TRYING TIMES

President Bush's most recent speech concerning the Iraqi conflict used the same tired rhetoric and falsities of his previous political sermons on the subject. Many of his assertions were of the cringe inducing variety, twisting the English langauge to suit the wants of his right wing constituency while trumping adherence to the truth. Why must Bush insist that this june 30th handover will provide "full sovereignty" when that is obviously not the apropriate language to characterize said handover? How can a country with a foreign controlled army patroling its streets be considered sovereign? Tell the truth, sir: this will not be sovereignty. Not with the economic, political and military power still in the hands of American commanders. Besides the sovereignty farce, must Bush continually use the phrase "Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror"? How many times can he proclaim this statement so before we are perfectly aware that that's his position? Guess what, Mr. President, Iraq is now the central front for terrorism. Our actions have allowed such conduct to flourish. His words have become self-fulfilling prophecy. Besides being prophetic in this regard, Bush is certainly not God. But, he believes in spreading the gospel of American western values. How about expeling the biblical language from his speeches when he does so? Some of his pronouncements have been lifted almost verbatim from passages in the Good Book. Trying Times wishes Bush would cut short the fire-brand act. He is not a pastor or evangelical. He is president of the United States. His position is secular by nature, and therefore he should need not subject us to ceasless demagogic language to be inspiring. Nor do we need to hear a speech laden with the word "terrorists" and "freedom" in order to get riled up enough to support a plan that will create stability for Iraq and get us the hell out. Here's an idea, instead of using obnoxious but completely barren rhetoric like "make no mistake" and "ridding the world of the evil-doer's", why not come up with a plan that actually acomplishes something tangible? Why don't we, say, give the Iraqi's full sovereignty? Hold elections, get all of our troops out of there, and then call it sovereignty if you must. Or don't, keep troops there, and kill as many "evil-doer's" as you feel necessary. But the Bush Administration needs to stop pretending this situation is something it isn't. Its empire, in the sense that they think America knows best for Iraqis and will ensure they learn so at the barrel of a gun. Bush continually speaks of this vision in his speeches, but in discernly obtuse language. He needs to spare us the lies and manipulations of language meant to further obfuscate our understanding of the situation. An occupation cannot be replaced by stamping the word democracy on the label. Furthermore, Bushes assertion that Iraq has a clear, mutually exclusive set of alternatives made up of 2 distinct futures creates a false choice. A future of democrary always co-exists with the throws of tryanny, and the attempts and successes of the people suffering said tryanny to eventually eradicate it. The slow, hard slog toward freedom is dowsed with problems, and shades of grey that don't adhere to stark, obvious choices. Trying Times believes that carving black and white dichotomies out of reality creates an environment where people believe they have limited viable options for the future to solve those problems. The Iraqi people need more options. They need an option wherein they not only avoid the tryanny of the terrorists but also don't feel lead towards the American version of freedom and democracy at the end of a leash.

In regards to today's article by Charles Krauthammer, entitled Tax and Drill... Trying Times was surprised to say the least to see today's op-ed by Mr. Krauthammer. It was quite possibly the most refreshing article penned by a conservative commentator we have read in some time. The contentions made by Krauthammer are strictly in accord with the direction the country needs to explore in order to win the battle against terror and addiction to oil as an energy source. We should have long ago begun the difficult journey towards a new era in energy consumption, with a mind for what is sustainable. Krauthammer makes the argument that we should raise the tax on gas to $3 a gallon, with a subsequent lowering of another tax in return. This would change the dynamic of incentives for energy consumers while keeping overall taxes of consumers low. As a politically motivated digression, The writer makes the point that the current behavior from presidential candidate John Kerry advocating short-term solutions reeks of political pandering, and Trying Times agrees. Krauthammer should acknowledge, however, that Kerry has been a leading supporter of higher gasoline efficiency standards his entire career. He must be given credit for this advocacy, especially for his work during "Morning in America" (the late 80's and 90's) when it was political suicide to plead for the stemming of consumption. Alas, we can't expect Kerry to garner credit from Krauthammer for his forward thinking agenda. Currently, however, the position Krauthammer favors is one which Kerry should consider. As president, Kerry could lead the charge in enacting "War Time" legislation calling for Americans to sacrifice our oil consumption for the good of the future. Thomas Friedman of the NYTimes has called for such war time measures, advocating a modern day "Manhattan Project" whereby we seek to quickly disarm our addiction to oil. This would be accomplished by investing a supreme allotment of time, effort and resource into creating new sustainable energy sources, as well as making the current models more efficient and safe (such as nuclear power). This idea, in addition to the actions advocated by Charles Krauthammer, could have a hugely positive impact on the future of our country, with effects that reverberate throughout America's foreign policy as well as domestic economic concerns. We would once and for all cut off the lifeline of money flowing into countries like Saudi Arabia, who in turn invest this money into Islamic schools that advocate the hatred of America. Our economic outlook would improve, because the investment in new power supplies would lead to jobs required to build and maintain new infrastructure. We are seeing currently that government investment in war materials has lead to new manufacturing jobs in states like Ohio; there's no reason the same could not happen if we were to build solar and hydrogen power plants instead of airplanes and bombs. It important to see pundits from both sides of the aisle take interest in untried methods such as these. Hopefully Kerry will take Krauthammer's lead. The sooner Americans can reach a consensus on the need to switch to alternative energy for the sake of both our economy AND our foreign policy, the sooner we can move forward to a safer and sustainable world.

Ha! Trying Times has eagerly awaited the newest op-ed by William Safire, Sarin? What Sarin?...
By now, most of us have heard the news that a Sarin weapon has been used (or mistakenly used) in Iraq against American soldiers. Trying Times agrees with Safire that the mainstream media has been quick to dismiss this event, in some cases with quotes from former weapons inspector Hans Blix, and other "pooh-poohers" as Safire describes them, declaring that one weapon does not make a terrifying, ferocious arsenal. Trying Times was therefore forced to seek out...Foxnews! to read some of the details of this event, given its widespread dismissal. Safire makes the point that in time, more will be discovered. Perhaps he is right. He has absolutely no evidence beyond this one finding to support such an assertion, but it could be the case. Trying Times takes issue, however, with Safire using the oppurtunity to once again trot out his tried and tired argument that all will be well in Iraq if we simply give it a few more years to sort itself out. Come on now, sir. What logic could possibly dictate that discovering this loaded bomb suddenly means everything will end up okay in Iraq? The argument over Weapons of Mass Destruction involved the Administrations claims of highly probable, dire, immediate circumstance (in the likely form of a mushroom cloud!) prevailing over the United States whereby our attack was imminently necessary. This recent meager finding surely does nothing to give creedence to that allegation. Nor does this revelation assuage the anger Arabs feel over the torture in Abu Graib prison. Most especially, discovering one weapon does nothing to reconstitute the currently directionless political situation surrounding the "transfer of sovereignty". Our main issues in Iraq extend from an uncertain and dangerous future, and not from the discovery (or lack there of) of WMD. In that regard, now that we have found this bomb, are we going to see an end to the daily attack from road side bombs in Baghdad? Certainly not. Road side bombers and suicide attackers don't care whether we once again feel morally justified about invading Iraq because we found a small amount of toxin. WMD aren't even at the core of the debate anymore. The bottom line is, what are we going to do about the future of that country, indeed the whole region? According to Safire, the master plan is to stick it out, wait a couple years, and the "defeatists" and "cut-and-runners" will all be proven wrong. By what, a miracle sent from the heavens? No indication is given by Safire as to how a positive conclusion could come about. Here's hoping that Safire is right about all this, and we can establish a stable and successful new Iraqi ally to aid us in the war against terrorism, or whatever it is we are trying to accomplish over there. Here's also hoping that the Bush Administration is voted out of office so we never have to wish that William Safire be right about anything again.

It is difficult to come to grips with the tragedy of Nick Berg's death at the hands of Islamic terrorists. What is not at issue is the depravity of the act itself. America should not stop until the criminals responsible are hunted down and killed. There is simply no other option or solution befitting anyone who would do such horrible thing and then be as voraciously ugly as to display it prominently to the whole world. In dealing with the issue of whether or not the video itself should have been shown more pervasively to the public by our own media (as the photo's from Abu Graib have been) we should leave that up to the Berg family. If they wish us all to see what happened to their child then we should all toughen up and watch it, in order to attain a better visceral understanding of the enemy with which we are dealing. However, Tyring Times does not believe that the Berg family wishes this so, and therefore sees the display of this display of this video in a different light than the photos of prisoner torture. Those photographs HAD to be shown, or otherwise our government might never have admited wrong doing. It was important for the people of this country to have an emotional reaction to the news in order to bring about change, and that is what these pictures accomplished. The same could be said for the Nick Berg photos, but in contrast it is very likely that the prisoners would have wished for their photo's to come out, if they understood that it would bring about the end of the torture. Its hard to believe that the Berg Family sees any benefit to the video of their son's death.

R.I.P.
Nick Berg
1978-2004

Andrew Sullivan seems to have finally caught on to what the REAL argument against the Iraqi war was in the first place. In his latest blog, Sullivan finally consents to the obvious, realizing that "this war was noble and defensible but...this administration was simply too incompetent and arrogant to carry it out effectively". Leave it to a Republican to disseminate the most cogent Democratic argument against the war succinctly. That said, the question that needs to be asked in response is: What took you so long? Was it really so difficult for decent moderate Republicans like Sullivan to admit to the hubris and overall numbskullery of an Administration and war cabinet with practically no real world military experience? Problems should have been apparent as soon as authentic war veterans like Colin Powell and Richard Armitage were rudely made irrelevant following the breakdown of U.N. negotiations. Since then the Administration has engaged in a series of mistakes that would make Edward A. Murphy blush. Trying Times believes the real folly of this war, and the most costly mistake made by the Bush Administration, was not coming clean from the beginning about its costs. All of us should have been given the opportunity to engage in a genuine cost-benefit analysis comparing the pluses of the humanitarian aspects (elimination of a terrible dictator; possible democratic institutions) versus the negatives of war(cost in casualties; great monetary expenditures) before deciding to invade. The obvious reason that this did not happen is because the American people's answer would have surely been no. Of course, in actual fact we were told nothing of the costs of war, which instead were glossed over by widespread cocksure predictions of an effortless and ultimate victory. Nevermind that over a year later we still have yet to clearly define what that victory would entail, beyond the already concluded regime change. The trail of botchery left by this Administration is so bright with shining examples of arrogance and incompetence that Sullivan and other moderate Republicans, like David Brooks, should have long ago admitted the obvious: The current administration cannot get it done.

In regards to Daniel Altman's article for Slate Magazine entitled The Neoconomists...
This article gives notice to a subject almost completely lost in today's newscycle: the radical tranformation of American economic (most especially tax) policy during the Bush Presidency. We all know of the obvious consequences of these new policies, like the creation of a substantial national deficit. But what are the goals of these policies? Certainly they must exist to do more than further enrich the already outlandishly wealthy. Enter Mr. Altman, who delves into the latent reasoning of these policies. Altman posits that the new tax policies are intended to encourage saving by investors. This savings would in turn lead to higher investment and greater economic expansion. Trying Times asks: How can this move towards encouraging savings be reconciled with the overwhelming debt incurred by so many consumers currently contributing to the economy? It seems counterintuitive to associate the economic policy of this administration with the idea of savings; we currently have a huge national budget shortfall. At least this theory seems to be thoughtful of a long term economic outlook, no matter that the Administration does little to acknowledge this fact to the public. If this strategy were really what the Administration intended to focus on, why not inform the public? Did they believe it was too complex for the average voter to contemplate, and therefore useless as a political tool? Trying Times believes that what is severely lacking in the Bush economic plan, at least the one he advertises on campaign stops, is the very long-term focus that this theory provides. But, again, how do we reconcile the huge debt under which the current government operates with this theory that would markedly increase personal savings for the sake of economic growth? The inconsistency can't be sheer incompetence, there must be a reason for it. We see Altman describe in detail how much the tax burden would be shifted even futher onto worker's and away from those who make money on financial markets and banks providing savings accounts. There in lies the rub; It would be politically unfeasible to pass this sort of legislation honestly. Voters would never stand for such a dramatic departure from the status quo based on the Bush Administration's far flung economic theory. Better to pass tax cuts "that help the middle class burden" in the short term (really the rich go the biggest share anyway) than to come clean about what their really attempting to accomplish. It is therefore not incompetence but purposeful obfuscation of the tax relief provided. Trying Times believes that the Bush Adminstration should come clean about the tax cuts they have sought and enacted: In the short-term they help mostly the rich. This is a widely understood truth. But if they could convince Americans that their policies are indeed intended to provide us all with an accelerated gain in quality of life in the long-term, we could at least have an honest national conversation about them.

The case against Mickey Kaus:
Oh, Mickey, you're so fine, but why must you use an exclamation point after every headline? Why not make these daily proclamations exciting enough on their own? More to the political point, what kind of a Democrat spends 99% of his time bashing his own party? Its fine to be a maverick, but isn't there some necessity to engage in a small amount of party loyalty? Otherwise, don't you simply become an independent? I hardly fault Republicans for remaining loyal to Bush, at least to a point. Why can't Democrats do the same? Is it because we by nature of political philosophy must put down our chosen representative? Will they ever be good enough for us? What happened to being the party of hope and progression? I hardly doubt that were Howard Dean the current Democratic candidate for president, we'd all be reading headlines from Kaus declaring: "Dean nuttier than a Snickers bar!" and other tripe. Mickey, you've obviously done well for yourself tearing Democratic candidates to shreds. However, for the sake of your readers sanity, could you dispense with the aversion to coherency? Why not try a single font and dispense with the random boldface for an article or two, and see how it goes? I think you'll be in for a shock; your blog might start to make sense. You'll find it will have the added benefit of being readable within a ten minute time frame. Plus, you might stop receiving so many e-mail responses of the "WTF!?!?!" variety.

In regards to the May 10th article by William Safire entitled Rumsfeld Should Stay
...
Firstly, William Safire must be commended for his early stance against many provisions of the Patriot Act and his opinions on behalf of prisoners right's during times of war. Safire is one of the few pundits, right or left, who had the boldness to stand up early on in the "war on terror" for the rule of law. Far from hysterical, Safire has shown great courage and foresight in his concern for civil liberties in these most trying of times.
That said, however, issue must be taken with Safire's ability to obfuscate in the face of the most current debacle eminating from the Iraqi conflict, the prisoner torture scandal. Safire alleges that the widespread call for Donald Rumsfeld resignation has more to do with a Democratic political vendetta than with finding the correct course of action. Safire would like to disassemble the situation into political jawing rather than address the more pressing need: to square our reputation among Arabs of the Middle East, especially those we intend to "liberate". Trying Times would like to see the situation in Iraq dealt with by looking at what would help the circumstances on the ground rather than what would be best for Bush's standing in the latest Gallup poll. Since Bush had the audacity to involve us so directly in the affairs of this country he ought to have the gumption to do what is necessary to expedite the conflict's resolution rather than preserve the war cabinet for the sake of his political future. This assertion is not made as a demand for Rumsfeld's resignation, but intended to repudiate Safire's claim that Rumsfeld must not resign in the face of attacks from "defeatists" here at home. Safire and his like must accept the notion that a political disaster of this nature will have consequences that cannot be avoided, no matter how much "comfort it gives the enemy", in this case the Democratic opposition to the Bush Administration. Sacrifices must be made in the political arena, along with those made by our soldiers, in order to salvage the situation in Iraq. The fact of the matter is that Iraqis must have at the very least a gesture of significant magnitude in order to regain any confidence in our ability to finish the job we began. Rumsfeld's resignation could possibly fit the mold, so it must be considered candidly.

The Bush Administrations economic platform adheres to the same ideology as his foreign policy: Stay the course. Trying Times has innumerable problems with these policies specifically, but one urgent philosophical concern must be addressed presently. Times change. To stay with one idea or understanding of the world irregardless of outside events is folly. For example, Bush asserts that America must make his tax cuts permanent. But to do so ignores the fact that those very tax cuts were primarily sold to the American public as an economic engine. The economy is now in full recovery, with the creation of jobs following the trends in high corporate profits. Why not now address other economic concerns, such as the budget deficit? Why not use the money gained by the expiration of these tax cuts to accomplish other worthy goals, like more allotted funds for the protection of our sea ports from terrorist activity? Why not use that money to pay for more cops, fire fighters, and other public servants whose necessity and patriotism has been so lauded during the years since 9-11 but whose paychecks have remained stagnant or fallen substantially? This country is in foreign crisis mode, but the Bush Administration seems content to continue to reward those who already have great wealth at the expense of the greater needs of the country.

The moment has come for Trying Times to address the concern of Democrats now whinning incessently about the Kerry campaign for President. Many pundits are arguing that Kerry should already be beating Bush decisively after "the worst month the White House has had yet". Firstly, and most importantly, April wasn't the worst month the White House has had. Granted, if the current economic news was bad, then I would expect Kerry to be winning polls handly. However, the Bush White House got the most important boast of its Presidency when the Jobs report for March showed a net gain of 300,000+ jobs. When left-leaning pundits focus exclusively on the Iraqi debacle they overlook this fact, and then wonder why Kerry isn't schalacking Bush. Trying Times posits that polls indicating a statistical dead heat are actually good news for Kerry. We further posit that Kerry will have a difficult time winning if the economy keeps improving, as long as there are gains in the job sector to go along with the soaring corporate profits we have been seeing for months. The American middle class will not dispose of a sitting president as long as they are able to find work, even if the new jobs pay less than those that have been lost. But these facts are out of Kerry's control. Kerry must focus on several other fronts: finding a new direction for Iraq; better cooperation with European nations in fighting terrorism; and convincing Americans that while the economy is improving, it is not improving in the ways it could. Kerry must take special care to convince Americans that he will improve not only the current economic outlook, but the longterm outlook as well. This means convincing Americans to realize the current economic recovery is unsustainable, because it is based on taxcuts (and spending programs) it cannot afford. If Kerry can accomplish these goals, he has a chance. Democrats should afford him the time to do so before they begin calling for his head.

Fundamental differences in worldviews seperate the political views of the publishers of Trying Times from many pundits on the right and left of the politcal spectrum. Trying Times is, however, more interested in real political debate than simply convincing others to believe its own view point. In recent times, it has become difficult to debate the value of our own convictions because of the partisan nature of political discourse in America. To engage in a real and thoughtful debate on the future of the this country, we would all have to admit to our own falliability. It would also mean, more significantly, acknowledging that those espousing opposite world views are essential to the vitality of democracy. Trying Times believes that the best way for society to progress is through the engagement of debate with genuine humility by all those involved. It often seems that many political activists (on the right and left) do not wish to excercise thoughtful and productive dialogue with this humility. Trying Times believes the current situation will continue as long as the government is ruled by one party, the Republicans. A one party government need not spend its time battling intellectual opponents, and therefore need not engage thoughtful argument. They simply consolidate power. To alleviate the problem, Trying Times offers the following solution. Elect a split party government. Governments ruled by two or more parties invariably have stronger political discourse, and more thoughtful engagement and resolution of challenges. By achieving a split party government, we free ourselves from the bounds of partisan politics and instead are allowed to be in agreement more often with those holding contrary views. This is because we do not have the incentive to consolidate power amongst a certain group; the strength of our ideas gives us all the power we need.

In regards to yesterday's op-ed piece by William Safire, The Cruelest Month...
Safire's latest column declares a "certain grim logic" to the escalating chaos that is the Iraqi conflict. Of course, by articles end, he has come no where near defining let alone proving the existence of any new logic or direction for Iraq. In the search for the "grim logic" of his article we find Safire's assertion that casualties have "reached their peak"; as though he could know that to be true. Among his other attempts at coherence, Safire commits the same egregious error as many of his press brethren, declaring that Iraqi's will soon have "sovereignty, palpable but limited". A proclaimed expert on the English language, Safire should know that the definition of Sovereignty reads (at length): " Supremacy of authority;Complete independence and self-government; A territory existing as an independent state". None of these definitions, borrowed from the American Heritage dictionary, can logically characterize the authority of Iraq remaining completely in the hands of the United States. You cannot have limited sovereignty, as much as Safire and Bush and all the mainstream pundits would like us to believe. Perhaps another concept would be more appropriate, but it is disingenuous to use the word sovereignty in the current context of the Iraqi conflict. Iraqi sovereignty will not exist until the army of the occupiers leave, or come under the command of Iraqi citizens. Of course, if the media uses the phrase "limited sovereignty" enough times, we will all acquiesce eventually; its the American way. Or so they would hope. Moving along, having spent the entirety of four paragraphs to defend his original thesis, Safire steers the reader towards more banal ground. Reverberating back into his usual schtick, he spouts off on his favorite pet peeve, the fiasco that was the U.N.'s Oil for Food program for Iraq. Certainly a worthy subject (not that he does not already parade out the same polemic op-ed about it every week), but hardly related to the given contention of his article. We are force fed a steady diet of pontification on, among other things, the palpable involvement of the Secretary-General in the ongoing mess. Indubitably, all this is meant to denegrate the reputation and efficacy of the U.N., but how exactly does it relate to the "new" logic of the Iraqi mess? No matter, Safire eventually pilots us back into what is ostensibly the de facto subject of his article, the Iraqi's chance to "seize" freedom. Good luck on that front. For its own part, Trying Times will contend that the situation has indeed become so chaotic as to contain no logic, except the perverse, less easily definable variety that has ruled all prior wars. This logic, which is inevitable, invariably leads to the kind of behavior that we have witnessed in the past month: torture, radicalism, and revenge. Whether or not these people "seize" their chance for freedom won't matter to those who are dead. In other words, U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians have and will continue to pay the price for whatever possibilities Safire and company declare attainable in the future. How's that for grim logic.