www.edgybear.com

Unspoken Truth

by Don Williams
11 Jun 08


Hillary Clinton can flat deliver a speech, and her latest is for the ages, because there was nothing flat about what she said or how she said it Saturday shortly before 1 p.m. The speech soared to high eloquence and descended to moments of sweet reflection, delivering its crucial, head-line grabbing message in wave after wave of electrifying support for Barack Obama.

"I will work my heart out to make sure that Sen. Obama is our next president," she said, in about as clear an endorsement as one is likely to hear. "And I hope and pray that all of you will join me in that effort!"

Standing between giant twin pillars of historic National Building Museum near the White House she'd yearned to occupy again one day, she had the audience drinking in every word. There were tears, cheers, laughter and hugs in the audience, including some from Chelsea and Bill Clinton, who took a bow, stage left.

Even die-hard supporters who vowed never to support Obama—and yes, there were some sitting on their hands—must've been moved. If anyone entered the hall with doubts in their hearts or minds as to Hillary's commitment to America, the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton, women everywhere, but most importantly to Barack Obama, she surely emptied them of such doubt and poured in conviction.

This might be the best speech anyone ever delivered in support of Obama, and one of the best concession speeches ever crafted, right up there with Al Gore's eloquent concession in 2000.

Obama is not a fool. Far from it. He will make maximum use of this woman, who has honed her talents to a fine point in the crucible of 54 primary contests and 22 debates. In this moment she just might be the single best politician in America, maybe the world. She was surging at the end of that complex process, winning lopsided victories in several states.

Surely that record, coupled with this speech, has secured her a spot on Obama's short list of candidates for vice-president. If that notion proves too blessed unwieldy, he'll surely find some other way to take her up on the pledge to work hard for him.

Hillary's speech surpassed all expectations, surely. It blessed and vindicated her supporters. It lifted their hearts and minds. It validated the long struggle to keep her nomination alive to reach this point. Most of all, it embraced Obama in no uncertain terms.

It also delivered a message in a bottle to future historians. In a speech she surely knew would be history-making, no matter what she said or how she said it, she said and did all the right things.

Speaking to women and girls, she admonished them never to give up.

Speaking to blacks, hispanics and others of color, she inveighed against racism and prejudice in absolute terms.

Speaking to inheritors of our Earth, she gave a clarion call, summoning us all to save the Earth and stop global warming for all creatures with whom we share our world.

Speaking to supporters of former President Bill Clinton she took pains to place in vivid perspective his accomplishment in winning two of the only three terms by a Democratic president in the past 40 years.

And her conclusion was a rousing plea for unity and victory.

I confess, the speech brought tears to my eyes, and I found myself wishing that she'd made a few different decisions, so I could've supported her for president.

I do support her for vice-president. She's as charismatic as Obama. She's tough, relentless, sunny, optimistic, attractive and bright. Surely she and Obama together will be an unstoppable force in American politics and American life.

Go Obama. Go Hillary.

HILLARY CLINTON'S CONCESSION SPEECH: Full Text (New York Times); Complete Video, Final Campaign Rally (C-SPAN).




by Don Williams
22 Apr 08


You won't find the above headline anywhere else. Believe me, I've tried. Still, it's true.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 10, 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the following jaw-dropping statement:

"We were attacked from Afghanistan in 2001, and we are at war in Afghanistan today, in no small measure because of mistakes this government madeÐmistakes I among others made in the end game of the anti-Soviet war there some 20 years ago."

That's an astonishing confession, even if mine was the only jaw that dropped. Gates is the first high official in the Bush administration to acknowledge what war critics have been lambasted for even suggesting. OK, he didn't use the word "blowback," but by definition, that's what he's talking about.

A certain radio commentator once all but called me a traitor for suggesting what Gates openly admits. Many others, including the Rev. Jeremiah Wright most recently, have been denounced all over this country for suggesting 9/11 was caused by failed U.S. policy. Yes, Wright said much else as well. Nevertheless he took a hit for stating the same notion.

So why are Big Media silent about Gates? You tell me. Eventually, this story might show up on Page 5 in your local daily, especially if this column gets around, but it will never be top of Page One, where it counts, just as you never saw the following headlines there when they might've made a difference:

US. LOOKS THE OTHER WAY AS PAKISTAN PERFECTS NUCLEAR BOMBS AND DELIVERY SYSTEM

COUNTING FLORIDA OVER-VOTES WOULD PUT GORE IN WHITE HOUSE

SAUDI OIL PROFITS LINKED TO SPREAD OF WAHABISM

WAR WILL COST 100 TIMES MORE THAN BUSH TEAM PREDICTS (OIL WILL NOT PAY FOR IT)

BUSH SUPPRESSES EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING

NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FOUND IN IRAQ

NO AERIAL DRONES, NO NEW ANTHRAX, NO YELLOWCAKE, NO NEW CENTRIFUGES

NO SIGNIFICANT LINKS FOUND BETWEEN AL-QAEDA AND SADDAM

CASE FOR INVADING IRAQ INCLUDED RAVINGS FROMA T RTURED MAN AND LIES FROM A CRIMINAL WITH TIES TO IRAN

SECRET MEMOS REVEAL U.S. TOLD ENGLAND WE'D 'FIX THE EVIDENCE' TO SUPPORT JOINT IRAQ ATTACK

BUSH BUILDING PERMANENT MILITARY BASES IN IRAQ

BUSH HANDS CONTROL OF IRAQ TO NATURAL ALLIES OF IRAN

PROMINENT BUSH SUPPORTERS BELIEVE HE'S PREPARING WAR FOR THE RAPTURE

MILITARY SOURCES SAY U.S. LET MANY IN TALIBAN AND AL-QAEDA SLIP THE NOOSE AT TARA BORA

DECISION TO TORTURE ORIGINATED IN WHITE HOUSE

U.S. SOLDIRERS COMMITING SUICIDE AT RECORD LEVELS

COST OF ONE CRUISE MISSILE COULD BUILD 80 SECULAR SCHOOLS IN AFGHAN VILLAGES

No, you seldom saw headlines like these leading the page when they might've made a difference, though columnists were writing about them in the back pages, carefully citing our evidence.

One by one, all the things we were pilloried for saying out loud are being confirmed, and I can prove the truth of each of the above headlines to the satisfaction of any reasonable reader. In fact, because all except the headline at the top of this page have long since been proven trueÑthe whole lousy shooting matchÐlet's talk about that one.

Despite denials from Bush and other hawks, the rise of the Taliban and al-Qaeda was a direct result of our policy of funding and arming Muslim Jihadists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as Gates knows all too well.

Gates' precise role in their rise is unclear. After all, his career consisted of operating from the shadows, including 26 years in the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, and under President George H.W. Bush as Director of Central Intelligence.

Still, it's easily provable that he at least cheered on arming and training fundamentalist Muslims who later resurfaced as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and members of the first post-Soviet Afghani government the Taliban overthrew with our tacit approval.

All you have to do is click on Amazon.com and ask for Gates' book "From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War" to discover Gates' support for the "end game" in Afghanistan.

Turns out this was the opening gambit for Islamic Jihadists and we're now in the middle of an unending "game" which most Americans neither asked for nor desired.

In his book, Gates outlines how America began infiltrating Afghanistan with secret forces in a self-conscious effort to lure the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan and "give the Soviets their Vietnam." The process started under President Carter but reached flood tide under Presidents Reagan and Bush 41, when American operatives trained, armed, funded and otherwise empowered radical fundamentalist Muslims who later set their sights on us.

As I documented in a column at the time of Gates' confirmation, he also had a role in the Iran/Contra affair as well as in our policy of providing aerial maps showing Saddam where to bomb Iran while, at the same time, selling Iran anti-aircraft weaponry during the Iran/Iraq War. How cynical was that?

How many innocent people have died as a result of Gates' and others' manipulations? Millions in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan? Tens of thousands in Central America? Thousands more in Kuwait? Let's not forget nearly 3,000 on 9/11.

Gates deserves credit for admitting out loud what many have been slammed for pointing out. The difference between Gates and critics like me however—besides the obvious ones of power and influence—is that Gates sees 9/11 as blowback from a narrow failure to fine-tune the end game in Afghanistan. Thus his straight-faced statement in the Senate hearing that, "If we get the end-game wrong in Iraq, I predict the consequences will be far worse."

What Gates won't acknowledge is that chess is a game of destiny, in which end-games are often predestined by opening gambits. The philosophy of having an American shadow government arming secret armies and then using American military might or dark machinations to wreck other countries and change regimes is always going to be a gamble, more often than not leading to disaster, because violence begets violence and the Law of Unintended Consequences is not revoked.

Just look at the Unintended Consequences of such meddling in Iraq. Ethnic cleansing, torture, loss of rights and privacy here, a trillion dollars squandered, and counting. End game be damned. The consequences already have proven horrendous.

Gates can't bring himself to admit that empowering the leaders of Islamic jihad was a horrible mistake that ruined millions of lives and now endangers world civilization.

What puzzles me is why no one else within the reach of his voice dares trumpet this admission that 9/11 represents a failed and cynical policy of violence and manipulation from the shadows. And why none in the major media dare point out that, for once, a Bush official has acknowledged blowback. Even if he won't say the word.






by Don Williams
17 Feb 08


Hillary Clinton has suggested Obama's attitudes regarding nukes are naive. And yet, in one of the most under-reported stories of 2007, four Cold Warriors who flexed American might last century went on record just over a year ago in support of a nuclear-free world—the Obama position.

In an op-ed letter to the Wall Street Journal, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Sam Nunn and William Perry wrote this:

"Unless urgent new actions are taken, the U.S. soon will be compelled to enter a new nuclear era that will be more precarious, psychologically disorienting, and economically even more costly than was Cold War deterrence.

"It is far from certain that we can successfully replicate the old Soviet-American 'mutually assured destruction' with an increasing number of potential nuclear enemies world-wide without dramatically increasing the risk that nuclear weapons will be used.

"New nuclear states do not have the benefit of years of step-by-step safeguards put in effect during the Cold War to prevent nuclear accidents, misjudgments or unauthorized launches. The United States and the Soviet Union learned from mistakes that were less than fatal. Both countries were diligent to ensure that no nuclear weapon was used during the Cold War by design or by accident.

"Will new nuclear nations and the world be as fortunate in the next 50 years as we were during the Cold War?"

It's the kind of issue that is a deal-maker or -breaker for those with the imagination to envision a future in which the world is not put at risk by human folly. Barack Obama envisions a world without nuclear weapons. A world in which new nukes would be prohibited and old nuclear stockpiles would be secured and dealt down.

Hillary? She would reserve the option to bomb "enemies" who wish to obtain nukes, and fund "friends" who would go nuclear. Yes, one could say she's endorsed the Kissinger, Shultz, Nunn and Perry proposal, but her endorsement is serpentine and curiously worded:

"Neither North Korea nor Iran will change course as a result of what we do with our own nuclear weapons, but taking dramatic steps to reduce our nuclear arsenal would build support for the coalitions we need to address the threat of nuclear proliferation and help the United States regain the moral high ground. Former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and former Senator Sam Nunn have called on the United States to 'rekindle the vision,' shared by every president from Dwight Eisenhower to Bill Clinton, of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons" [Clinton's Foreign Policy].

Sorry, but Kissinger, Shultz, Perry and Nunn went much further. Hillary, in effect, soft-pedals and understates their call for a nuclear-free world, before tacitly endorsing it.

In an Oct. 2, 2007 speech at DePaul University, on the other hand, Obama laid out nine principles of foreign policy that he would adhere to. Number One? Ridding the world of nuclear weapons [A World Free of Nuclear Weapons].

An article at the think-tank, Foreign Policy in Focus, pretty much sums up my attitude toward Hillary's take on nukes:

"Nuclear Weapons: Particularly disturbing has been Senator Clinton's attitudes regarding nuclear issues. For example, when Senator Obama noted in August that the use of nuclear weapons—traditionally seen as a deterrent against other nuclear states—was not appropriate for use against terrorists, Clinton rebuked his logic by claiming that 'I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons.'

"Senator Clinton has also shown little regard for the danger from the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries, opposing the enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions challenging the nuclear weapons programs of such U.S allies as Israel, Pakistan, and India. Not only does she support unconditional military aid—including nuclear-capable missiles and jet fighters—to these countries, she even voted to end restrictions on U.S. nuclear cooperation with countries that violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty. . . .

"She refuses to support the proposed nuclear weapons-free zone for the Middle East, as called for in UN Security Council resolution 687, nor does she support a no-first use nuclear policy, both of which could help resolve the nuclear standoff. Indeed, she has refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against such non-nuclear countries as Iran, even though such unilateral use of nuclear weapons directly contradicts the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the same treaty she claims the United States must unilaterally and rigorously enforce when it involves Iran and other countries our government doesn't like. . . .

"In essence, as president, Hillary Clinton would be more unilateralist and less prone to work with other nations than the Bush administration on such critical issues as non-proliferation" [Hillary Clinton on Military Policy].






by Don Williams
11 Feb 08


There you go again, said a voice trying too hard to sound like Ronald Reagan in the throes of his American dreaming.

Don't you ever knock? I snapped without looking up.

Nah! My friend dropped the Reagan bit. Don't you know that in the post-9/11 world knocking's for sissies?

Yeah, well, you know I love talking to you but Friday morning's when I write my column, as you're very well aware.

But that's when you need me most, my friend. I'm your BS detector. Take that last column. You coulda used me on that one. I read that and had to shake my head. There you go again with the Bush Bashing. Don't you know it's a new day?

I turned and looked at him as he moved some papers and sat down in a spare wooden chair. He'd neatly bundled muscle and flab in red running shorts and red t-shirt that read Camelot Redux in green. His left hand held a Bloody Mary, complete with celery flag at full mast, no doubt liberated from my fridge. It was my glass he drank from, for sure.

Cheers, he said, as he lofted and sipped.

You celebrating something?

Yep, he said, smacking his lips. Renewal. The return of the King. Excalibur. The King is dead, long live the King. New Life in the Wasteland.

What are you talking about?

A world devoid of Dubya! New blood, brother! Slay the sacrificial beast.

You're drunk, I said. How many of those have you had?

Jus' the one? All right, two. I'm feeling good, that's all. Had a nice run over here. Feels like springtime. Did you see the Obillary debate?

I saw it, sounded like the same old song-and-dance to me.

See, there you go, sounding old and cynical. What I bring to the table is the perspective of youth, my friend, and youth knows a new day's dawnin'. Kids are turning out in droves at rallies, and the pollsters are missing it because they don't call cell phone numbers.

Hah! I said. You're every bit as old as I am. Look in the mirror.

Ah, but I'm young at heart, young enough to revel in being a walking contra—make that a runnin'Ñcontra-diction. He drank deep, then pulled a cigarette from a baggie in his shorts and lit up, blowing a brand new cloud my way.

I reached over and cracked the window in my home office, making a mental note to replace the screen, mangled last summer when casting a stray snake from the house. Long story.

So indulge me, he said. I'm here to tell you that you need to set a new tone my friend. It's time we all took a fresh look at where we stand. A new optimism's stirring. Don't you feel it?

I guess so.

Be honest, don't you have to actually TRY to work up the old anger these days? Democracy's renewing us. OK, so the bastards stole the last two presidential elections. Yes, climate change is worse than we thought. The economy's going to hell, the Neocons succeeded in annexing Iraq to the empire.

What's your point?

Despite all that, my friend, it's a new day in America! How long's it been since you've heard such heartening rhetoric out of two candidates as you heard from Obama and Hillary yesterday?

Well, Obama is inspiring, I admitted, but he's no John Kennedy. And Hillary's savvy and assertive, it's true, but where's the beef?

The beef's where it's always been. Out in the back 40 waiting to get bludgeoned, ground up, portioned out and cooked into somethin' the public will swallow. I'm the first to admit substance is scarce in these campaigns. Still, the tone's changed. Subjects have changed. Take climate change. Even Dubya had to admit in his SOTU address that it's real. And when Schwarzenegger endorsed McCain, it sounded like an Earth Day speech. Whatever else you say about McCain . . .

He's a warmonger.

OK, but he's also down with saving the planet. He's down with clean energy. He's against torture. He's for restoring habeas corpus, he's . . .

You voting for McCain?

Not likely, not with two brilliant Democrats left in the race talking about healthcare reform, getting us out of Iraq.

I'll believe it when I see it, I said. It's just too damn bad the people who got the most things right their whole careers, Gravel and Kucinich and Edwards and Dodd, all had to drop out. And Gore's out in Silicon Valley half the time, making big bucks.

Yeah, my friend sighed. They tried forging swords into ploughshares. Something good's gonna grow from that though.

Nice try, I said. But listen . . . uh, I need to finish up here.

You throwin' me out?

I wouldn't put it that way . . .

Well, I tried at least. Don' get up, he said as he stood. He drew once more on his cigarette, exhaled seven perfect rings into the air and dropped the butt-end into ice-melt from his finished drink. He set down the glass and, touching two fingers to his forehead, turned, raised my sash up higher, reached his muscular left leg over the windowsill and climbed through. He hit the ground running.

I watched him jog down to the creek, across my bridge and up the long driveway. When he was just a smudge on the scenery, I swiveled around to my screen and deleted every word. I'd have to write fast now to make deadline.

It was still smoky in the room, so I stood before starting over and went to the window just in time for an unseasonably warm breeze to waft through.

A ragged red flame appeared among the branches of my magnolia so close at hand, then shape-shifted into the clean lines of a well-groomed cardinal. It lofted its head and rendered three ascending trills. Somewhere a turtledove sent three haunting coos across the land. And from the creek, spring peepers began to sing.






by Don Williams
7 Feb 08


If asked to name the central hallmark of the Bush presidency as it enters its eighth and---may God grant us--final year, I'd say without hesitation, one word.

Cruelty.

More than anything else, the Bush tenure has been marked by cruelty. What else can explain the unrelenting thumb-or is it his middle finger- in the eyes of peace advocates, environmentalists, diplomats, human rights organizations, and all the frogs, polar bears, whales, Muslims, Christians, women, soldiers and emotionally deranged prisoners Bush has effectively-sometimes explicitly-executed without just cause.

Everything Bush does smells either explicitly cruel or informed by an inability to feel the sufferings of others. He invokes fear over and over, appealing again and again to the darkness in our hearts in order to make end runs around legitimate process.

And so it was again, Tuesday, Jan. 15, when Bush announced that he was granting waivers that would allow the Navy to continue using sonar in densely populated ocean canyons and other shallow water migration paths off the coast of Southern California, in violation of court orders designed to protect whales and dolphins from bleeding ears, brain damage and other bad effects of sonar.

On February 5th, a judge in California smacked down the Bush waivers, charging that Bush had over-reached in making the case for waiving such restrictions. Read about it here.

So what was the Bush justification for inflicting pain and disorientation on whales?

Why, "urgent national security reasons," of course. What else? You see, the Navy is busy fine-tuning its anti-submarine warfare techniques, in order to prevent an imminent threat.

Just whose submarines are posing a threat?

No telling. Considering that we're spreading weapons around the world at a record pace. As Maureen Dowd wrote recently, "Blessed is the peacemaker who comes bearing a $30 billion package of military aid for Israel and a $20 billion package of Humvees and guided bombs for the Arabs," referring to Bush's tour of the Middle East last month on behalf of peace dontcha know?

The trip was marked by Bush's beating the drums for some kind of stern action against Israel, while pressing a thumb in the eyes of his own spy agencies which announced late last year that Iran was no where near developing nukes.

But then, Bush has never been one to let reality get in the way of his need to punish others, whether it meant covering up the truth about global warming, the effects of mountaintop removal on our springs and rivers and their teeming wildlife or old-growth forests in the Northwest.

In looking back at his strange and illustrious career, the evidence is everywhere that Bush is motivated by a cruel streak above all.

As a child, he used to stuff firecrackers in the mouths of frogs, light them, and then toss them into the air to watch them explode, according to childhood witnesses quoted in an article by Nicholas Kristof in the May 21, 2000, edition of the New York Times.

Such evidence, buried deep in puff-piece stories, should have been warnings to us all. You don't put animal abusers in top positions of power. Many an expert on human behavior will tell you that animal torture is indicative of deep mental disturbances that can surface as public or private dramas years later. Others address such issues more simply.

"Deliberate cruelty is not forgivable," Tennessee Williams wrote.

Evidence suggests the people in charge of our country and our world are either guilty of deliberate cruelty or else they're just incapable of empathy. How else do you explain our network of secret prisons complete with water boards, ceiling restraints, whipping wires, attack dogs, electrodes, and worse? How else do you explain efforts to legitimize such instruments during the past seven years, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they're counter-productive?

Research it yourself. Look up Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. The lies we forced that mentally deranged man to tell during "aggressive interrogation" became a centerpiece in our case for the bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of corpses later, Congress shamelessly rubberstamped such techniques.

Cruetly? Lack of empathy?

How else do you explain photographs of Condoleezza Rice laughing and joking with the leader of Israel even as his American-made missiles were reducing much of Lebanon to rubble a couple of years back?

During Bush's short tenure as governor of Texas he oversaw the execution of 131 inmates, more than any other governor since capital punishment was made legal again in 1978.

According to the June 11, 2000, Chicago Tribune, these included "inmates whose cases were compromised by unreliable evidence, disbarred or suspended defense attorneys, meager defense efforts during sentencing and dubious psychiatric testimony." According to the Boston Globe they included the mentally retarded, the mentally deranged, the abused, the coerced and the born again. Quite probably they included innocent people.

O.K., maybe you see capital punishment as a necessary evil. Unfortunately, your president took a rather less thoughtful attitude toward it. Consider this piece of witnessing by conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, who interviewed Bush for Talk Magazine in September 1999.

"In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. 'Did you meet with any of them?' I ask.

"Bush whips around and stares at me. 'No, I didn't meet with any of them,' he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. 'I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'

"'What was her answer?' I wonder.

"'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation. 'Don't kill me.'

"I must look shocked-ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel-because he immediately stops smirking."






by Don Williams
10 Jan 08


At a recent going away party, a tall and sparkly friend came up to me and said, "Are you believing Obama's win in Iowa?" Her irises were wide and dream-enhanced. "Oh, I'm so hopeful. I'm staying home Tuesday to watch the New Hampshire primary results. He could be so good for this world. He could change the way others see America."

The condescension of my reaction caught even me by surprise: "Oh honey, why set yourself up for this fall? Do you think our country is ever going to let Obama's family be the First Family?" Then I named my greatest fear when it comes to Barack Hussein Obama.

I won't name it here. Why speak the horror that's counterpoint to a song Obama inspires in the heart of America?

You know the fear I'm talking about. It's the kind that goes unnamed until it reaches perverse consummation in black, point-blank headlines and mournful anchors' faces.

We've known others who swept America off her feet with youthful looks, charisma and idealism. How well you know their fate. So let's leave it at this: When I look at Obama's family, I can't bring myself to believe America will allow these sweet, attractive people of color to occupy the White House. I pray that I'm wrong, and itÍs something I donÍt like dwelling on.

So I'll mention, in passing, my second greatest fear: A dark campaign laced with personal attacks against Obama, exploiting his name, his race, his youthful experimentation with drugs and other revelations from his varied background.

IÍd hope even that fear is a function of my age and false wisdom grounded in the dark history of the country that shaped me: The reality that no person of color's ever been elected president, or even come close. The memory of stolen elections, official lies that got us into wars. The dark shadows cast not only by the South but by American capitalism generally, a system founded on slave labor.

I consider the Swift-boating of John Kerry. Big Media's joyful complicity in spreading lies about Al Gore. The push-poll campaign to make South Carolina voters believe, in 2000, that John McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock.

And I consider all the bad jokes, pop songs that mention "towel-heads" and the understandable, if reflexive, reactions to that word, "Hussein." In this context, Obama's very name becomes bad baggage. The seven syllables of Barack Hussein Obama add up to a dark strata Republicans are sure to mine next summer and fall, should he win the nomination. Yes, you've heard too much about it already, but more's coming. His name rhymes too precisely with the unwieldy but toxic phrase, "Iraq Hussein Osama." It contrasts darkly to an aw-shucks American-sounding name like Huckabee, and a battle-tested moniker like McCain.

Yes, I've pointed out before that these are shallow reasons to vote against a qualified candidate, but then, we're talking about a media and electorate who put Dubya within spitting distance of the presidency in 2000 against one as qualified and visionary as Al Gore. Spitting distance was close enough for voter fraud and five Supreme Court Republicans to seal the deal.

While Obama has huge support and surged to the front in Iowa with Oprah Winfrey's help, she could end up hurting his chances in the general election, as her presence underscores the color issue.

Do I exaggerate? Perhaps. I was accused of as much when I asked, rhetorically, rhetorically, "Can you vote for a black man?" in a column prior to Harold Ford's race for the seat now held by Tennessee Senator Bob Corker. Ford, a polished, handsome, moderate candidate lost by a substantial margin, following TV spots with racist overtones, in a year when Democrats nationwide took control of Congress. In the general election, the privacy of the voting booth could prove pivotal in bringing out America's repressed racism. Could that account for the eye-widening disparity in the polling versus the vote tallies in New Hampshire?

On the other hand, my tall, sparkly and hopeful friend recently emailed with anecdotal evidence that many Republicans she knows are seriously considering casting their lot with Obama.

To me, it sounded too good to be true. Color is sure to be a pole around which many will rally as way leads to way, and our lost nation either finds the road out of a dark wilderness or wanders forty more years until this generation—and maybe everything else—passes away.

I pray that I'm wrong and that Obama becomes the face and name that awakens in all of us long-dormant visions of a better America and a better world.






by Don Williams
04 Jan 08


Split screen: On the right, a cast ranging from teens to boomers, from cream-colored to deep roast coffee, clasp hands aloft in victory. Behind Obama a giant blue banner pronounces: C-H-A-N-G-E.

On the left, another story. Hillary clutches a microphone like a lifeline in Nashua, N.H., and says this: "When we talk about change, we need somebody who won't just SAY change. . . . What we need is somebody who can PRODUCE change, just like I've been doing for thirty-fiiiiive years."

Never has a phrase sounded so tired. The irony of the statement seems lost on Hillary. Just so it's not lost on you, please consider:

• Hillary voted for the war on Iraq.
  
• Hillary voted to give Bush power to do as he will with Iran.
  
• Hillary hinted she might nuke Iran.
  
• When it comes to diplomacy, Hillary's stated she'd be slow to talk to adversaries.
  

Hillary's health care plan is much like Mitt Romney's. It leaves in place the same old incentives by which we all find ourselves over-prescribed, under-funded, and under-treated.

That's the kind of "change" that, after 35 years, makes us sicker, poorer, gets generations killed, and keeps the military- industrial- media complex fat and arrogant the world over.

She's Republican Lite in my book, sort of like her much maligned husband. Yes, during these past seven years of hell, Bill Clinton's been refreshing to watch and give a listen to when addressing this or that policy group. With his ready command of facts, grammatical sentences, ability to conceptualize, to ponder conflicting forces, and his generally sweet vibe, he's good medicine.

As I wrote 'long about Halloween, I wish I could say I was a great admirer. I really really wish that. But I'm not. I look at the genocide in Rwanda during his watch. The half-million dead children in Iraq. The blown up aspirin factory in the Sudan. The decrepit space program. The mess in the Middle East, the Rubik's Cube of a health scheme he and Hillary launched. The coercion of much of his Cabinet into marching out on the White House lawn and (by saying they believed him) turning his personal lies about Monica into a big, national lie. No, I don't believe that was an impeachable offense, certainly not comparable to the house of horrors of the Bush / Cheney administration. I just wish I could admire Bill's legacy more.

And just as I wish I could like Bill more, I really really want to like Hillary. Despite her shaky performance in Iowa, she's normally poised, quick on her feet, attractive enough in manner and looks, has a ready wit, pretty good ideas on a range of issues, says many of the right things about the environment, social justice, health care. Moreover, how exciting it would be to inaugurate our first woman president in 2009.

Aye, but here's the rub. She strikes me as a hazard to the planet. One beholden to outdated ways of looking at war and armaments. One who'd demonize Iran's leadership unnecessarily, then nuke them just to "prove her manhood." After all, she did vote for war with Iraq. No matter how she spins it, she signed on. Yes, she was misled, the nation was misled, but she shouldn't have been. I wasn't. Molly Ivins wasn't. Helen Thomas wasn't. Kucinich wasn't. Mike Gravel wasn't. Even those conservatives, Charley Reese, Paul Craig Roberts, Jimmie Duncan and Ron Paul weren't.

More to the point, neither were Obama or Edwards, both of whom can claim a victory in Iowa. They point to real change. For 2008, they just mignt be the ticket. To understand why, read my earlier column, Why Edwards / Obama just might be the ticket in 2008.






by Don Williams
31 Dec 07


Here are some leftover gifts
found under a magical tree,
if only I had the power
to give them . . .

For Pakistan: Peace and reconciliation.

For Dick Cheney: Impeachment.

For Big Media: Some soul and integrity.

For lending regulators: Laws against luring buyers into homes they can't afford.

For the NRA: Humility in the face of massacres by kids bearing stolen assault rifles.

For patriots wanting to do more in the "War on Terror": Here's a little package of hardship. Nothing so severe as what our parents and grandparents faced during the Great Depression and War War II, just more challenging than, say, going shopping for America and pasting faux yellow ribbons on your SUV. How about some good, stiff incentives for parking your guzzler in favor of car-pooling, biking, running, walking and mass transit? How about "green" light bulbs and a better insulated house? How about lowering the thermostat two degrees?

For R&D departments at our nation's industries and colleges: A crash program to design affordable cars that get 50 miles to the gallon. An all-out effort to develop hydrogen, geo-thermal, solar and wind power.

For Oak Ridge and TVA: A phase-out of nuclear technology, so the world might with authority outlaw nukes in Iran, North Korea and our so-called ally, Pakistan.

For Dubya: A gift that keeps on giving. Six special prosecutors. One each for invading Iraq, illegal wire-taps, lies about global warming, torture, Iran's nuclear capability, and, for good measure, one for all the sins not covered on that list.

For the Knoxville News-Sentinel and other media who've soft-pedaled the truth about Dubya by silencing his critics: A lump of coal from a strip mine near you.

For Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: Backbone and foresight. Items to replace the rubber stamps you wield for arms makers, energy companies, the gun lobby and others.

For Democrats generally: Courage to take a good hard look at the weapons trade, once and future allies, health insurance, corporate accounting, energy, the space program, the war on drugs, the plight of veterans and much else. Time is running out to prove you're the visionaries you claim to be or just another gaggle of hacks on the path of least resistance.

For torturers and excusers of torture: An evening with one Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who was kidnapped and pressured into telling lies that helped launch us into Iraq, maybe the worst foreign policy fiasco this country ever made.

For students: The truth about evolution, Christopher Columbus, the Pilgrims, the Indians, the slave-trade, the creation of the Taliban, al-Qaida, torture, Bush family history and global warming.

For the media: The gumption to tell the truth much sooner when it comes to war casualties such as Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, and when it comes to the Downing Street memos, the violation of a dozen international treaties and a list of lies too long to go into here.

For Phil Fulmer and the football Vols: A special-teams coach. Long-suffering fans have surely had enough of busted kickoff coverage, poor punt-fielding and kick-off fielding early each season. Surely the time has come to bring rest to old legendary Vol coach Bob Neyland, who made the kicking game into a high art, and surely has spent the Fulmer era spinning in his grave.

For TVA and other major air polluters: Humility in the face of miserable air quality, plus the latest in smokestack emissions technology, even if Dubya says you don't hafta install it.

For veterans and weary soldiers: Access to topnotch healthcare, open hearts and minds when it comes to post-traumatic stress and other psychological issues, plus an end to trumped up wars. For downtowns across Tennessee: A sudden love among the people for village dwelling.

For strip-miners and mountaintop removers: A dirty pool of water and a "reclaimed mountain" in your own back yard.

For the Tennessee Department of Transportation: A legislature willing to transfer money from TDOT to more worthy causes. Land for parks and wildlife, more intact communities, more historic preservation, mass transit projects and fewer roads.

For music lovers: A revival of a Top Ten with powers to soothe the savage breast. How about a sudden national craving for harmony, melody and insightful lyrics?

For Al Gore: A front row seat on the spectacle of munchkins flailing around in your wake.

For Alberto Gonzalez, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and a growing list of others who've walked the plank on our ship of state: A long retirement, with plenty of time to reflect on past misdeeds.

For everyone reading this column with an open mind: Many thanks, and a Happy New Year.

by Don Williams
22 Dec 07

Just how wasteful, blind and arrogant is this pilot? Consider all the ruined lives, wasted oil, the staggering costs of cleaning up this mess. Consider the contempt for world treasures, the environment. Mostly, though, consider his sickening lack of judgment.

Even when sailing blindly through dense fog he stays the course. Even among icons of world heritage, he cries "Full speed ahead." Against the advice of cooler heads, his motto is the same. When told about deficiencies in equipment before launching, he went ahead anyway. Even after the magnitude of his errors became clear, he gave out false information about the costs, the causes, the cure. Even now he makes excuses. Even now he's clueless.

No, I'm not talking about President George W. Bush, I'm talking about Capt. John Cota, pilot of the container ship Cosco Busan when it ran into the San Francisco Bay Bridge five weeks ago and spilt 58,000 gallons of deadly fuel oil into the bay.

Still, the Cosco Busan may be the perfect metaphor for how this country charged into Iraq to shock and awe people who'd done us no harm. The pilot could be a stand-in for the commander-in-chief on our ship of state. Their offenses are identical. Lack of judgment, sailing blind, ignoring the cost, ignoring geography, failure to understand the equipment under their control, telling lies, general arrogance and worse. Of course there are differences, mostly of scale, and the biggest one is this:

No one with any power has the guts to hold Bush accountable before the law.

In Cota's case, there's a state agency, the Board of Pilot Commissioners for the Bays of San Francisco, San Pablo and Suisun. They've suspended Cota's license and given him 15 days to respond. On Dec. 6, they produced a six-page document called an "accusation" that laid out the case against Cota. The board minced no words. According to a story in the San Jose Mercury News, Dec. 7, the board said the shipwreck was "a direct result of Captain Cota's piloting."

The U.S. could use such a board on the national level. The Senate, the House, and Justice apparently are useless when it comes to holding Bush accountable for invading Iraq based on lies, killing lots of people there, and hinting he might try it in Iran. Toss in kidnapping, torture, wiretapping, environmental damage, media manipulation, attempts to cover up global warming, being asleep at the wheel on 9/11, and you have a pretty strong bill of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Still, hints on the breeze suggest members of the military, the media, politicians and others are beginning to stand up to Bush and his co-pilot Cheney, and for good reason. The arrogance of this crew is breathtaking. Just hours after the National Intelligence Estimate became public two weeks ago, and we learned that ALL our nation's intelligence agencies combined had concluded that Iran ceased its nuclear program years ago, Bush could still be heard saying, implicitly, full speed ahead.

"To me, the NIE provides an opportunity for us to rally the international community—to continue to rally the community—to pressure the Iranian regime to suspend its program," the president said. "Nothing's changed."

It's even worse than Captain Cota's lack of judgment. At least Cota was in a literal fog. Bush's affliction appears to be mental. It's as if he were telling Iran, "Yes, our best minds agree that you have no nuke program, so come clean and show me where it's at or we're going to get really nasty." Come to think of it, that's about what happened in Iraq. With enough missiles in the Persian Gulf now to turn that region into a moonscape, the danger of staying the course could hardly be clearer.

Full speed ahead? Five years ago our cap'n said that and 90 percent of the crew and passengers saluted. Signs abound that it won't go so easy for Bush this time around. Consider. Five years ago, not only mouthpiece media like Fox News, but even so-called "liberal" media like the New York Times, ABC News and CNN were allowing themselves to be used to report phony stories about aluminum tubes, yellowcake uranium, aerial drones, anthrax, al-Qaeda connections and more—stories that history has finally blown away for the phony plants they were.

Spy bosses like George Tenet and others who produced the National Intelligence Estimates of 2002 and 2003, though split on the facts, publicly lined up behind the Bush / Cheney case for aerial bombardment, invasion and occupation of Iraq. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell unwittingly made a phony pro-war case to the United Nations—based in part on lies from tortured men, according to Newsweek and others (Google al-Libi+Colin Powell).

But now, mercifully, we have the NIE debunking the past two years' worth of Bush/Cheney rhetoric. We have the Times, CNN and ABC lining up to serve this news to the public. We have Secretary of State Condi Rice trying to broker peace. Incredibly, we have Sec. of Defense Gates telling the media that Iran is behaving much better in Iraq. Meanwhile, Pat Buchanan and other conservatives are talking publicly about how incredible—in other words NOT CREDIBLE—it is that Bush claims he only found out about the NIE's bombshell after he said THIS about Iranians three weeks ago:

"If you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

Still, these are sputters from a drowning sailor whose war schemes are running out of oxygen---politically, economically, militarily, and now on the intelligence front. As I said in a recent blog entry for knoxvoice.com, yes, it's maddening that more congressmen are not calling for impeachment or at least congressional investigations as to how Bush could've been so wrong about Iraq and Iran. Neither are Hillary Clinton and others who refused to take the "nuclear option" off the table regarding Iran, absolved. Still, it would be miserly and mean-spirited not to recognize this NIE report for the godsend it is.

With less than 14 months to go, assuming he leaves office gracefully, it appears Bush is being forced by his own staff and former allies, into admitting something akin to the truth.

When and if that happens, can we celebrate for five minutes?

Copyright © 2008
by EdgyBear