Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 22: Bush, Hitler, and God

STEVEN JONAS, MD, MPH

About three weeks ago, BuzzFlash ran a Short Shot of mine entitled “Pres. Ahmadinejad and Pres. Bush: Connecting through God.” In fairness to President Ahmadinejad, I should like to note that he is not the only authoritarian ruler connecting with God with whom Bush has a more than passing connection. I have recently come across a set of quotes demonstrating that Bush and Hitler too have/had much in common in the manner in which they see/saw themselves connecting with the Almighty.

(References, in part: http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/942; http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/12/far04041.html; http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/12/god_is_with_us__1.html )

And so:

“I believe that God wants me to be president.” George W. Bush

“I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people to be allowed to wage this battle for Germany,” Adolf Hitler - Berlin, March 1936

“God is not on the side of any nation, yet we know He is on the side of justice. Our finest moments [as a nation] have come when we faithfully served the cause of justice for our own citizens, and for the people of other lands.” George W. Bush

“If we pursue this way, if we are decent, industrious, and honest, if we so loyally and truly fulfill our duty, then it is my conviction that in the future as in the past the Lord God will always help us.” Adolf Hitler, Harvest Thanksgiving Festival on the Buckeburg, Oct. 3, 1937

“Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.” George W. Bush

“Never in these long years have we offered any other prayer but this: Lord, grant to our people peace at home, and grant and preserve to them peace from the foreign foe:” Hitler - Nuremberg, Sept. 13, 1936

(This last date was almost a year to the day after the institution by decree (the Nazi equivalent of a combination Executive Order/Signing Statement, of the “Nuremberg Laws.” They arbitrarily stripped Jews, and later others, of German citizenship, simply on the basis of identity. The first Georgite equivalent would be the so-called “Gay Marriage Amendment,” for which the Georgites have campaigned vigorously. It would strip from homosexuals the right to equal protection of the law under the 14th amendment, interestingly enough a “God-driven” political campaign in our country.)

As they say, God moves, or is moved, or is used, or shall we say, is exploited, in mysterious, or shall we say in the latter instance, totally hypocritical and destructive, ways.

This article was originally published on BuzzFlash on Tue, 02/20/2007 - http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/049

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY), a weekly contributing author for The Political Junkies, a regular columnist for BuzzFlash, and contributing editor for The Moving Planet Blog.

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 21: Mitt Romney and Hitler’s Pal, Henry Ford

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH

Mitt Romney has been anointed as the candidate of the Republican Far Right since the Fox “News” Channel started touting him right after the 2006 elections. (The Republicans have Rightists and Far-Rightists, and nothing else, it should be noted.) It is apparent that he is now the fair-haired boy of that wing. Too bad for McCain, who is just as far-right on policy as Romney, if not further to the right, but over the past several years, he made the mistake of appearing to be a “moderate,” with a sense of humor too. MSNBC’s Don Imus, who is totally against the Iraq War and voted for Kerry in 2004, has already announced that he will be voting for McCain in 2008, because he is a “moderate” and “likable.”

So even though he is being as much of a pander-bear to the far-Right as he can be (and on 2/19/07 came out for repeal of Roe v. Wade), McCain appears to have lost it with them, apparently for such sins as opposing Bush on torture and calling for even more troops to be sent to Iraq than Bush is sending (Congress or no). As for Rudy, he is trying to join up with the pander-bear too, but a public cross-dresser will have a hard time convincing such true far- (and in his case Christian-) Rightists as Tony Perkins that they are Right enough. So it’s Romney, Mormon or no, only a very recent conversion to anti-choice-ism or no. His mystical “conversion,” he tells us, came during some discussion about human cloning. How you get from there to denying all of us the right to our beliefs about when life begins under the penalty of the criminal law is beyond me, but it seems to be working.

And then he goes and makes his “official” announcement in front of the Henry Ford Museum in Michigan. Interesting choice (and it is a story that seems to have come and gone). Fascinating choice. Henry Ford was the pre-eminent American anti-Semite in the pre-World War II period. He began a close ideological and publishing association with Hitler in the 1920s, and also began funding the Nazi Party at that time. In 1938, Hitler awarded him “The Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle,” also given to Mussolini earlier that year. It is interesting to note that during the 1930s, Ford provided major assistance to the Soviet Union in starting up their automobile industry (which of course a decade later would being turning out tanks in untold masses to fight against — Hitler’s tanks, some of which were likely built at the Ford plant in Cologne, which for some strange reason, was never bombed by the Allies.) For this, the 20th century’s other great dictator, Stalin, made him a Hero of the Soviet Union. I doubt that there is anyone else in history who has the distinction of holding those two “honors.” And it was in front of the Ford museum that the current darling of the Republican Far-Right, Mitt Romney, chose to make his official announcement for the Presidency. Ain’t history fun!

Originally published on BuzzFlash on Fri, 02/16/2007 - 1:25pm. Steven Jonas
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/048

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY), a weekly contributing author for The Political Junkies, and contributing editor for The Moving Planet Blog.

Dr. J. Short Shot No. 20: On Tim Hardaway and Political Homphobia

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH

Oh the irony of it all. There’s Tim Hardaway, former National Basketball Association All-Star, who happens to be African-American, sounding off about gays. “I hate gay people. I’m homophobic.” If he found one on his team, he allowed, he would ask to have him traded, or lacking that, ask to be traded himself. My-oh-my, shades of the appropriately named Fred “Dixie” Walker, racist and star right fielder for the 1940s Brooklyn Dodgers. When Jackie Robinson came to the Dodgers training camp in the spring of 1947, Walker reacted in much the same way. Robinson, of course, became an All-Star and opened the gates for every African-American player since. Walker, along with every other racist on the team, was shut down by the true Southern gentleman and Kentucky colonel Harold “Pee Wee” Reese.

Now here’s Hardaway, saying in effect, it wouldn’t matter who he was and what he could do on the court, I would hate a gay pro basketball player just because of who he is, by his nature, not by anything he ever did. Sound familiar, followers of white supremacy? Fortunately, although he is out of the game now, the NBA immediately uninvited Hardaway from its own All-Star game and celebration this weekend.

But how did Hardaway get that way? Just like racism, homophobia is not in-born. It is taught. So widely taught as it is in this country, it is rampant even amongst the most discriminated-against group of people in American history. That should come as no surprise. In this decade, we need look no further than the Christian Right and its political party, otherwise known as the Republicans. Under Karl Rove’s leadership, the latter have made homophobia its prime wedge issue of the decade. Christian Rightist leader James Dobson never tires of running the lie that homosexuality is a matter of choice, as if skin color (as, by the way, Rush Limbaugh now tells us about Obama) were. Trent Lott, when he was the Senate Majority Leader (he is now only the Deputy Minority Leader), told us that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says it is. And Karl Rove has never tired of running state Homosexual Second Class Citizenship Constitutional amendments (misidentified to be about “gay marriage”) when it will help him to win elections. The Christian Right and the Republican Party have mobilized homophobia and taken it into the political wars. So indeed it should be no surprise that someone like Tim Hardaway, African-American or no, just vocalizes it, out loud.

Originally published on BuzzFlash on Fri, 02/16/2007 - 1:25pm. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/048

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY), a weekly contributing author for The Political Junkies, and contributing editor for The Moving Planet Blog.

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 19: Notes on McCain, Haggard, and McAuliffe

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH

1. Early in the week, Senator John McCain told us he couldn’t let the Democratic “sense-of-the-Senate” resolution opposing escalation come up even for discussion much less a vote, because he thought that it represented a statement of no-confidence in the troops. Most people would consider such a vote one of no-confidence in the President, but John must have had something in mind. Wonder what he would mean by that? That by adopting such a resolution the Senate felt that the troops there were not doing their job? That the new 21,500-48,000 troops (depending upon who is doing the counting) couldn’t be counted on? That to have real confidence, the President’s service-age twin daughters should be sent? Just what does that mean, John?

2. The Rev. Ted Haggard, we are now told by a panel of fellow far-right wing Christian Fundamentalist ministers, is, after three weeks of confabbing with them and who knows who else, “completely heterosexual.” Is “completely heterosexual” something like “completely pregnant,” whereas “partially homosexual” would be something like “a little bit pregnant?” Further, does “completely heterosexual” mean that he is also “completely monogamous” or is it only a “little bit monogamous?” Finally, does “completely heterosexual” mean that he is going to completely get his job back, or get something else like it? Or only a “little bit” of a job, with them or somewhere else?

3. On Air America Radio the other day, Terry McAuliffe, DNC Chair for most of the W. Clinton presidency, was plumping for his new book What a Party. He was famous for his close attention to polls and focus groups to develop the President’s message (probably the reason why W. Clinton never counterattacked on anything, from the debate on the Clinton Health Plan to the Paula Jones Perjury Trap he was lured into). McAuliffe is now chair of the H. Clinton campaign to be the next President Clinton. He was telling us the fatal flaw of the Kerry campaign was its reliance on polling and focus groups to fine-tune his message, which by failing to attack Bush at every (or any) turn ended up fatally off-key. He then went on to say that H. Clinton’s campaign would be nothing like that. It would be run entirely on principle and rightness, regardless of the polls and focus groups. Yeah. Just as it has been run up to now, huh? No “fine-tuning,” eh (as the Canadians would say)? Terry: are you kidding me, or are you just trying to sell books?

Originally published on BuzzFlash on Thu, 02/08/2007 - 10:08am. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/046

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY), a weekly contributing author for The Political Junkies, and contributing editor for The Moving Planet Blog.

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 18: Pres. Ahmadinejad and Pres. Bush: Connecting through God

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH

Both U.S. President Bush and Iranian President Ahmadinejad are shooting off their respective mouths at each other and each other’s nations. Major elements of their respective power elites are more and more nervous that such shooting off may lead to real shooting between the two countries, in the worst interests of both. There is common ground between the countries. First and foremost, a shooting war between them would bring immense harm to both. Further, it would have the potential for bringing even more immense harm to the world at large, especially should the U.S. use nuclear weapons, an idea that apparently has been bruited about, at least, it is rumored, about the office of the U.S. Vice President.

I have a suggestion for cooling off the situation: let the two presidents meet and jointly explore the lines of connection they have both told us they have to God. Surely in such a meeting of the minds, He or She should be able to help them sort things out, don’t you think? Back in 2004, then Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas reported on a very interesting conversation he had with George Bush. Referring to the “War on Terrorism,” Bush told Abbas that: “God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the U.S. elections will come and I will have to focus on them.” On October 19, 2006, President Ahmadinejad told us that: “I Have a Connection with God, Since God Said That the Infidels Will Have No Way to Harm the Believers (MEMRI, Special Dispatch - Iran, as reported by Iran News, 10-19-06).”

And so there we have it, a solution to the “Iran Crisis.” Both national leaders talk with the one God. Hopefully, the one God they talk to is the same one. Hopefully He/She will now tell both of them: “Cool it, brothers. You have got to talk this thing out.” And then hopefully, since Bush will now know that he and Ahmadinejad both talk with God, following that meeting, Bush will say to Ahmadinejad, “You know, after our latest conversation with the almighty, I now know that we must talk first, bomb later, rather than the other way round. How about lunch?” Alternatively, after having heard of this scenario, their respective power elites will remove them from office or at least from power, and the world can then move on to finding a peaceful solution to the Middle East Crisis, including that in Israel/Palestine, a la, for example, the Report of the Iraq Study Group.

Originally published on BuzzFlash on Fri, 02/02/2007 - 9:43am. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/044

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) a weekly contributing author for The Political Junkies (www.thepoliticaljunkies.net), and contributing editor for The Moving Planet Blog (http://www.planetarymovement.org/).

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 17: The Significance of the Democrats’ “100 Hours”

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH

“The 100 Hours” of the new Democratic House of Representatives is beginning just about now as I write this. The primary significance of “The 100 Hours” is that the legislative block of time exists. As much as the Republicans and their Privatized Ministry of Propaganda would like the public to think that the 100 hours are clock hours and the clock began ticking with the ceremonies opening the Congress took place on Jan. 4, the plan has always been that they are legislative hours, to begin when the first session of the 110th Congress is convened.

The significance “The 100 Hours” is that the House Democrats under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi have a plan, and it is a plan for dealing with substantive issues, six of them. The significance of “The 100 Hours” is that it is focused on substance, on enacting legislation, totally unlike Gingrich’s “Contract on America.” In the latter, six of its eight (not ten as is commonly thought) provisions dealt with Congressional processes, not substance.

“The 100 Hours” are to deal with substantive issues like raising the minimum wage for the first time in about ten years. This is an item that the Republican Congress absolutely refused to deal with, all the time they were continually raising the maximum wage for their super-rich paymasters. “The 100 Hours” is dealing with a substantive issue like implementing the host of recommendations that came out of the 9/11 Commission that the “We’re here to protect you” Bush Administration simply did not want to be bothered with, for two reasons. First they had nothing to do with ripping up the civil rights and liberties protections and separation of powers provisions of the Constitution. Second, they appeared not to have very much profit potential for the Republican corporate constituency.

The significance of “The 100 Hours” is that there is a clear leader of the House Democrats and that she has a clear agenda. This is what the Republicans are most afraid of: a Democrat who knows where she is going and has a pretty good plan for getting there. For the first time since the days of Speaker Sam Rayburn there is a Democratic Speaker who is good at herding cats and wants to do it. Since they were dealing with Republicans, Gingrich/DeLay/Hastert, in contrast, only had to be good at herding sheep, and to be sure were oh-so-expert in rounding up the occasional stray.

Thus in terms or power and influence in the House Democratic caucus, the Republicans face a foe who is the Democratic equivalent of Gingrich/DeLay/Hastert. Since the substance of what Speaker Pelosi intends to accomplish is diametrically opposed to the substance of what Gingrich/DeLay/Hastert did accomplish, indeed the Republicans are afraid, very afraid. Which is precisely why they and their Privatized Ministry of Propaganda lead by the Fox “News” Channel and O’RHannibaugh are working so hard to demonize her.

Finally “The 100 Hours” signifies a Democratic Congress, not just the House, which is different from any previous Democratic Congress. Due to the racism-based, Nixon-initiated Republican “Southern Strategy” that has been so successful for them down to the present time, Democratic control of the Congress no longer depends on a large bloc of Southern Democrats. For that blessing, we can truly say “Hallelujah!” For the most part, other than a small bloc of African-American Representatives, there are few Southern Democrats left. Very significant.

As for policy, Democrats, since, unlike Republicans, when they are being Democrats they focus on new ideas and problem-solving for the majority of the people, are naturally internally combative. This, in my view, is healthy, as long as they come together on major issues, like Iraq, as with a few exceptions like Joe Lieberman, they are doing. And so “The 100 Hours” signifies a Democratic controlled Congress (at least for as long as Sen. Johnson lives and Sen. Lieberman doesn’t bolt) that is unified to a greater extent than any Democratic Congress has been since the days of Viet Nam and Watergate. The Republicans know that better than anyone. Chalk up another one for significance.

Originally published on BuzzFlash on Wed, 01/10/2007 - 5:57am. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/042

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) a weekly Contributing Author for The Political Junkies (www.thepoliticaljunkies.net), Contributing Editor for The Moving Planet Blog (http://www.planetarymovement.org/), and a Columnist for BuzzFlash (http://www.buzzflash.com/).

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 16: The Last Signing Statement

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH

I am sure that you are all aware of the substance of this item that appeared on the Afternoon Buzz (Flash) on January 4, 2007: “W pushes envelope on U.S. spying. New postal law lets Bush peek through your mail.”

Well, here’s another event of the same type, only bigger, that could happen:
Dateline Washington, DC, October 24, 2008

Today President George W. Bush made two announcements critical to the nation’s future and, in the eyes of many observers, unprecedented ones. First he declared a National Emergency of unlimited duration, based on knowledge that has come to the National Intelligence Agency in the last several days of a terrorist plot of a magnitude, in the President’s words, “1000 times that of 9/11.” He said that of course he could release no details of the plot, on grounds of national security. Second, he issued what he has described as his “last Signing Statement,” last that is until the present National Emergency is, in his judgment, over.

This statement comes on the heels of the passage yesterday by the Congress of the over-ride of the President’s veto of the bill that if enacted would have removed all legal authority from any Presidential Signing Statements contravening Congressionally passed legislation. Congress then adjourned as is customary, two weeks before the date of the upcoming election (which will now apparently not take place). In the House, 64 Republicans had joined the 232 Democrats for the over-ride vote. In the Senate, 18 Republicans had joined 50 Democrats in favor of the over-ride, with the balance of the Republicans and one Independent voting against. That veto, his 69th, put President Bush one ahead of the 68 President Gerald Ford had issued against the votes of a Democratic Congress during a similar period of time in the White House.

In his Statement (already described by some as actually a “De-signing Statement), the President made it clear that he could not and would not abide by a piece of legislation that he termed “one that strips this Office of any and all power to do what the American people elected me to do: protect them.” Since the Congress had taken such an irresponsible and reckless position, he added, under his inherent powers as Commander-in-Chief, in the light of the National Emergency, he was postponing the national elections for all offices indefinitely. Since the 110th Congress had adjourned itself, he noted, as long as the National Emergency continued, it could not re-convene.

The President also announced that given the state of the nation, he was also mobilizing for the first time his new National Citizens Militia. This controversial corps is made up of veterans of the private security services which have burgeoned in the country during the Bush Presidency, seeing action both at home and abroad, and graduates of the so-called Christian Militia training academies. Its first two actions were to block all entrances to the Capitol and the Congressional office buildings and to displace the Secret Service as the guard for the President, his immediate staff and the White House. Its third was to place the Congressional leadership of both parties in protective custody.

So, you think that the most important issue facing the Congress is the War on Iraq, huh? Well, think again, my friends, it is only second.

Originally published on BuzzFlash on Fri, 01/05/2007 - 12:39pm. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/041

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) a weekly Contributing Author for The Political Junkies (www.thepoliticaljunkies.net), Contributing Editor for The Moving Planet Blog (http://www.planetarymovement.org/), and a Columnist for BuzzFlash (http://www.buzzflash.com/).

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No. 15: Gerald Ford and Bipartisanship. Gerald Ford and Bipartisanship?!?

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH

As the Gerald Ford funeral and related eulogies proceed today we hear over and over again about how bipartisan Gerald Ford was. Commentators tell us that us the country is just fed up with the present partisanship of Washington, and yearn for the good old Gerald Ford days. Further most make a point of making the point that the big responsibility the Congressional Democrats now have is to restore those “feelings of camaraderie, cooperation, and good humor” that characterized the era of Gerald Ford. No sympathy for the item at the top of this morning’s BuzzFlash “Top Five Headlines:” “As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking. Bully for the Dems!”

The way most commentators put it, those feelings of bipartisanship just sort of went away on their own, or if they did not go on their own, then the Democrats were equally responsible for the sea change and now, certainly have all the responsibility for reversing that destructive direction. (I guess those commentators never heard of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom Delay, Karl Rove, George W. Bush, O’RHannibaugh, and the Fox “News” Channel.) Ah for the era of Gerald Ford, they yearn.

So what about the era of Gerald Ford? The first time I can recall hearing the name was in association with the “Impeach Earl Warren” movement of the 1950s and 60s. It had been started by the John Birch Society on the heels of Brown v. Board of Education and the further series of pro-civil rights and liberties decisions that came down from the Warren Court during that time. The movement was especially popular in the South, but there was at least one Northern Congressman, I recall (and do correct me, dear readers, if I am wrong about this) who put his name to it as well.

Gerald Ford was the minority leader of a House of Representatives that stood by Nixon until the bitter end, when only a few acolytes outside of the Congress, like William Safire and Pat Buchanan, were still doing so. It was claimed by Howard Fineman of Newsweek on Imus in the Morning, this morning, that there was no deal for a pardon before Nixon resigned. But Fineman also told us that if there had been no pardon, after his resignation Nixon would not have copped a plea like his first Vice-President, the delightful Spiro Agnew, did. No, he would have fought the case until the bitter end. But if he were prepared to do that anyway, why resign? Why not stay on and just fight impeachment in the Congress, where he would have stood a much better chance of getting off than in a court of law. So there may well have been a deal after all. Ford the bipartisan. Ford the bipartisan.

In a little more than two years in office, good old bipartisan Gerry issued 68 vetoes of Democratic legislation. Even though the country was totally against it, and Nixon himself had finally begun the pullout from Vietnam, Ford was ready to re-escalate, stopped only by a Democratic Congress. (And who says the history does not repeat itself?) Finally, Ford had appointed as his own Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller, who was a truly bipartisan Republican in the (FDR’s Sec. Of War) Henry L. Stimson, Earl Warren, Jacob Javits mold. Because he thought that he needed to protect his Right flank, in 1976 good old bipartisan Gerry dropped Rockefeller and chose instead Sen. Robert Dole, known even then as one of the most sharp-toothed-and-clawed Republicans in Congress. Having come from 33 points down against the fine man but totally ineffective campaigner Jimmy Carter, Ford lost by only a whisker. He said later that dropping Rockefeller probably cost him the Presidency. Ford did seem to become a bit truly bipartisan when it no longer mattered. But when it did, as we say in New York City, fuggebaboutit!

Original published on BuzzFlash on Tue, 01/02/2007 - 1:41pm. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/040

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) a weekly Contributing Author for The Political Junkies (www.thepoliticaljunkies.net), Contributing Editor for The Moving Planet Blog (http://www.planetarymovement.org/), and a Columnist for BuzzFlash (http://www.buzzflash.com/).

Dr. J.’s Short Shot No 14: Who is Delusional About Iraq?

Bush appears to be delusional about Iraq, at least in public. At his Dec. 20, 2006 news conference he said that the U.S. needs to increase the overall size of the Army and the Marine Corps (when neither service can presently meet its recruiting goals). He also said that insurgents in Iraq thwarted U.S. efforts at (quoting here) “establishing security and stability throughout the country” in 2006. These (quoting here) “enemies of liberty … carried out a deliberate strategy to foment sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shia. And over the course of the year they had success.” He announced that the Selective Service would be running “tests” at some time in the future related to reinstating the draft. He also pledged to work with the new Democratic Congress. Further, he announced that first four of the 20-30,000 additional US troops to be sent to Iraq would be his two daughters and his niece and nephew, all, it happens, of draft age, were the draft to be reinstated as Bush has said it might have to be (only kidding!).

It seems that Bush has decided to send those additional 30,000 troops, in a “surge” to do something (although exactly what has not yet been announced). So why 30,000? Not that we have them to spare without recycling and extending tours, but why not 50,000, or why not 20,000? Since President “I-always-listen-to-my-Generals-and-make-my- military-decisions-based-on-what-they-tell-me-except-when-they-don’t-agree-with-what-Dick-and–I-have-already-decided-to-do” Bush is obviously not listening to his military Generals, who is he listening to?

Well, this one has the fingerprints of General “I change Constitutions” Rove (The Guardian (UK) Nov. 25, 2004, Sidney Blumenthal) all over it. Militarily it makes no sense, so the generals tell us. Politically it does, for the Rovian politics of always attack, never defend. This move is clearly intended to put the Democrats, not the Iraqi insurgents, Sunni, Shiite and other, on the defensive. Bush wants to appear to be “doing something,” to “be in charge,” and surely to be in a position to be able to blame the Dems. for any failures, as he defines them, should they somehow block the 30,000. His talk of the draft is of the same nature. The buck never stops on his desk, and if he can kick it onto the desk of an enemy, and for him the Democrats are just as much enemies as are the Iraqis, so much the better.

In his superb history of the Era of Georgite Propaganda, Frank Rich (The Greatest Story Ever Sold), repeatedly makes the point that every major decision about the Iraq War, from the occasion the invasion was publicly announced to be timed with the 2002 election, on to, as Rich puts it, the point when (p. 222): “[the] administration was forced into rebuilding Iraq,” it would, he said further “time every pivot point, from the creation of a constitution to the scheduling of elections, to deadlines dictated by Rove’s political goals at home (whether a State of the Union speech or a domestic election), rather than to the patience-requiring realities of forging a post-Saddam government.”

And so, it is not Bush, but the Democrats who are delusional. Delusional about Bush, that is, if they cannot see this for what it is: a naked political ploy.

This article originally appeared on BuzzFlash on Fri, 12/29/2006 - 10:35am. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/039

“DR. J” is a nom-de-plume for Steven Jonas, MD, MPH, a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) a weekly Contributing Author for The Political Junkies (www.thepoliticaljunkies.net), Contributing Editor for The Moving Planet Blog (http://www.planetarymovement.org/), and a Columnist for BuzzFlash (http://www.buzzflash.com/).

Note to the reader. The previous 13 in this series can be viewed at: http://shortshot.wordpress.com/