Let's Send Fruit Baskets

I haven't been around much this week as I took a few days off to spend time with one of my oldest friends, "L," and her 17-year-old daughter ("S"), who were visiting from Massachusetts.

L and I met in our freshman year of college in the chemistry lab. We were both biology majors at the time and of course chemistry was one of our required subjects. After a few days next to each other in the chem lab mixing up smelly chemicals and causing minor explosions and fires in our immediate area, we were fast friends, and have remained so ever since.
We both hung around with different crowds during college - L started out as a commuter, while I was in the dorm, so we had different groups of friends. Later she did move on campus but was never in the same dorm as I was. But in between all of the craziness we always met up - either in the dining hall, or the cafeteria at the school, or in one of our rooms - and talked about everything under the sun and commiserated about our various problems and traumas.

Thanks to L, I actually managed to get to one Boston Red Sox game, visited the Arnold Arboretum, and went to the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, none of which I would have gotten around to doing without her influence.
The other friends I hung around with at the time were more apt to drag me out to a bar than to a museum.

Funny thing is, I am not in touch with any of those friends, but L and I have remained close ever since.

Through the years we visited with each other's families, and had rendez-vous in various locations, ranging from Cape Cod to New Jersey. When I met DH and was deep in relationship angst, her mom was the one who said "hold on to him, he's a good one," and I listened.

When L met her husband, they visited us before they were even married and we all got along as if we'd known each other forever. And once they had their daughters, we were part of their lives as well.

Now we're still sharing the joys and commiserating over the hard parts of life - we both have aging parents and are facing the daily challenges that that entails. But through it all we have had each other and that is what is great about a friendship like this. No matter how long it's been between visits, the moment we are together it is as if no time has passed.

So it was great to spend a few days of quality time with L and her older daughter S, as so often our get-togethers have been too brief or full of activities without enough time to really talk.

S is a charming, witty girl who really is fun to be with. I thoroughly enjoyed hanging around with a 17-year-old and understanding her perspective on things. Do you realize she is so young she only barely remembers cassette tapes? And she's never known a world without cell phones? And did you know, if you're 17 and are still in school, you can actually explain how a simultaneous equation is solved in Algebra? (This is something I have never mastered). She also seems to have inherited both of her parents' sense of humor.

We even had time to sit out on our deck and talk about yours and my favorite topic, politics. L has way too many things on her plate to get that involved in the whole subject as a rule, but we did talk about the Iraq war.

Her view was that although we never should have gone there in the first place, she doesn't see how on earth we can extricate ourselves without leaving it in such a huge, dangerous mess that it can never be fixed.

I agreed, and then S chimed in with her opinion and it was great. Her solution to the mess? Send fruit baskets!

"You know how when you've done something, and you're really, really sorry about it? And you want to apologize? You send a fruit basket! Maybe we should just ship all of the Iraquis fruit baskets! Then they'd have something to eat and wouldn't hate us so much!"

Naturally she was kidding.

But you know what? There are probably worse ideas out there!

Speaking of ideas, I wonder whether it's a good or bad idea that Obama has settled on an agreement with Hillary Clinton to have her name placed in nomination at the Democratic convention? As a result, delegates will be declaring themselves for Hillary Clinton during the roll call. Of course, when Hillary herself votes she will then declare her support for Obama and ask her delegates to support him.

But this might backfire and make it look as if the party is divided. I am also more than a little concerned about having both Hillary AND Bill speaking at the convention, given Bill's lukewarm (or perhaps I should say, rather chilly) support for Obama.

I understand that Obama wanted to come to an agreement with Clinton's supporters before the convention to soothe their feelings and make them feel validated.

But maybe it would be better to just send them fruit baskets.

Five Years of War

(Picture courtesy of Presidentially Speaking - DMOMA)

This post is one of many that are part of the March 19 Blogswarm. Please go there and read all the other posts about the War in Iraq as well.
***

Today is the anniversary of our invasion of Iraq. Although President Bush declared in 2003 that the mission in Iraq had been accomplished, his words were lies, just as the reasons for going into this war in the first place were lies. This is what he said in his speech on the aircraft carrier in May of 2003 after his staged theatrical landing on the U.S.S. Lincoln. His words are in blue italics (in bold for emphasis on my part) - my commentary in bold red.

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

(According to a recent Red Cross report, "...the humanitarian situation in most of the country remains among the most critical in the world. Because of the conflict, millions of Iraqis have insufficient access to clean water, sanitation and health care.")

...Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war; yet it is a great moral advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.

(Iraqui deaths are now at nearly 1.2 million - including many, many civilians - see this link for more details).

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.

(Of course, the CIA reported no WMDs were found....
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes." )

We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.

(The government isn't going so well. "The Iraqi government says a lack of trust between politicians is slowing progress on national reconciliation. Critics have warned the government needs to start providing much needed social services to Iraqis or risk losing recent security gains.")

...The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world...

(Of course, none of them came from Iraq).

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

(Of course, before we invaded Iraq, Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq, according to a new Pentagon report that the government tried to keep us from seeing.)

But there are plenty of terrorists, including Al Qaeda, there now, thanks to our illegal overthrow of the Iraqi government. And where are they coming from? Lots of other countries that we aren't bothering to invade, because they are our "friends."

I won't even go into the many lies told by Cheney and others to make us believe in the WMDs, or to warn against the recent build-up to possible war with Iran on the same kind of false pretenses.

Let's remember it is all about oil and paybacks to corporate cronies like Halliburton, and let's make sure it never happens again by electing a Democrat in November!

Shifting Priorities

David Brooks has an interesting column in Tuesday's New York Times. His contention is that, with the new NIE assessment that Iran is not currently a nuclear threat, and the calmer atmosphere in Iraq recently, that the war and terrorism may no longer be the key issues concerning voters. As a result, domestic issues should come to the forefront, a situation that may favor Huckabee and Obama over Rudy and Hillary, in Mr. Brooks' opinion.

"When Wall Street Journal/NBC pollsters asked voters what qualities they were looking for in the next leader, their top three choices were: the ability to work well with leaders of other countries; having strong moral and family values; bringing unity to the country."

He goes on to explain why this favors Obama and Huckabee:

"It’s clear that voters are not only exhausted by the war, they are exhausted by the war over the war. On the Democratic side, Obama captured the mood exactly with his Jefferson-Jackson Day speech of a few weeks ago. In that speech, he asked voters to reject fear, partisanship and textbook politics. He asked them to vote instead on the basis of their aspirations for a new era of national unity. As a result, Obama has pulled ahead in Iowa and approached parity in New Hampshire.

The tragedy of the Republican race is that Mitt Romney and Giuliani, who could have offered a new kind of Republicanism, opted to run as conventional Bush-era Republicans. Now Huckabee has emerged as the fresh alternative. Huckabee is socially conservative, but not a partisan culture warrior. He’s a pragmatic gubernatorial Republican, not a rigid creature of the beltway interest groups."

The latest New York Times/CBS poll shows that none of the Republican candidates are viewed favorably by a majority of Republican voters, and most voters have not made up their mind yet. Huckabee has come from nowhere to now be in close contention with Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney.

Among Democrats, however, Hillary Clinton is still strong nationally, with Obama and Edwards seen as less electable, and according to this poll, Clinton is seen as more able to unite the country, contrary to the opinion cited in Mr. Brooks' column.

The NY Times poll also does not support the idea that Iraq is not still highly important:

"More people cite the Iraq war as the most important issue facing the country than cite any other matter, and though 38 percent say the dispatch of extra troops to Iraq this year is working, a majority continue to say that undertaking the war was a mistake."

The economy is another key issue for voters and most feel the country is going in the wrong direction.

So what's going to happen in 2008? We just don't know. Voters are obviously divided on their priorities and anything can still happen to shift them one way or another between now and election day.

One thing that may seem comforting to Democrats: Democratic voters tend to view the Democratic candidates more favorably than the Republican voters do theirs.

"Mrs. Clinton is viewed favorably by 68 percent of Democrats, followed by Mr. Obama, viewed favorably by 54 percent. Mr. Edwards is viewed favorably by 36 percent.

On the Republican side, in contrast, Mr. Giuliani is viewed favorably most frequently, and that is by only 41 percent. Senator John McCain is viewed favorably by 37 percent, and Mr. Romney by 36 percent. Mr. Huckabee is viewed favorably by 30 percent, and 60 percent say they do not know enough about him to offer an opinion, suggesting that he may be vulnerable to the kind of attacks that his opponents have already been mounting against him.

Seventy-six percent of Republican respondents say they could still change their minds about whom to support, compared with 23 percent who say their decision is firm. Among Democrats, 59 percent say they may change their minds, as against 40 percent who say they have made their decision."

No matter what happens, it looks like it's going to be a long year.

He's Ba-a-a-ack!

Just in time for the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the United States, Osama bin Laden has released another of his videotaped diatribes. There he is, big as life, rested and ready, none the worse for wear, despite all of Bush's original rhetoric of getting him "dead or alive."

Experts believe bin Laden's video may be a harbinger of more attacks on the U.S.

"CIA Director Michael Hayden on Friday also warned that Al-Qaeda was planning new, large-scale attacks on US targets.

'Our analysts assess with high confidence that Al-Qaeda's central leadership is planning high impact plots against the American homeland,'Hayden said."

According to the article linked above, Osama made some points that, unfortunately, I have to agree with:

"He says the Democrats who now control the US Congress have failed to stop the war, and even 'continue to agree to the spending of tens of billions to continue the killing and war there.'"

The video was his first in three years, and in it he appears to have dyed his beard black, which may be a symbol of impending war.

Of course, the White House is downplaying the importance of the video. Homeland Security adviser Frances Townsend said on Fox News Sunday that Osama is "virtually impotent," and that the video was just "propaganda."

This stance is refuted by the information in this article from the Seattle Times:

"Dodging the U.S. military in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, al-Qaida Central reconstituted itself across the Pakistani border, returning to the rugged tribal areas surrounding the organization's birthplace, the dusty frontier city of Peshawar. In the first few years, Pakistani and U.S. authorities captured many senior leaders; in the past 18 months, no major figure has been killed or caught in Pakistan.

Al-Qaida Central moved quickly to overcome extensive leadership losses by promoting loyalists who had served alongside bin Laden for years. It restarted fund-raising, recruiting and training. And it expanded its media arm."

If the purpose of invading Iraq was to destroy al-Qaeda, all I can say is it's doing a "heckuva job."

In the meantime, Down Under, our revered President is playing his usual part when he attempts diplomacy: acting like an idiot.

Bush with Australian P.M. Howard

Between mixing up Australia with Austria, OPEC and APEC, and trying to exit in the wrong direction, all while pranksters dressed as terrorists plagued the conference he was attending, W's performance in Australia could be a scene out of Saturday Night Live. Truth is truly stranger than fiction.

Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden looks on and smiles.

The Difference Between Then and Now

Photo source: http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-eur/normandy/normandy.htm
Peggy Noonan wrote in Friday's Wall Street Journal about a touching encounter she had in the fields of Normandy in the summer of 1991. She and some friends were hot-air ballooning and landed in an old farmer's field. Upon realizing they were Americans, the farmer told them he had not seen any Americans since the Normandy Invasion. He went back to his house and brought out a bottle of ancient Calvados. Glasses were poured all around and he toasted "To old times."

Ms. Noonan then wrote,

"He didn't welcome us because he knew us. He didn't treat us like royalty because we had done anything for him. He honored us because we were related to, were the sons and daughters of, the men of the Normandy Invasion. The men who had fought their way through France hedgerow by hedgerow, who'd jumped from planes in the dark and climbed the cliffs and given France back to the French. He thought we were of their sort. And he knew they were good. He'd seen them, when he was young."

She then goes on to describe how our American soldiers in Iraq are doing great things there, building hospitals and schools, joking with schoolchildren in the streets.

"We know of the broad humanitarian aspects of the occupation--the hospitals being built, the schools restored, the services administered, the kids treated by armed forces doctors. But then there are all the stories that don't quite make it to the top of the heap, and that in a way tell you more. The lieutenant in the First Cavalry who was concerned about Iraqi kids in the countryside who didn't have shoes, so he wrote home, started a drive, and got 3,000 pairs sent over. The lieutenant colonel from California who spent his off-hours emailing hospitals back home to get a wheelchair for a girl with cerebral palsy...I hope our soldiers know what we really think of them, and what millions in Iraq must, also. I hope some day they get some earned tenderness, and wind up over the hills of Iraq, and land, and an old guy comes out and says, "Are you an American?" And they say yes and he says, "A toast, to old times."

I too hope this happens. But I wonder if it will. There are big differences between the goals of the Americans who sent troops to France during the Normandy Invasion and of those that sent troops to Iraq.

The Americans who landed on the beach in Normandy were invading France in order to liberate the French from a foreign invader. It was part of a real war, where the Nazi armies were invading other countries and trying to take over all of Europe and beyond. The Nazis were rounding up millions of innocent people and marching them off to death camps. America and the other Allies were truly fighting for their lives. When the Allies landed in Normandy, France was under Nazi Germany's rule. Of course the people of France appreciated their efforts and were thankful a half-century later.

But in Iraq, from the perspective of the Iraqis, it is the Americans who are the invaders. The Americans bombed their country, deposed their leader, and killed countless civilians. The pictures in this link show what has happened in Iraq as a result of its "liberation" by America. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a bad man. But until the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. and the so-called coalition of the willing, his country was intact, people were living their lives and raising their children, and Saddam Hussein had done nothing to the United States to warrant an invasion.

Yes, our soldiers are building schools and hospitals - because they were destroyed by American bombs. Yes, they are helping to rebuild infrastructure - that was destroyed by American bombs. Of course, some of the destruction happened not from American bombs but from those of the insurgents. But there wouldn't be insurgents if the Americans hadn't invaded in the first place.

And the rebuilding is not being done just by the soldiers, but by a bunch of private contractors who include Americans, Iraqis and foreigners. (And of course, Darth Cheney's former employer, Halliburton, is one of the big beneficiaries of this rebuilding effort). There are more of these private contractors in Iraq than our own soldiers, according to the LA Times, and a lot of missing money.

So how will our soldiers be remembered? As invaders, or as the "good guys" that Iraqis will want to toast fifty years from now? Only time will tell.

But it will be a shame if the Iraqis' memory of American soldiers - brave and dedicated men and women that they are - will be a memory of invasion, death, destruction and greed. And if that is the case, the only place to lay the blame is on this administration, which willfully sent them to war against a country that did not attack us, under false pretenses, by making up lies in order to benefit their own pockets and egos.