indeed, the phrase “to bomb them back into the stone age” was then current at the Pentagon regarding a number of countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Whether the US had a hand in Pakistan’s regime change, following my editorial on nuclear know-how trading there, I cannot say. But in light of what subsequently emerged publicly regarding the nuclear bomb commerce of Pakistani manufacturer, A. Q. Khan, I am certain that the US, even under President Clinton, was more deeply involved in clandestine surveillance of Pakistan than most people suspected. And one of the hallmarks of that surveillance was the purchase of so-called Pakistani or Urdu speaking “humanint,” or military spies within Pakistan to keep tabs on Pakistan’s military potential. So I take the remarks of Secretary Rice with a grain of salt. plays to public sympathy by citing her childhood under racial segregation, .

But there is something else about Rice that has always bothered me about her, beyond her mendacity and self-promotion. And that has to do with the way she distorts her past. She has always been a kind of window dressing or propaganda tool for the Bush administration, rather than a true policy maker. Bush, of course, makes policy, others implement it, but this is moreso true of Rice than any other Bush Cabinet Minister. And former President Bush, the father of the current President, is deeply involved in the “foreign policy emphasis” of his son’s administration.

I do not agree with former Conservative Prime Minister Kim Campbell, who once remarked at a private dinner I attended in 2003, that Rice is as “dumb as dishwater.” But since I was partly raised in the same African American community of Birmingham, Alabama, as was Ms. Rice,I do not doubt Rice’s intelligence. At the same time I cannot but note how she often plays to public sympathy by citing her childhood under racial segregation. Most of her listeners today would never know that she once held in contempt activists who were deeply involved in Civil Rights such as Martin Luther King, Malik Shabazz and Angela Davis, her neighbor. The truth is that Rice has no Civil Rights protest record, such as former UN Ambassador Andrew Young, a lieutenant of Martin Luther King; indeed, all of life she has shunned anything to do with activist protest organizations fighting racial segregation. One has the feeling from observing her today that she has never raised her objections to the decisions or actions of any person in direct authority over her.

As Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson wrote: ‘Nobody can go back and reinvent the past,’ Condoleezza Rice told Katie Couric on “60 Minutes” Sunday night. But this nugget of truth came amid a flood of retrospective reinvention in which Rice equated the war in Iraq with the civil rights struggle of the 1960s — and left me wondering whether I was hearing polished sophistry or a case of total denial. (“Baghdad Isn’t Birmingham,” By Eugene Robinson, Washington Post, Tuesday, September 26, 2006; Page A21)When Rice denies, therefore, that Armitage made threats to Pakistan following 9/11, she is behaving as anyone who knows her background would expect. There is not a shred of moral integrity in anything she says about the Armitage quote, and she is never to be trusted about such things. At least Colin Powell had shown some backbone opposing Bush, which is why, Bush, who wanted the highly admired, famous African American in a foreign policy position to use for propaganda purposes, held Rice as an African American backup replacement in the event that he and Powell would have a falling out, as they subsequently did.
The caveat that President John F. Kennedy expressed in a metaphor to Third World countries nearly a half-century ago, that those who ride the back of the tiger could well end up inside the tiger ‘s belly—-the tiger then being the Soviet Union—-should be applied now to the Third World allies of the Bush administration.
Journalist Carl Senna is the author of a biography of Colin Powell (Colin Powell: A Man of War and Peace, Walker Publishing, 1992) and he writes on foreign affairs for several newspapers in the United States and other countries.

This commentary available for reprint and syndication. Contact snowbirdcanada@gmail.com

Hello world!

October 5, 2006

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!