Because You Never Asked

     (2/04)

     As the Democrats continue to muster their strength in an attempt to wrest the throne from George W., two news items that might seem beneficial to their cause have recently taken center stage. I say "might" because this writer considers both issues a trap to be fallen into more than an electoral advantage.

     The first issue revolves around the President's far from august military career. Given his propensity for sending others out to die for him, the Democrats quite correctly see this issue as something that can be worked to their advantage, especially as this latest Bush Oil War is exposed for what it is (a crass imperial gambit) and, even more so, for what it is not (a defense of the nation, a spreading of democracy, etc., ad nauseum). But how they hit on this subject is a delicate matter and the recent murmurings accusing W. of being a military "deserter", regardless of their truth, should be shied away from.

     George W., like myself, is a member of the Vietnam generation. He, like almost all the young men of America's more comfortable social classes, did not want to go to Vietnam. Fraternity parties and panty raids seemed a far more desirable scenario than any form of military life, especially with a war going on. (See essay "The Volunteer Army"). One of the more generalized subterfuges used to avoid fighting the "gooks" was to try and get into a domestic National Guard or Reserve unit. By so doing, one could play at being a soldier once every month without putting much of a burden on the good life people like George W. or myself were living. Once this option became popular, the places in such units were exhausted rapidly, and only those with good connections could find shelter from the storm. When it comes to "good connections", one would be hard pressed to find anyone more deserving of such designation than George W. Bush.

     As a result, while others were dying in S.E. Asia, our future Commander in Chief found himself in something called the Texas Air National Guard. What such a corps does, other than provide refuge for rich kids not interested in fighting anyone, is a question few have dwelled upon. Far be it for me to be that person, but my guess is that the Texas Air National Guard's strategic value in defense of the Republic is, at best, dubious.

     Now, the saga continues because our gun-slinging President is so very well connected, that once he is safely ensconced in this somewhat less than famous fighting unit, nobody really cares if he shows up or not. "Mini-Me", being the young "bon vivant" that he was, takes full advantage of his Bush family pedigree and can rarely be found defending the nation, even from such a rearguard position in the Texas Air National Guard. Such black holes in his military record have led to accusations of "deserter", a serious charge.

     This is a place those opposed to Bush should not go. I say this not because such a charge might not be true, but more for the political consequences it might leave in its wake. Trying to prove such an accusation could be considered more than a daunting task, and any drawn out drama pertaining to this issue would only deflect interest from the real issue, that being the President's non-service in Vietnam. If, after a long squabble dutifully played out on Fox-CNN et al, such accusations cannot be proven (which is most probable), it could be seen as a "victory" for the President, even though he avoided military action like a quarterback fleeing a salivating linebacker.

     I repeat, for those opposed to this President, don't dwell on this desertion thing.

     The debate as to W's military career should be centered squarely over his Vietnamese abstinence. When the Republicans counter with the non-participation of many Democrats, such as Bill Clinton and Howard Dean, the response is quite simple: Clinton and Dean, as well as almost all people on the "left", morally opposed the Vietnamese war. This might not be good enough for many people, but when one such as George W. favored the war and then let others do the fighting and dying for him, a difference can be clearly drawn. When, as President, he sends others out to die while doing a service he refused to do when it was his turn to do so; when he parades around on aircraft carriers in full military regalia, as if he were Alexander the Great fresh from conquering Persia, although he himself would not risk his hide for the noble cause, there is political capital to be earned and his opposition has correctly smelled blood in the water. All people with the desire to defeat this cabal of oligarchic families trying to run this country (world?) for their own personal benefit, instinctively understood this and have looked for a candidate with some real military background. They are on the right track. They should not get derailed with this desertion issue. It will only get in the way.   

---

     The other issue that could very well fall into the "be careful for what you wish for" category for the Democrats, is this whole brouhaha about "weapons of mass destruction" and faulty intelligence information. By now, just about any creature walking the Earth on less than 4 legs has the smarts to realize that WMD's were only a pretense and not a reason to go to war with Iraq. The only intelligence information this Administration cared about was the feasibility of going to war. Once someone had decided it was a good gamble, the reasons could be fabricated easily enough. Other than that, intelligence information was not much of a concern for Cheney-Rumsfeld &Co. (I'm not just being cute in putting it that way. As I've insinuated in other essays, most notably in "September 11^th", W's role in all this, other than to be someone with a smile on his face, could be compared to his role in the Texas Air National Guard.) By actually giving credence to these supposed intelligence gaffs, the President is being given an excuse for his insincerity. By calling for investigations and hearings and "bi-partisan" rigmarole of this genre, you are legitimizing the reasons for war in Iraq when none ever existed, other than to secure the "o" fields (see essay "A Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?" and others), which is still considered an inadmissible utterance in American politics. To make a big deal of intelligence information that never played any significant role in going to war is making the Bush Gang look better, not worse.

     Some in the opposition might say, "Let's try and catch them. Let's show them misleading the American people." The problem with this approach is that, at least officially, through hearings and investigations and Byzantine government sponsored reports and findings,

     it ain't gonna happen.

     It is simply not permitted for any properly anointed, governmental investigators to find a sitting President guilty of misleading the American people into war. That is too serious a thing for the "powers to be" to admit; too damaging for their precious "democracy", something like admitting that the last Presidential election was unfairly manipulated. Sure, there will be some criticism --- poor judgment, precipitated action, the President could have done this, should've done that --- but in the end, after months and months of media coverage, he will be exonerated of any premeditated chicanery and, instead of a problem, he is handed a "victory".

     The Democrats should stay the course and not overplay their hand. Let the river find its own course. The President is already in a very compromised situation. There are no WMD's. (Is Cheney-Rumsfeld &Co. capable of planting them? Oh my God.) This in itself is an eloquent accusation. Proof of this fact is how they are now trying to blame it on the CIA. This could be considered in very poor taste. America doesn't like excuses. Everyone knows where the buck stops. Harry Truman has already explained that. In addition, one might ask, will the CIA be good boys and loyally offer their heads for the guillotine? I doubt it. Let the President accuse and let the spies defend themselves. We might get to see more dirty laundry in this way --- in other words, by gently instigating rather than carrying a Big Stick --- than with all these hearings and investigations. By all means, the opposition should keep these issues alive, but not through the Kafkaesque insincerity of formal investigations and hearings. The facts already speak for themselves. Don't let them be turned around by some complicated legal procedures.