It's About Coalitions, Not Purity, Part Forty-Five

"The Chickens Come Home To Roost-George W. Bush's Second Term," Part 2

George W. Bush chose 3 nominees for the United State Supreme Court, although one of those, Harriet Miers, withdrew. Both John Roberts and Samuel Alito were confirmed, with opposition, by the U.S. Senate.*

In the late summer of 2005, a major hurricane, named Katrina, struck the U.S. Gulf coast. President Bush and his administration were slow to respond to what became a major crisis, as state and local governments struggled to accommodate those displaced by the violent storm, as well as to clean up the immense destruction caused by Katrina. Photos and videos of people begging for help from rooftops in flooded areas struck a raw nerve with many Americans, as they turned on the president and the conservative philosophy of people needing to do more to help themselves. The reports about the clean up and the overall catastrophe went on for months.

George W. Bush also tried to reform the immigration system, including what was termed, "a path to citizenship," but hard line conservatives opposed the measure, and it did not pass, in two separate attempts.

The war in Iraq continued, with the president sending more troops, a part of a "surge." When the surge helped to cut some of the violence in Iraq, President Bush and the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Al Maliki, made an agreement with the goal of the withdrawal of U.S. forces by the end of 2011. During President Bush's entire second term, the debate over the use of torture to obtain information from prisoners came under intense fire at home and abroad. Further, responsibility for the faulty information used to get the U.S. into Iraq in the first place was front and foremost in the minds of many. The drumbeat had ceased to be the one leading to war, but rather one wanting answers and accountability for the previous drumbeat TO war.

Oil and gasoline prices surged ahead to new records, with the president and Republicans saying it was "just the free market at work." More and more another statistic began to be heard in economic reports... FORECLOSURES, as the numbers for such continued to escalate. The banking system began to show signs of strain (I'll cover the financial crisis in the next segment) and the president and congressional Democrats (Democrats controlled Congress after the 2006 election) worked together to get a tax rebate totaling about 150 billion dollars. As speculation in the oil and gas markets drove prices ever higher, I recall one analyst saying how a significant part of the tax rebate would go into the pockets of big time speculators. Ahh, c'mon, now. You don't think those greedy, no good bastards would do that, do you? After all, the Bush administration said it was "free markets." I guess pickpockets could claim the same thing... free markets.

Another sign of the free markets was showing..... tremendous stress on the Republican coalition.

Next.... The Chickens Come Home To Roost, But It's Too Hot In The Hen House ... The Financial Meltdown

* Justice Sandra Day O'Connor retired and then Chief Justice William Rehnquist died; thus the two Supreme Court vacancies. 

WORD HISTORY:
Term-This word, distantly related to "through," goes back to the Indo European root "terh," which had the idea of, "pass through, pass beyond," which then produced the extended "termen," which had the notion, "limit, boundary." This gave Latin "terminus," which meant, "boundary or limit:  geographically, time wise, contract wise;" thus also, "a word or expression." This gave Latin-based Old French "terme," and this was borrowed into English, circa 1200, initially with the ending "e."

"It's About Coalitions, Not Purity" Part Forty-Four

"The Chickens Come Home To Roost-George W. Bush's Second Term"

George W. Bush's second term began with the failure of his Social Security privatization plan to get anywhere. In Iraq, a civil war had broken out between Iraqi Sunni and Shia Muslims. Caught in the middle were American, British, and other coalition forces or their assistance groups, as well as a number of private security contractors. Bombings and killings were common, and the whole situation was a mess, as coalition forces also tried to oust al Qaeda units. On top of this, reports and photos had surfaced of various torture techniques used by Americans against prisoners in Iraq. This brought condemnation from many within the U.S., as well as from international sources. This part of the war in Iraq continued to grow in media coverage as time went on.     

On the domestic front, oil/gasoline prices surged to new highs, tapping the pocketbooks of already financially strapped Americans. The number of housing foreclosures were rising ominously, as the further movement of jobs to overseas production facilities, and the subsequent reduction in wages in some parts of the American economy, hung like a dark cloud over the country, bringing a queasy feeling about the storm that was coming. During the campaign, a story broke regarding Republican Mark Foley, a congressman from Florida. The story indicated that Foley had sent sexy messages to teenage boys who worked, or had worked, as congressional pages. Foley resigned about 5 weeks from the election, but the whole matter brought into question how much the Republican House leadership knew about Foley's activities. * Also brewing at that time were separate, but related scandals involving lobbyist and Republican contributor Jack Abramoff (and others), including deals about a casino boat company in Florida, a deal about minimum wage in the Mariana Islands (a U.S. Territory in the Pacific), Native American gambling casinos and campaign contributions. All of these matters are highly complex, but they touched several Republicans in Congress and government, as well as Republican supporters outside of government. Their complexity makes them far beyond this article, but there are many online sources, and also check your local library for books and articles. 

The 2006 midterm elections saw a major win for Democrats, as President Bush's popularity plunged, dragging down many Republicans with it, and the Republican coalition fractured to a degree. Democrats gained 31 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, 6 seats in the U.S. Senate. These Democratic victories often came at the expense of Republican incumbents, and in the Senate, Democrats took seats from Republicans in Ohio, Montana, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Rhode Island. Democrats also gained 6 governorships, as well as numerous state legislative seats, and state and local offices. Nancy Pelosi of California became the first ever woman Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

* Republicans, by this point in time, almost all of the conservative bent, had made anti-gay rhetoric a major part of their political party. Here was a Republican directly involved in gay sexual activities. At that time, Dennis Hastert was the Republican Speaker of the House. In the spring of 2016, Hastert admitted that he had molested teenage boys when he was a high school wrestling coach. He was given a prison sentence and a fine.

WORD HISTORY:
Torture-This word, distantly related to "thwart," goes back to Indo European "twork/terkw," which had the notion of "turn, twist." This gave Latin the verb, "torquere," which meant, "to twist, to bend," and its participle form, "tortus," gave Latin the noun, "tortura," which meant, "writhing, pain brought on by injury inflicted to get information or to get agreement to something." This passed into French as "torture," with the same meaning. English borrowed the word circa 1500 from French, but likely with the reinforcement of Latin itself. 

Iraq and Humpty Dumpty

Humpty Dumpty comes from an English rhyme dating from at least the late 1700s. As I'm sure most people know, Humpty Dumpty was an egg sitting on a wall, and an egg is held together by a shell. A shell is generally fragile, and when Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall and broke, he could not be put back together again.

The area that "generally" is modern Iraq, Mesopotamia, has a prominent place in the story of mankind. Just briefly and superficially, modern Iraq had been part of the pre World War One "Ottoman Empire" of the Turks. The British fought the Turks there during World War One, when the Turks were allied with the Central Powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary. The victorious British controlled the area after the war until the early 1930s, when they granted independence to Iraq, which became a kingdom; that is, ruled by a king, and the monarchy was Sunni Muslim. A revolution in the late 1950s ended the monarchy and replaced it with several military leaders over the next few years. Another revolution in the late 1960s brought the Ba'ath Party to power, which eventually brought military leader Saddam Hussein to rule Iraq. As you can see, Iraq has not been an easy country to govern.

Iraq is an overwhelmingly Muslim country, with a relatively small Christian segment, but its Muslim population is divided between a Shia sect majority and a Sunni sect minority. Ethnically, Iraqis are heavily Arabic,* but with a regional Kurdish population in the majority in the far northern area of the country.**

Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim, and although he was a secular leader, religious division in Iraq was important, as was ethnic background, especially for the Kurdish population. Saddam ruled Iraq with an iron fist, invaded neighboring Iran (an overwhelmingly Shia Muslim majority country), invaded and occupied neighboring Kuwait, and ruthlessly suppressed Kurdish attempts at independence. Saddam's occupation of Kuwait in 1990 brought large scale military action against his forces by an American led coalition, which included other Arab and Muslim nations. After his defeat and a ceasefire, there were uprisings in Kurdish and Shia areas of the country, but Hussein responded with military actions to successfully put down the insurrections and keep himself in power, although through the United Nations, "no fly zones" were set up, which prohibited Iraqi aircraft to fly in certain parts of the country, thus limiting attacks on certain groups. The ceasefire agreement ending the war imposed tough trade sanctions on Iraq and called for Iraq to destroy all chemical weapons and to abandon any attempt to develop nuclear weapons. U.N. inspectors were to verify compliance with the destruction of chemical and biological weapons and production facilities, as well as verify that there was no development of nuclear weapons. President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minster Tony Blair launched air and missile strikes in the late 1990s on a number of targets in Iraq, as Saddam interfered with weapons' inspectors, accusing some inspectors of being spies for the U.S.  

Following the 9/11 attacks on the United States, the U.S. and its allies commenced military operations in Afghanistan to chase the ruling Taliban from power, along with Al Qaeda operatives and trainees, who had been given sanctuary there by the Taliban. President George W. Bush and members of his administration, most notably, Vice President Dick Cheney, then tied Saddam Hussein to the Al Qaeda attacks of 9/11.*** With Saddam's interference with weapons' inspectors, the fear developed in the Bush administration and elsewhere, that Hussein was hiding various weapons and that he would get biological, chemical, and perhaps some type of nuclear weapon, all of these collectively known as "weapons of mass destruction, or 'WMD,' " into the hands of Al Qaeda terrorists. The administration began a concerted effort to present a case for war against Iraq to the American, and even the world, public. The 9/11 attacks had shaken not only the United States, but much of the world, as the attacks demonstrated the commitment of religious fanatics to wage war on those, even other Muslims, who did not share in their beliefs. This mindset led many Americans and others to assume the worst from the "evidence" provided by the Bush administration.**** Vice President Cheney assured Americans that invading forces would be greeted as liberators. (See NBC's "Meet The Press" for March 16, 2003)

The invasion of Iraq quickly toppled Saddam Hussein, who was found months later hiding in a hole outside his hometown of Tikrit. It didn't take long for the jubilation over Saddam's fall to turn to anger and despair, as the war ravaged country saw the emergence of armed religious factions and Al Qaeda groups fighting not only the occupying forces, but each other, creating a civil war type situation, with occupying forces and humanitarian personnel caught in the middle. Bombings and kidnappings became common, with many a terrible death attributed to both. So now there was an Iraq of Sunnis, an Iraq of Shia, and a northern region of Iraq of Kurds. All of this combined with an element of a nation unaccustomed to any form of democracy. Gradually "a general sense of order" came to be restored by the occupying forces, which also took to providing training for Iraqi police and military units, but periodic attacks on installations, occupying troops and Iraqi police and military units continued. A national election was held and a new Iraqi government, led by Shia Muslim Nouri al Maliki, as prime minister, was installed. With Iraq a majority Shia country, Sunnis feared exclusion in governing the country. The Kurds successfully secured regional self government, while remaining as a part of Iraq.***** With Americans growing increasingly disenchanted with American involvement (and mounting casualties) in Iraq, and with many Iraqis wanting to take full control of their country, President George W. Bush negotiated an agreement to withdraw all U.S. forces by the end of 2011, which indeed took place.

Prime Minister Al Maliki has maintained close relations with neighboring Shia majority Iran, and his relations with other Middle Eastern nations is more sketchy, especially with those, like Saudi Arabia, which have a Sunni majority. Since the withdrawal of occupying forces, attacks on public places and on military and police installations have continued, seemingly more by some radical and militant Sunnis.****** More recently, "ISIS" ("Islamic State of Iraq and Syria"), a highly radical Sunni militia group and offshoot of Al Qaeda, has been advancing deep into Iraq from Syria, threatening the capital of Baghdad. This has brought a call to arms by Shia religious and public leaders to defend the city and to defeat ISIS, which, if reports are correct, and they certainly seem to be, has massacred untold numbers of Iraqis in the areas they have captured. In the north, the independent minded Kurds have a substantial army of their own to guard their territory, and their forces have generally been deemed to be much better than many of the Iraqi forces that have thus far faced ISIS. Many Iraqi units collapsed with barely a fight, and reports indicate that many men discarded their uniforms and threw away their weapons. The U.S. is in the process of sending about 300 "advisers" to Iraq to provide further training and such to Iraqis. To me, the idea that 300 men with such a task will have a major impact is ridiculous. "My guess" is, the men will act as "spotters" to call in American airstrikes (or missile strikes), if the President decides to so act.

Recent polls show that Americans now think the invasion of Iraq was not worth the cost. The problem is, the invasion, which found no weapons of mass destruction, may have toppled Saddam Hussein, but it also toppled the Humpty Dumpty of Iraq from his wall, and while the rhyme dates from the 1700s, no one has yet figured out how to put Humpty back together again. The situation is terrible, with few, if any, good options, but the sending of any major U.S. forces has so far been ruled out by the President and it seems even some typically bellicose members of Congress are reluctant to call for armed intervention, but we'll see, since if some had their way, the U.S. would have troops stationed in far more places around the world than we already do.

* The Arabic language is part of the Semitic family of languages, which includes Hebrew, among others.

** The Kurds are closely related to the Persians, and the Kurdish language (and its dialects) is Indo European, making it related to English, but further down the family tree.

*** For a little more on the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, see my article: http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/02/its-about-coalitions-not-purity-part_25.html

**** To be clear here, not all Americans were convinced by the administration provided "evidence," nor were the leaders of many other nations, as the military coalition assembled by George W. Bush was nowhere near the size of that put together by his father in 1990. "Generally," polls showed around 60% of Americans supported a war against Iraq with U.N.approval, but slightly less than 50% supported such a war without U.N. approval. (See prewar polls by Gallup, ABC/Washington Post, CNN/USA Today)

***** In theory, the Kurds had been granted a form of regional self rule by Saddam long before, but he never adhered to the agreement, instead using force against the Kurds. Such "semi-autonomous" setups are not unknown, as the long contested German majority areas of "Alsace-Lorraine" in France achieved such after World War Two, and likewise, as did the German majority area of South Tyrol in Italy after World War Two. In these cases, much self government was granted, which guaranteed the German language and cultural heritage of the regions, but the areas also remained a part of France and Italy, respectively, and the people were citizens of those respective nations. Finland too was a largely self governing grand duchy of the Russian Empire during the 1800s and up until 1917.

****** Just from news reports I've seen, not all Sunnis support ISIS, and indeed many fear ISIS, which has a reputation for atrocities, and has been imposing strict Islamic law in conquered areas. Americans take note! This is what can happen when super reactionary groups want to take a country far back in time.

WORD HISTORY:
Far-This word goes back to Indo European "per," which the notion of "beyond." Its Old Germanic offspring was "ferro," ^ which meant "beyond, further." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "feorr," which meant "distant, far, remote" (also used in terms of time), and this later became "far." The other Germanic languages have: German has "fern," Low German "feern," West Frisian "fier," Dutch "ver," Danish and Norwegian "fjern," Icelandic "fjar-," and Swedish "fjärr."

^ The Indo European "p" often became "f" in its Old Germanic offshoot.

"It's About Coalitions, Not Purity" Part Forty-One

The 2004 Election, Part Two

The Republicans faced little infighting going into the 2004 election, as President George W. Bush quickly obtained the necessary number of delegates fairly early on in the party's nominating process. At the Republican National Convention, held in New York City, the Bush-Cheney ticket was easily affirmed.

The Republicans centered their campaign around national security, which to them included the war in Iraq. There was comparatively little from Republicans about Afghanistan, although the successful chasing of the Taliban and Al Qaeda forces from much of the country, except in the mountainous area on and over the border into Pakistan, was touted. Democrats countered that Bush had gotten the U.S. involved in Iraq over highly questionable and mistaken issues, while leaving the area where the terrorists had developed their plans to attack the U.S., Afghanistan, to wither as the administration committed troops and resources to pursue the mistaken war in Iraq. Republicans argued that Bush's steadfastness demonstrated American leadership and that Kerry was "a flip-flopper." John Kerry got himself into trouble by trying to explain his nuanced votes on the Iraq war and then on budget appropriations for the war in the Senate, providing Republicans with a powerful ad against the Senator.*

President Bush touted his work on education in cooperation with Democrat Ted Kennedy, but while Senator Kerry tried to shift the debate more to domestic affairs, the campaign remained centered around Iraq and terrorism, as well as on personal attacks on both candidates. Bush's service record in the Texas Air National Guard came into question,** but documents unfavorable to Bush aired by CBS were shown not to have been authenticated by the network, a matter which reinforced conservative arguments that the mainstream media could not be trusted. On the other side, Kerry's nomination had been thought by Democrats to mute the criticism that Democrats were anti-military, as Kerry was a decorated Vietnam veteran. Further, Democrats thought the decorated Kerry would be a great contrast to George W. Bush's controversial military service. This spawned the formation of a group that came to be generally known as "The Swift Boat Vets," who actively worked for Kerry's defeat by attacking his military record.*** The group, which included some men who served in or around Kerry in Vietnam, ran television ads, made public appearances and even published a book disputing virtually every aspect of Kerry's Vietnam record.**** Republican Senator John McCain condemned the "Swift Boat" attacks on Kerry, but President Bush and most other Republicans stood idly by, although they said they would not attack Kerry's record themselves. Kerry and his campaign launched no major counter to the Swift Boat allegations, something which exasperated Democrats.

Three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate were held during the campaign.

The election results showed Bush holding onto his coalition and garnering about three million more votes than Kerry, with Bush winning about 50 and 3/4 percent of the popular vote, to Kerry's 48 and a quarter percent of the vote. In the electoral vote, which is what matters, Bush won 286 votes to Kerry's 251 (one elector voted for Edwards separately for president), with 270 needed to win the presidency. Bush carried New Mexico by only about 4000 votes out of about 750,000 votes, as well as Iowa by about 6000 votes out of about 1.5 million votes, while Kerry won Wisconsin by only 16,000 votes out of about 3 million votes. Analysts generally credited Bush's win to superior identification of likely Bush voters and then the efforts to turnout those voters by his campaign, even though Bush's popularity had decreased considerably from his post 9/11 and early Iraq war numbers, which would have been difficult for any president to sustain. I know several people who voted for Bush who did so with little glee, although they still stuck with him, but the controversy over Iraq dampened enthusiasm. Iraq and other events would take a further toll on Bush's second term.

* In the fall of 2002, Senator Kerry had voted for giving President Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq. During votes on an appropriation for the war in 2003, the Senator voted for such an appropriation when the bill's language would have scaled back President Bush's tax cuts to pay for the appropriation. He then voted against the bill when that language was dropped.

** George W. Bush's military service had come under scrutiny as he entered politics in Texas, and then again in the 2000 election. Briefly, critics claimed his well connected father (a congressman back in the late 1960s) had been able to pull strings to get his son into the Texas Air National Guard, which kept his son stationed in Texas. As the U.S. then had a military draft, critics argued this allowed Bush to escape the draft, which "may" have then kept him from duty in Vietnam, where there were major American forces, and escalating casualties at that time. Critics charged George W. Bush's National Guard record did not merit his selection as a pilot and that his attendance and compliance with regulations was relatively poor.  

*** John Kerry served in South Vietnam in the late 1960s as a Navy commander of a "swift boat," a type of patrol boat. He was awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts for his service in Vietnam. He later became a leading critic of the war, even appearing in congressional hearings and leading public protests. One early 1970s' protest involved Kerry and many other veterans discarding their military decorations to protest the war. Kerry's antiwar stance in the 1970s also brought criticism from Republicans in 2004.

**** The Swift Boat controversy would require an article, or series of articles, to explain all of it, but while the group was technically not part of the Republican campaign, it received large sums from big Republican donors, like T. Boone Pickens, and some people tied to the group had clear Republican and Bush connections, including some back to the attacks on Senator John McCain in the 2000 Republican nomination battle. One man quit the group and told people he would vote for Kerry, later saying the group had unfairly distorted Kerry's record. Other former veterans who had served with or around Kerry vouched for his military service record. See the NY Times article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/washington/28kerry.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ei=5089&en=7158a80120f0ee5a&ex=1306468800

WORD HISTORY:
Hectic-This word goes back to Indo European "segh/sekh," which had the notion of "to hold, to hold onto." This gave Greek "ekhein," which meant "hold, continue to hold," which then produced Greek "hektikos," which meant "habitual, continuing," with the extended meaning "continuous fever." Latin borrowed the term as "hecticus," with the illness meaning, which passed into Latin-based Old French as "etik (later "etique"). English borrowed the word as "etik," but later, under the influence of Latin spelling, it became "hectic." The idea of "continuous fever," and the disorientation accompanying such, provided the meaning "do something at a hectic (feverish) pace." 

It's About Coalitions, Not Purity Part Thirty-Nine

This is the link to "Part Thirty-Eight," for those needing it:  http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/02/its-about-coalitions-not-purity-part_25.html

"Combat Operations in Iraq Go On.. and On"

The initial phase of military operations in Iraq brought rapid success and Saddam Hussein became a wanted man as he fell from power. He was captured in late 2003 hiding in a hole in the general vicinity of the place of his birth. Months earlier, his sons had been killed in northern Iraq after being surrounded by U.S. Special Forces. Hussein was later turned over to Iraqi authorities for trial. He was found guilty of numerous crimes and he was hanged in late 2006.

After Hussein fell from power, the U.S. and its allies began the search for Saddam's chemical and biological weapons, as well as for evidence of his nuclear weapons program. As the search went on without success, the Bush-Cheney administration began to feel the pressure, as their credibility with Americans began to slide. The President and Vice President began to try to sell the idea that the war had still been a success, as it had removed a brutal dictator from power. All the while, various Iraqi groups, some connected to al Qaeda, others from religious factions, began attacks on the occupying military forces, on the developing Iraqi government and on each other, as Iraq descended into something of a civil war. The failure to find weapons of mass destruction and escalating American casualties saw support for the war erode, as Americans began to seriously question U.S. involvement in Iraq. President Bush would continue the war effort in Iraq until he left office in January 2009, but the divisiveness of the war made it difficult for him in an increasingly turbulent Congress. Was the Republican coalition breaking apart?

Next... "The Election of 2004"

WORD HISTORY:
On-This common preposition goes back to Indo European "ano," which meant "on." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "ana," which meant "on, upon, at." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "an/on," with the same meanings. This later just became "on," where it has remained for centuries. The other Germanic languages have: German and Low German "an," with the "a" is pronounced like the "a" in "father," so very close to English "on" (it generally means "on," but also "at," just as its English cousin once did); Dutch "aan" (meaning "on, at, to"); West Frisian "oan" (meaning "at, to"); Icelandic, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish "á" (meaning "on, at"), but it is also used in "på," a contraction of  "opp á," for "upon, on."

Don't Just Blame Bush, It's The Philosophy

In spite of the opening of George W. Bush's presidential library and recent attempts by some of his supporters to put a positive spin on his presidency,* George W. Bush will likely go down in history as one of our worst presidents, "perhaps" THE worst. The American public can have a short memory, maybe even shorter in this era of "breaking news" and social media stories that can change the subject faster than Congress can pass legislation ...ah, okay, so that's a terrible comparison. Franklin D. Roosevelt has been widely seen as one of America's greatest presidents for decades, as he tried to combat the most severe economic downturn in the nation's history AND he led the country through all but the last months of World War Two. FDR was hated by the few, but he was revered by a large segment of the American public, which transcended party lines. The haters then were of the same type we have today; the greediest and most ruthless in American society, always looking out only for themselves and their immense egos, and hating anyone who dares to help others, but at least even THEY didn't have the nerve to call themselves "the job creators," as some of today's ruthless and greedy haters have done.

On the other hand, George W. Bush will always face historical criticism for the exact opposite reasons that secured Roosevelt's place in history. Bush chose to fight a war in Iraq that became immensely unpopular. The build-up to that war had the Bush administration indicating that Americans could be in grave peril from Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, who was deemed to have "weapons of mass destruction," generally meaning biological and chemical weapons, and possibly an active nuclear program. The idea was put out that Hussein had been in contact with Al Qaeda and that he could provide them with these weapons. The invasion of Iraq and the fall of Hussein produced no such weapons nor any nuclear program, and when many of the captured Iraqi political and military leaders were interrogated, including Hussein himself, none indicated that such weapons had been available to them. Searches of buildings and the unearthing of possible sites proved fruitless. Bush and his administration then tried to change the focus of the war to the successful removal of Saddam Hussein and the chance to bring democracy to Iraq, but while the public shed no tears for Saddam, it also never really bought his removal, nor any attempts at establishing democracy in Iraq as truly valid reasons for the war. Insurrection by elements of the Iraqi population against foreign occupation and outright civil war between religious factions there had American and coalition troops caught in a horrible situation with mounting casualties. No one knows where Iraq is really heading a decade after Hussein fell. No amount of spin can change these facts, including the highly unlikely event, in my opinion, of Iraq becoming a model democracy in the volatile Middle East.

Throughout his presidency, Bush and his administration touted "free markets" as the solution to just about anything and everything economic. Free trade with low wage countries was pushed, with many thousands of American jobs sent overseas by those super patriotic bastions of greed and ruthlessness of American business, many of whom would sell their own mothers for the right price. If their mother is deceased, they'll sell her remains, casket and all. Regulation of business was downplayed, if not often dismantled. Market speculation in oil drove prices through the roof and helped to cripple the economy, which was then laid waste by unscrupulous bankers with highly complex securities backed by bad mortgages. The Bush administration and Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan proved to be wrong about business being able to regulate itself, and the free market philosophy cost millions their jobs and their homes. A new Fed chairman and the prospect of the imminent collapse of the financial system had Bush reverse the free market nonsense to bailout the heavily indebted banks and provide some money to strapped auto companies. The crisis secured the election of Barack Obama who took the reins of the presidency with the economy in virtual free fall.

Democrats love to mention George W. Bush and watch Republicans blush, cringe or try to hide under their seats. Republicans, on the other hand, including the so called "Tea Party," have tried to act as if the world came into being on January 20, 2009, the day Barack Obama took the oath of office. For a bunch who are always telling others to take personal responsibility, I don't believe I've ever heard them take responsibility for the failures of the philosophy they have touted so much, but which as produced so much misery. To me, what Bush did or didn't do is important, but not as important as the philosophy which led him, most Republicans, and so many misguided Americans down this road to economic destruction.

* Karen Hughes started working for Bush before he was elected governor in Texas and she is a close personal friend of the former president. She was on some of the news programs during the opening of the new library, and while I understand the friendship and loyalty, her recounting of the Bush presidency had to have been told with the fingers of both hands crossed behind her back. It was actually painful to watch and hear her tell how Bush will be so positively evaluated by history on the wars and on his overall administration. She also touted the Medicare drug benefit, a positive accomplishment of Bush's administration, but she failed to note that it wasn't paid for. Like Reagan's philosophy of "We'll cut taxes, especially for the upper incomes, increase military expenditures and give people popular programs, but we'll still balance the budget." As Bush's father said in 1980, that's voodoo economics, and that description certainly applied during his son's time in office. Reagan and George W. Bush both ran huge budget deficits, both such deficits then bequeathed to their respective successors.     

WORD HISTORY:
Rank-This is the noun form. This word appears to go back to Indo European "krengh," which meant "to turn or to bend." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "khrengaz," meaning "that which is curved, bent object." This gave Frankish, a Germanic dialect, "hring" ("ring"), which was then borrowed into Old French as "reng," which then became "ranc." At this time it took on the meaning "row, line," but exactly why this meaning developed is unclear. It came to be used in military terminology, with the notion of "row" coming to mean "in succession of authority;" thus, "rank." It was borrowed by English from French as "rank," apparently in the early 1500s or late 1400s. Close English relative German also borrowed the word as "Rang" ("rank") from the modern French version "rang."

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Thirty-Eight

This was first published in February 2013


"War Again, Iraq"

First, the lead up to the Iraq war was, and remains, highly controversial. The public was given information at the time to justify the commencing of military operations against Iraq, some of which was later deemed to be untrue, or at least unreliable. The overall subject is far beyond the scope of this article, but as I always mention, if you are interested in a particular aspect of an article, please check out your local library's resources. The information here will be very basic and certainly incomplete for such a subject. It's been difficult to write this article, even though it is basic, as the evidence used to initiate hostilities in 2003 took time for Congress and the media, and therefore, the public, to evaluate. Positions and beliefs of the 2002/03 Bush administration were at times later changed, when contrary evidence was brought forward, but that was AFTER the war had started, and in fact, ended; that is, the invasion phase of the war.

The war in Afghanistan remained settled down by late 2002,* but Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar remained at large. The Bush administration then chose to focus on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. After the religious fundamentalists had taken over Iran by revolution in the late 1970s, American leaders found Saddam, a secular military dictator, and his nation of Iraq, to be a counter force to Iran. Hostility between Iraq and Iran grew and developed into a bloody all out war in the 1980s, with American leaders openly supporting Saddam, including with financial aid. The war eventually ended in an armistice arranged by the United Nations in the summer of 1988. Saddam, however, was unable to get along with neighboring Kuwait, a nation which had helped him finance the war against Iran. As has already been covered in an earlier segment, Saddam occupied Kuwait, bringing a military coalition together, led by the United States, and including Muslim nations of the Middle East, to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Saddam's forces were quickly defeated, but the Iraqi dictator remained in power by ruthlessly purging anyone within his inner circle thought to be inclined to lead a revolt against him and his regime. Hussein remained a problem in the Middle East throughout the 1990s, and when the 9/11 attacks occurred, initially, it was not unreasonable to at least suspect his involvement in some way. The U.S. believed there had been some meetings between al Qaeda agents and members of Iraq's intelligence service. The ultimate fear was an alliance of some sort, where Saddam supplied biological or chemical weapons to al Qaeda, whose agents would then use those weapons against the U.S. and other nations. The problem was, the lack of evidence of such a Saddam role, or in fact, of any conclusive ties between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Notably, Vice President Dick Cheney tied Iraq to al Qaeda, indicating the administration's belief of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda for the better part of a decade. Further, the Vice President told of one of the 9/11 hijackers meeting with an Iraqi agent just a few months before the 9/11 attacks. The public connected the all too obvious dots laid out by the Vice President. Saddam Hussein had and used chemical weapons in the past, a point emphasized by the administration, a point not lost on the American public and others. The question, however, has remained, was the Bush administration already intent on going to war with Iraq and therefore seeking any justifications it could find to do so?**  

The agreement to end the Gulf War (1991) had, as part of a United Nations' resolution, the prohibition of Iraq possessing or developing biological, nuclear or chemical weapons ("weapons of mass destruction," or "WMD," the terms that came to be applied for such weapons). During the 1990s and up until 2003, Saddam's very reputation made a number of people question whether he had truly destroyed his "WMD" cache, or that he was not trying to develop an atomic weapon of some type. In the time just prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration believed Saddam had such weapons, although no real evidence supported that position. Saddam Hussein's defiant behavior also lent credibility to those saying he was hiding biological and chemical weapons and likely pursuing a nuclear weapon.

By March of 2003 more than 200,000 troops, about 3/4 Americans and 1/4 British,*** invaded Iraq after massive aerial and missile bombardment against the country. Saddam's forces collapsed and by April, Baghdad, the Iraqi capital, was taken. A couple of weeks later, in what turned out to be a display of terribly poor judgment, President Bush landed on a U.S. aircraft carrier, complete with a huge banner reading "Mission Accomplished." The President then declared an end to "major combat operations."

Next... "Combat Operations in Iraq Go On.. and On"   

* It's always a different matter for the population and for the troops stationed there, as there was fighting and civilian and military personnel were killed and wounded.

** The administration had a number of so called "neocons;" that is, "neoconservatives," who believed the U.S. had a duty to spread freedom to all parts of the world, even militarily. They also tended to support "pro-active" military action to defend American interests, as opposed to the "generally" more reactive American historical policy. What does this mean? Well, from its founding, the U.S. was, for the most part, protected from major military nations in Europe and Asia by the great oceans. This certainly developed a sense of  "you leave us alone and we'll leave you alone" isolationist foreign policy. When Europe went to war in 1914 (World War One) and again in 1939 (World War Two), it seems most Americans were perfectly content to remain out of direct involvement in those conflicts, until further events developed. In the early years of World War Two, this isolationism seems to have been much to the consternation of Franklin Roosevelt and his administration, which feared a Nazi victory over beleaguered Britain in the 1940-41 period of the war. As World War Two neared its end, some, what you might call "neocons" of that time, felt the U.S. and other western nations should confront Stalin's Soviet Union, while troops were already mobilized and supplied in Europe, and go to war if need be, with some even believing former Nazi troops should be used, if war with the Soviets broke out. So, you get the idea.

*** While President George W. Bush touted a military coalition against Saddam, the actual military forces contributed by most coalition partners, except for Britain, were small, at least in the invasion phase of the operation.

WORD HISTORY:
Talk-For what is now a very common word, its history is a bit cloudy. This word is something of a variant of "tale" (thus also related to "tell"), which had a verb form in Old English, one of the meanings of which was "tell, relate a story or events;" therefore the spinoff which meant "to talk."^  "Talk" goes back to Indo European "del/dal/dol," which had the notion "to count, to count off (recount) events of a story." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "taljanan," with the same meanings, but "apparently" some of the West Germanic dialects, especially along the North Sea coast, developed a variant, something on the order of "talkonan," which meant "to talk." The East Frisian dialect has "talken," with the same meaning. German has "Talk" (the noun form), but it was borrowed, likely from English, with reinforcement from East Frisian and Low German. I'm not quite sure where Low German got the word; that is, whether it came from the original source, as part of Low German is right up there by the North Sea coast, or whether it came from Frisian or English. Anyway, "apparently" the Anglo-Saxons carried their word to Britain (some Frisians also went), where it remained among the common people (thus not written down, at least in any writings ever found), and eventually became "talken " in the early 1200s, before the modern version and its common usage. The noun developed from the verb in the 1400s; that is, "a speech or conversation." 

^ For the Word History for "tale," see my article:   http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2013/02/beautys-only-skin-deep.html  

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Twenty-One

"Bush's Popularity Soars" 
Manuel Noriega was the leader of Panama who had worked with the CIA for some time, but American leaders knew he was responsible for some of the illegal drug trafficking to the U.S. during the 1980s. After Noriega nullified the Panamanian presidential election when his attempts to "fix" the results were made public, including by election observer Jimmy Carter, President George Bush had more U.S. troops sent to the Canal Zone. The tensions increased and eventually the Panamanian government said that war therefore existed with the U.S. and Bush reacted by sending in troops, as there were thousands of Americans living in Panama. Noriega was deposed, taken into custody and sent to the U.S. for trial on numerous charges having to do with drug trafficking. At his later trial, he was found guilty and ended up being sentenced to 30 years in prison, but he was also wanted by France.

Then in the summer of 1990, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein sent troops into neighboring Kuwait. In response, all sorts of economic sanctions against Iraq were put in place by many nations, but these were just the prelude to military operations, as the U.S. and Britain dispatched large forces to the Persian Gulf area, especially to Saudi Arabia, which, along with Egypt and Syria, provided military support. When operations commenced, there was little doubt about the eventual outcome, as Iraqi forces in Kuwait were routed and fled toward their own border. The complex Middle East political situation between Muslim nations and Israel was one of the primary reasons for not going deep into Iraq and taking down Saddam Hussein. Various restrictions were placed on the Iraqi military thereafter, leaving a running sore for the region and the U.S., but getting Hussein would likely have led to a full-blown war in the Middle East. With the goal of freeing Kuwait met, the war was deemed a success and President Bush's popularity soared in all of the public opinion polls.

The shakiness of the American economy toward the end of Reagan's time in office carried over to Bush's term and the economy slowed further. Then the Gulf War sent oil and gas prices skyrocketing and the economy went into a recession. The recession, developments in Bush's dealings with Congress, strong opposition within his own political party and a third party candidate would combine to threaten Bush's reelection, although initially it was thought it would be a relatively easy campaign for President Bush in 1992, as his high popularity in polls had scared some prominent Democrats, like Mario Cuomo, from running.
  
Next, "Bush's Poll Numbers Plummet"

WORD HISTORY:
Clot (Clod)-This word goes back to Indo European "gleuh," which had the notion of "stick together, adhere," with the further sense, "form into a ball." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "klaut," with the same general meanings. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "clott," which meant "lump, something amassed into a lump." The verb developed later (seemingly the 1300s or early 1400s) from the noun. It is really the same word as "clod" (also spelled "clodde," by some a few hundred years ago), but by the 1500s/1600s, "clod" meant only "lump of earth," whereas "clot" had come to be used more for "congealed fluid," including the medical sense for blood. There are various forms, with varied meanings, in other Germanic languages, and these are only some examples: German has "Klotz" (block or chunk of wood) and "Kloss" (dumpling or meat ball, but the word is used more in the north), Low German Saxon has "Klüüt" (which means both "dumpling" and "clod of earth"), Dutch has "kluit" (lump, clod) and "kloot" (ball bearing, globe), Danish has "klods" (lump, clod, block), Norwegian has "klode" (sphere). I didn't find forms in Swedish, Icelandic or Frisian, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, and the Old Germanic word diverged into various meanings, which I'll be covering in the near future.

It's About Coalitions Not Purity, Part Sixteen

"Iran-Contra: Reagan's Image and Popularity Take A Hit"

Midway through Reagan's second term a scandal broke which came to generally be called "Iran-Contra." The overall scandal was far too complex to detail here, and I would say, many Americans back then didn't really understand many of the details, but the basic parts involved were these:  First, pretty much throughout Reagan's time in office, Iran and neighboring Iraq were in a bitter war with one another. The long ordeal of the American hostages in Iran from 1979-1981 and the anti-American theocracy ruling Iran left the U.S. openly supporting Iraq, a country under dictator Saddam Hussein. U.S. support was financial, technological, military and diplomatic. There was a U.S. embargo (including weapons) against Iran at this same time. Further, the Cold War was still very much a reality, and fear of Soviet aid to other countries (and the influence that could gain), especially in the crucial oil area of the Middle East, was always a concern. Second, Nicaragua (in Central America) was ruled by a communist group called the "Sandinistas," a group the Reagan administration very much opposed (some would say "became obsessed with," which distorted their judgment). The administration was not legally able to give material support to the Nicaraguan opponents of the Sandinistas, called the "Contras," because of laws prohibiting such.* Third, while bound by law, Reagan made it clear to some in his administration that he wanted to assist the Contras in some way in their fight against the communist regime. Fourth, Iran needed military aid in its war against Iraq, and moderate political/military factions in Iran secretly sought such aid from the U.S., although the U.S. was openly in support of Iraq. Fifth, some Americans were being held hostage by an Iranian supported terrorist group in Lebanon. Reagan refused to negotiate with these terrorists for the release of the hostages.** Sixth, the U.S. sold weapons to Iran by using Israel as the actual supplier of the weapons to Iran, for which Israel then received weapons from the U.S. to compensate, with the further idea that the Iranians would then aid in the release of the American hostages in Lebanon. Seventh, the process began and weapons were sold to Iran via Israel and some hostages were released. Eighth, Oliver North, an officer in the Marine Corps, was also an adviser to the administration on national security matters. North proposed upping the price on the weapons sold to Iran and skipping the Israeli go between. The extra money generated by the sales would then be used to help the Contras in Nicaragua, and this money would not be reported as part of the arms sales, which was seen as a way to get around U.S. law.   

The overall deal had problems, as although some American hostages were released early on, other American hostages were then taken, "apparently" as replacements for those already released. "Perhaps" the Iranians, who weren't stupid, figured they were already being overcharged for the weapons, and that further hostages would give them leverage to keep needed American weapons coming to them for their war with Iraq. Whatever the case, news reports from the Middle East, seemingly initiated by Iranians, put the matter out into the public domain and brought a flurry of media coverage in the U.S. about an "arms for hostages deal." By then too, a plane had been shot down in Nicaragua by Sandinista forces while on a secret mission to deliver materials to the Contras. The mission had been approved by some Reagan administration officials. The whole complex matter began to be told, and under pressure, President Reagan tried to explain to Americans what had happened, which he said did not involve arms for hostages or broken American laws. However, hearings by a Reagan appointed commission to investigate the matter gained testimony from a number of witnesses and indicated the involvement of some high ranking Reagan administration officials, although some missing documents precluded conclusive direct links in many instances to the President himself, but the commission did blame Reagan for lax oversight of his administration. Reagan then faced the American public to tell them he had misspoken earlier about the arms for hostages deal, while still leaving room for Americans to support him by essentially saying he didn't see the deal making as arms for hostages, but the evidence said otherwise.

Reagan's popularity dropped tremendously. Reagan's time in office had several incidents with terrorists taking hostages on planes and even a cruise ship, where an elderly Jewish-American in a wheelchair was murdered and pushed overboard. It all goes to show that these kinds of terrorist incidents, which have continued in some manner ever since, are not easily controlled, in spite of the partisan political slogans, whether your name is Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush or Obama.    

* The Contras had initial help and support in organizing from the CIA, dating from the Carter administration. There were many reports that the Contras violated human rights and committed war crimes, which made some Americans leery of aiding them. On the other hand, the ruling Sandinistas, who had overthrown the previous government in a revolution, were communist and heavily backed by Cuba's Fidel Castro, with at least some connections to then communist dominated eastern Europe. 

** The refusal to negotiate with "terrorists" was not new. Jimmy Carter and his administration had negotiated with representatives of the Iranian government over the American hostages held a few years earlier, as "technically," the Iranian government was not holding the Americans hostage, but rather they were held by Iranian revolutionaries and students. Likewise, the hostages in Lebanon were held by an Iranian group, "technically" not affiliated with the Iranian government.

WORD HISTORY:
Brew-This word goes back to Indo European "bhreuh," which had the notion of "to boil," which led by extension to the meanings "to seethe, to bubble, to cook." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "breuwanan," which meant "to brew." This then gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "breowan," which then became "brewen," before the modern version. The noun form developed from the verb, but another noun had preceded that, which was "briw," which meant "porridge, cooked meal/ground grain" (German still has the noun "Brei" and Low German has "Bree," both with the same meaning as their now deceased English relative). Forms of "brew" are common in the other Germanic languages and it is closely related to "broth," which comes from the same source (I'll cover it soon): German has "brauen" (to brew), "Brühe" (broth) and "Gebräu" (formerly  "a brew," but in modern times used derogatorily for "a brewed concoction"); Low German Saxon has "broen" (to brew) and "Bröh" (broth); Dutch has "brouwen" (to brew); West Frisian has "brouwe" (brew); Danish has "brygge" (brew);  Icelandic has "brugga" (brew);  Norwegian has "brygg" (brew); and Swedish has "brygga" (to brew).

An Unannounced Victory?

This has been circulating around the Internet and I thought it deserved some comment, so my comments follow after it. I want to note that I simply copied it directly from an email, with no editing. I've put the "story" in BOLD. One comment beforehand: Hmm, "Investor's Business Daily"....Now that sounds like a VERY reliable news source (ahem!), right from the "Sit On Their Ass Class." You know the ones I mean...those veritable patriots who gave us the likes of Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, bailouts for the superwealthy, and bankruptcy and foreclosure for millions of ordinary Americans.

READY FOR A SHOCK?> > > >> > Ready for a shock? Below is an article from the London Times > about our military. Interesting, it is! Our media coverage is shameful!> > Winning Isn't News> > By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY> Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British > newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in > > Iraq .> > London's Sunday Times called it 'the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.' A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against > the wall in the northern city of Mosul.> > > The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most > unlikely and unforeseen events in the l ong history of American warfare. We can > thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and > Democratic leaders inWashington by increasing our forces there instead of > surrendering.> > > We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed > in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on > counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in > Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convince d them America was > their friend and AQI their enemy.> > > Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis > began in Anbar Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and > spread out from there.> > > Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd > Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. > More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.> > > Sunday Times (London) reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with > Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden > residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the > terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the > organization having fled south into the countryside.> > > Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime > Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved 'satisfactory' progress on > 15 of the 18 political benchmarks 'a big change for the better from a year ago.'> > > Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first > time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did > so while visiting the United Arab Emirates ,which over the weekend announced > that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad, an impressive > vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.> > > But where are the headlines and the front-page st ories about > all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, 'the > CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent > Tuesday night about the benchmarks 'that signaled political progress.'> > > The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both > militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart > from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem > to consider this historic event a big story.> > > Copyright 2008 Investor's Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.> > > Addendum: The reason you haven't seen this on American > television or read about it in the American press is simple--journalism is > 'dead' in this country. They are controlled by Liberal Democrats who would > rather see our troops defeated than recognize a successful Republican initiated > response to 9/11.> > > Media probably were holding 'til after coronation of BHO in > order to give him credit.> > God bless our troops, God bless our current President and God > bless the U.S.A.

So why aren't we celebrating? First, we all see things colored by our own sunglasses. I see it as here we are back to the grand "American media conspiracies." If only the damned media would tell us the truth about Iraq, we'd all be as happy as termites in a woodpile. Maybe some have forgotten "Mission Accomplished?" Wars are made up of battles. Winning many battles, or even most of the battles does NOT always end a war, nor does it necessarily guarantee victory. The overall situation in Iraq is not one of victory, in spite of what the article claims, athough without question, the "surge" helped make things better. The question, however, remains: "For how long?" Lots of political and religious factions could pull the country apart.

Defeating Saddam was not all that difficult. True, he WAS a ruthless, blood lusting dictator, but so were Hitler and Stalin, and I don't recall that we invaded Germany or the Soviet Union in the 1930s. In fact, our supposed "allies" in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia, aren't exactly pillars of democracy, and we haven't invaded them, either.

Bush took us into Iraq under false pretenses. Notice I didn't say "lies," although we may find out that was the case. No matter all the blather about "The CIA director said," "A slam dunk," "Iraqis will greet us as liberators," and all of the other sayings and such that have been used to justify this war, the final decision came down to ONE man....George W. Bush, and he blew it! It was up to this ONE man to get to the bottom of the stories about "weapons of mass destruction." His decision has cost thousands upon thousands of lives, and it continues to cost lives, including the lives of many thousands of brave American soldiers. It has left many more thousands terribly wounded. All of this based on a faulty premise. I'm sorry, but I can't celebrate that! The CIA Director, now "blamed" for all of the poor information, wasn't "blamed" back then; he was honored by none other than George W. Bush, himself! In the corporate world so beloved by Bush and Company, George W. Bush would run companies into the ground, cost thousands their livelihood, but still make millions of dollars himself. Sound familiar? So much for any semblance of a "meritocracy."

As for bashing "the media," "the media" will survive such. For one thing, there ISN'T such a thing as a monolithic media in this country. The American news media is diverse, just as American society is diverse. Often times when one segment of society hears something they don't like, the inclination is to blame "the media." And this blame game isn't limited to one party or philosophy. Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals, populists, progressives, Fascists, Communists, etc, all blame "the media" for some sort of conspiracy to hide the truth from us, or I should say, from "non believers." These conspiracies are in our minds; hatched in our own imaginations because someone said something we didn't like. Perhaps too often, we're in denial about realities we'd just as soon NOT know, or face, but reality spares no one, and it shows no preference or mercy for race, religion, politics, economic status, or......

Word History:
Brink- Noun-The word came into use in English during the 1200s, and linguists assume it was borrowed from either Danish, where it meant "shore, embankment, grassy edge," or Middle Low German, where it meant "edge," and some say, "hillside." You can see the similarity in meanings, and interestingly, it was spelled exactly the same way in both Danish and Low German; "brink." This makes me (just my opinion) wonder if it may have been borrowed from both; that is, one reinforced the other. Trade matters between England and the Continent brought new words into English, and "brink" may well have been one of them. Danish and Low German have something of a "common border," if you will, in northern Europe. In fact, this same general area is the ancestral homeland of English; that is, the various Germanic dialects that became English. Anyway, it goes back further to Old Germanic "brenkon," which had the same connotation of "edge, hillside," and itself was probably derived from Indo European "bhreng," which had a notion of "edge," but also something "that projects" (the latter would account for the "hillside and embankment" meanings. Indo European also gave Lithuanian*** "brinkti," which means "to swell;" and that gives that "project" notion again.

***Lithuanian is another Indo European language related to English further down the "family tree." In fact, many linguists say it is the language that has changed the least, and is thus the closest modern language to original Indo European.

Are We Trapped By The Crisis?

Some food for thought folks: The Bush Administration has offered a plan to Congress and has asked for a quick vote with little discussion and no add ons. Does this scenario sound familiar? Like the lead up to the invasion of Iraq?

Back then, we were told that Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program and lots of biological warfare weapons, and that if we didn't act quickly, he could wreak all kinds of havoc by passing such weapons on to Al Qaida. The weather also played a part, as we were told that we had a small window of time before the Iraq weather would make it virtually impossible to conduct military operations for like 6 or 8 months, a time in which Saddam could further his weapons' programs, or get chummy with Al Qaida. Congress voted the authorization and the American public approved in huge numbers, including me. No need to go into what happened then, but suffice it to say that no such weapons or weapons' programs were found after the invasion.

Now congressional leaders of both parties were called together the other night and told that the country is on the verge of a financial meltdown and that the soon to be presented administration program needs to be implemented quickly, as we are only days away from an economic Armageddon. Congressional leaders, and it seems, most members of Congress have agreed to support the plan, in principle. A few have expressed concern that the banking system is essentially being nationalized, and they are pretty much on target. Others wonder how we can use hundreds of billions of dollars, when the budget deficit is already expected to be the highest in history. Others, mainly Democrats, want unemployment benefit extensions and help for homeowners facing foreclosure. Of course, at this point, the administration wants nothing to do with such measures, as they might actually help middle income people, something they always seem loathe to do. No, they want the bill to pass so they can help only the bankers and other wealthy interests. Remember my saying, Bush is awfully worried about the plight of millionaires and billionaires; and as to the rest of us...the hell with us!

Now, the problem is, can we afford to actually have a debate on this legislation? Or is time of the essence? Are we caught in a fix, real or imaginary, yet again? The problem is, by getting congressional leaders from both parties to "sign on," they now have to go forward, or they'll be seen as dragging their feet in the time of a national (and international) crisis. No one wants that, especially in a major election year. Further, Wall Street has given a big "thumbs up" to any plan that saves their asses, and the stock market reclaimed pretty much all of last week's losses after the idea of a government bailout plan was made public. If the plan isn't approved quickly, Wall Street might go back into the tank, giving us a self-fulfilling prophecy, and the American economy in a major depression (not just recession!). Just some things to ponder.

Note: I'm going to start an English "WORD HISTORY" at the end of each blog. At least I hope I remember to do so hereafter. For today, the word is "VIKING." Of course this word kind of means "pirate," if you will. Old Norse, a North Germanic language, had "vikingr," (many North Germanic words had an "r" as an ending), presumably from "vik," which meant an inlet of water, making "Vikings" people who came from an inlet, or in North Germanic, a fjord, but Old English and its very close relative Old Frisian (both West Germanic languages), had a similar word, which in English was "wic," with a long "i" sound. It existed before the North Germanic word, and it meant "camp." It still exists in English town names ending in "wich" or "wick," as many "camps" then grew into towns. The idea with "Viking" is, they raided the English coast and set up temporary "camps," so the English used that term for them, which these raiders themselves then picked up and used as "vikingr." Whether Old English "wic," (camp) and Old Norse "vik," (inlet) are related, no one seems to know for sure, since people needed water, they may have set up "camps" near inlets, and that could be the connection, as Middle High German has "wich," meaning "bay." Thus the main word would undoubtedly go back to original Old Germanic, called "Proto Germanic" by linguists.

Democrats and the Iraq War

Democrats have now taken formal control of both houses of Congress, so what might happen? Some people are pressing for a strong commitment from Democrats to use every possible means to bring about a withdrawal from Iraq. Other folks want Democrats to help on economic issues; others want action on social issues, including federal dollars for stem cell research. I’m sure there is a certain percentage of Americans who want all of these things, but more than likely, many of us have our own agendas somewhere within the above parameters.

I think most would agree that the most difficult issue is Iraq. So what will Democrats do? My “guess” is, most Democrats in Congress will do what they did during the election campaign; that is, they will try to stay away from articulating a clear policy, but they will say that, unlike the previous Republican-led Congress, Democrats are now providing “oversight.” To be quite honest, I’m sure many Democrats are a bit scared of this issue, and not without reason. They have seen an American president and his political party ride a tremendous wave of approval over Iraq, only to experience a gradual, but steady decline in public support for the war, culminating in large losses in the midterm elections, and a president with an approval rating hovering around the average January daily high temperature in Juneau, Alaska.

As all of us know, the situation is just a MESS! The responsibility for Iraq rests with the Bush Administration and Republicans, and Democrats want very much to keep it right there. Yes, many Democrats voted FOR the authorization to invade Iraq, in spite of their now contorted explanations of their votes, but I think the public focus is on the Administration, and correctly so. The problem for Democrats is, however, now they control the Congress, and that means they share power, aka “responsibility.” If you have watched any of the political talk shows in the last day or so, you’ve probably seen many, but not all, Democratic congressional people and strategists trying mightily to stay away from any specific commitments about an Iraq policy. One Democratic strategist noted that, generally speaking, Democrats really never promised anything specific about Iraq during the election campaign. This is kind of where the American public really is. There are strong supporters of the Adminisration and strong supporters for withdrawal, but the large middle ground of Americans is really uncertain what to do about Iraq. The problem for Democrats is, “if” they embrace a “withdrawal policy,” and that policy is enacted, they then will be tied to that policy, just as Bush and Republicans have been tied to the current policy. If a withdrawal policy works, Democrats will certainly receive the accolades of a grateful nation. If the policy fails, and, for instance, the Iraq religious-ethnic civil war boils over to other countries in the Middle East, and Islamic extremists gain a major presence in Iraq and perhaps other countries, and oil goes to $150 a barrel… well, you get the idea.

Just to guess further, and we’ll soon find out on this, I think Democrats may well let Bush go ahead with a “surge,” although they will publicly criticize the policy. If the “surge” fails to stabilize the situation, and personally, I think it will fail, Democrats will then say, “Look, we didn’t like this ‘surge’ plan, but we let the President have his way, and now look what has happened.” The only major alternative for Democrats is to withhold funding in some part for Iraq, but that certainly will open them up to criticism that they are endangering our military, and even the already shaky situation in the region.

I’m not sure the media will let the Democrats get away with much of the above scenario, especially now that Democrats have real power, if the situation even develops anywhere near as I’ve speculated above.

Meanwhile, with the Iraq debate going on, Democrats will try to keep a base of support by passing a minimum wage increase, support for stem cell research, changing some tax breaks for oil companies, and other items that are generally popular with the public, and that’s not a bad idea. In my mind, the Iraq War opened the Republicans to severe criticism, but many of these other issues really combined to bring the Republicans down in the past election. According to the television talk shows, the Democrat’s “100 Hour Agenda” never even mentions Iraq, but that issue will likely be what decides the fate of both parties in 2008.