-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: March 27, 2007 5:51:19 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Fwd: Why Bush and Cheney Must Resign
The Bush Administration cannot be allowed to decide how to deal
with the problems now facing America -- problems which they
themselves have created. We can expect only more of the same and
worse. Most of the "solutions" favored by Bush and Cheney, for no
reason other than to "salvage their honor," pose even greater
threats to the future of our society. Bush and Cheney cannot be
trusted to accurately weigh the outcome of their choices.
Expecting those with bad judgment to deal with the negative effects
of their own bad judgment is the height of insanity. It promises,
predictably, even worse results than pure "bad luck."
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's
free from AOL at AOL.com.
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: March 21, 2007 2:43:15 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Why Bush and Cheney Must Resign
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Why Bush and Cheney Must Resign*
By Charles J. Reid, Gilroy, CA
George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney must resign their positions in
the U.S. Government. The reason why they must resign is because
their irrational decisions have placed their country in a horrific
position from which it cannot extricate itself by any decision they
or anyone else in their administration can make.
Due to their decisions the United States of America is faced with a
set of terrible circumstances in which all the options on the table
are bad choices all leading to undesirable outcomes. Their
decisions were irrational not necessarily by choice, but they are
irrational by consequence. They are responsible for the
consequences of their decisions. And one consequence of their
decisions is that, as decision makers, they themselves only have
irrational options, all of which will critically damage America and
hurt Americans continuously over the next two years.
America is faced either with two more years of bad decisions with
unwelcome outcomes, including more waste of American blood and
treasure not to mention the intensification of political hate and
dishonor in our country with increased irrational attempts to "save
the day," or with the quick installation of a new Administration
that will begin the process of leading America out of the mortal
quagmire in which it finds itself.
Any modern Western Government would have resigned long ago. A
Japanese statesman of any stature would have committed sepuku. A
British officer would have been give a pistol and left alone in a
closed room. Lyndon Johnson declined to run for re-election.
Today we are faced with a graver reality caused by decisions made
by Bush and Cheney, and we are much more dreadful choices. As they
take stock of this fundamental reality, the choice faced by Bush
and Cheney to remain in office through two more years of
irrationality or resign is an ultimate test of their true
patriotism and political courage.
They have failed. They have created a disaster. There is nothing
they themselves can do to remedy the situation. Americans and
others will continue to suffer and die, while the taxpayers waste
more and more money. George Bush and Richard Cheney face the true
test of their political honor in the midst of the shame they have
already caused America.
Let us overlook the appearance of dishonesty, dishonor,
dissemblance, and un-American destruction of faith in the
principles of our constitution in favor of fear for our security.
Let's assume all actions and intentions were well-intentioned and
squeaky clean.
From a military point of view, the initial Blitskrieg to Bagdad,
employing speed, mobility, and all components of the American
military, was as successful as any military operation could be,
even with the unexpected denial of the 4th Infantry Division's
transit through Turkey to create a northern front.
Aspects of the political agenda had merit: stop Saddam Hussein from
paying the families of suicide bombers $25,000, after successful
missions against Israel; overthrow a dictator responsible for the
deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings; lay the groundwork
for a more humane government in Iraq.
Count these as successes, and prima facie, perhaps goals worth
striving for one way or another.
Unfortunately, the broader agenda -- all the components of which we
do not know but can only wildly speculate on with varying proximity
to the truth because of the secrecy of the Bush Administration --
failed. Bush and Cheney had no policy for implementing Victory. The
"cake walk" turned into a path of quicksand. The "Hail to the
Saviors" turned into "Death to the Occupiers. And as we recall
that Adolf Hitler rose to office in a democratic election, we
understand that democracy does not always lead to optimum results,
even in the best of times.
Worse, the most important events in the International System will
never be fully controlled by the United States of America, America
ought not seek to control all the world's resources, and Iraq will
never be a democracy of the type dreamed of by the highest leaders
of our land, and those espousing the ideas that influenced them.
The highest values of America have been sacrificed, ostensibly for
good
intentions. The dishonor evident around the world cannot be
remedied by this
Administration. Only more threats of bad decisions appear on the
horizon.
Some of these options, if chosen by Bush and Cheney in an attempt
to “save
their honor†pose the greatest threats to our way of life and
our society.
Bush and Cheney are not good enough to predict the outcome of their
decisions.
Acting to try to implement an empirical contradiction is the
essence of irrationality, the result of which leads to bad options
with a higher degree of predictability than random bad luck would
offer.
Let us define rationality as action that leads to the preservation
of freedom choice. Ethically, freedom of choice always presumes at
least good outcomes among a set of alternatives the next time a
decision has to be made. This is a simple concept. People act
rationally when the next time they have to make a decision, they
have at least one good option among the options available. A "good
option" is one that constructively promotes one's interests. A
"good option" may involve promoting the interests of others, if the
constructive improvement of interests includes the improvement of
the interests of others, which it often does, as most salesmen know.
There are some clear examples of Rationality in modern history.
The Marshall Plan was rational. The United Stated financed the
post-war reconstruction of Europe, partly to raise up a war-ravaged
land quickly to create a bulwark against the threat of Soviet
Communism in the initial phase of the Cold War, partly to ensure a
mutually beneficial economic environment for both American and
European businesses. The Marshall Plan multiplied the flexibility
and constructive set of positive options and good decisions for all
concerned for a generation.
The 1944 G.I. Bill was rational. It educated a generation of
veterans who did not have access to education and higher incomes
due to the desolation of the Great Depression, whose effects were
still being felt when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Men and
women who survived fighting the most horrible war in human history,
Americans members of what we now call "The Greatest Generation,"
had more flexible options when they returned to their civilian
lives. And the constructive choices they had together with their
decisions made America better.
The U.S. decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis were rational.
When John Kennedy decided on a "quarantine" of Cuba, all the
options he had on the table to deal with strategic nuclear missiles
in Cuba remained available to him if needed at a later moment.
During the crisis, by closing the radius of the quarantine, Kennedy
gave Khrushchev more time to make a rational decision himself.
Promoting rationality in others is part of a rational choice if
that possibility is embedded in the option.
The ultimate outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis was a step back
from the brink of a potential nuclear holocaust and an effort to
ensure that nothing was done to eliminate positive options
somewhere down the line of later decision making.
Contrariwise, it is irrational to promote irrationality in others,
as the F.B.I. did during the seige against the Branch Davidians at
Waco in 1993. Playing Nancy-Sinatra and other tunes on loud
speakers twenty-four hours a day for seven weeks, denying the human
beings surrounded in the Branch Davidian compound sleep and the
ability to think clearly, ultimately led to the deaths of over
seventy men, women, and children, under highly questionable ethical
circumstances, for which no one was held accountable, with the
crime scene razed to prevent proper investigation. The use of
tanks and other advanced military weaponry against American
citizens for an ostensible weapon's violations in a weapons-loving
state did not enhance respect for the F.B.I. -- an irrational
outcome by any measure.
Injustice, especially in the service of bureaucratic pride, is
always irrational.
It is always harder to show a clear-cut case of irrationality
without making ethical assumptions, showing that ethics and
rationality are closely intertwined.
But history does have its obvious irrational moments.
We need to go as far back as the Peloponnesian War between Athens
and Sparta for our first case. Thucydides describes the Melian
Negotiations. Athens, seeking to expand its influence, demanded
that the people of Melia abrogate their alliance with Sparta under
threat of enslaving all the women and children, after executing all
the men. The Melians had an equivalent of a town hall" meeting.
Athenian ambassadors were present to present their case. The
Melians debated the matter and voted to uphold their alliance with
Sparta, their leaders having given their word. The next day, the
Athenians razed the Melian community, killed all the men, and
enslaved all the women and children.
This suggests an ethic associated with rationality: rational
decisions makers will not put the existence of their communities at
risk when they make decisions to maintain or expand their power.
Saddam Hussein's refusal to withdraw from Kuwait before the Gulf
War was an irrational decision.
However, Bush's speech, wherein he gave Saddam and his sons "forty-
eight hours" to leave Iraq or else, while perhaps acceptable lines
in a Western movie, was equally irrational, for it put Bush in the
position that he had to move forward with an attack -- no doubt his
intention -- but without any other option available, should
circumstances more obvious to him require other options. His
invitation to insurgents to "Bring it on" was equally irrational --
for he invited a circumstance wherein his only response would be a
military one, in a war where all agree requires a political
settlement.
Another example is more psychological, but it illustrates the
necessity to promote the preservation of freedom of choice. An
individual is facing a death sentence and is given the choice to
die by guillotine or firing squad. There is no way the individual
can make a rational choice by definition.
It is not debatable. By definition, a rational decision must lead
to a later point in time where a decision maker has constructive,
positive options among his choices. The prisoner facing death,
when the sentence is enforced, cannot make any more decisions as we
know them in our reality. His choice is founded on fear, either
fear of the blade or fear of the bullet -- both emotionally, but
not rationally, based.
History is actually replete with irrational decisions. While
volumes have been written about many famous cases, the outcome
often speaks for our historical judgment. For example, Napoleon's
march on Moscow clearly was irrational. His "Grand Armée"
started out on their trek with 250,000 soldiers.
Czar Alexander evacuated Moscow, as one would in the face of an
approaching hurricane. Napoleon entered an empty city,
importantly, a place with no food to sustain his soldiers. When he
returned to France in the midst of one of the harshest winters of
the century, he had 15,000 soldiers left. By any measure, his
decision was irrational.
Hitler's decision not to permit Sixth Army commander, General
Friedrich Paulus, to initiate a strategic retreat from Stalingrad
was irrational. A retreat would have preserved his options.
Staying the course guaranteed his options would be eliminated. In
fact, Hitler failed to take Stalingrad, Moscow, and Leningrad,
suggesting that former corporals ought not be provided with Supreme
Military Command authority over purely military decisions, for
irrational decisions are often due to ignorance of the intricacies
of a particular subject matter, which serves as the basis for action.
What makes it more urgent that George W. Bush and Richard B.Cheney
resign now are policy statements made by several of the leading
candidates for President in the 2008 election. One component of
what they propose is the redeployment" of American troops to other
places in the Middle East. Some propose leaving U.S. support and
training troops in Iraq. Both are irrational, and akin to Ronald
Reagan's decision to send U.S. Marines to Lebanon in 1982,
resulting in the bombing deaths of over 200 in October 1983.
Leaving U.S. troops in the Middle East without International
legitimacy will place U.S. policy makers in the same position
Reagan was in 1982-3. They will be forced to expect and to respond
to terrorist attacks. No other constructive positive options,
except defend themselves as well as indefensible regimes from their
own people, are possible. American troops must return home first,
before they can be re-deployed to the Middle East under more
rational circumstances.
While I am not advocating a Pelosi Presidency per se, Nancy Pelosi
will become the President of the United States. Bush and Cheney
probably would not resign for any reason, but most certainly they
would not, knowing that Nancy Pelosi would succeed them. Indeed,
they would be loath to be responsible for such an outcome,
something that would be highly embarrassing but a decision
requiring such a high degree of patriotism and political courage
very few individual have.
As it turns out, Pelosi has one talent, useful in present
circumstances: she listens to all sides of an issue. Concerning
Iraq, she will need to listen to all of Iraq neighbors as well as
all of Iraq's competing interest groups. Coupled with her stated
preference to remove U.S. troops from Iraq, this one talent she
has, mandated by the position she has, puts her in a position to
identify more rational options than those currently available to
U.S. decision makers under present circumstances.
So what is the probability that Bush and Cheney will resign? Close
to zero, I would imagine. The pride of these two men is greater
than their patriotism. Their attitude that they were born to lead
means that psychologically they cannot understand the reality they
have created.
I repeat: As they take stock of this fundamental reality, the
choice faced by Bush and Cheney to remain in office through two
more years of irrationality or resign is an ultimate test of their
true patriotism and political courage. They have failed. They
have created an unending disaster. There is nothing they
themselves can do to remedy the situation. Americans and others
will continue to suffer and die in the thousands during their
remaining time in office, while the taxpayers waste more and more
money. Bush and Cheney face the true test of their political honor
in the midst of the shame they have already caused America.
For these reasons, for their failures, and for the lack of a set of
options to remedy their policies, George W. Bush and Richard B.
Cheney must freely resign their positions with all deliberate speed.
---- Msg sent via CWNet - http://www.cwnet.com/
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
