2004 Pre-Election Interview with the Blog Author

This is an unretouched  selection from the summer, 2004, edition of El Chismoso.   Some observations were in retrospect naive while others were remarkably prescient.

From Politics To War To Terrorism: A Conversation With The Crusty Curmudgeon

Caution:  The “Crusty Curmudgeon” is an outspoken self-described expert on military and political affairs, whose controversial views are often aired in El Chismoso.  This conversation is reported essentially unedited, with the Curmudgeon’s vulgar language and strong expression intact, and the content is not recommended for young or sensitive readers.

What do you think about the president?

            George W. has two facial expressions that have troubled his handlers from the start.  There is a cat-that-ate-the-cream smirk, and there is the bewildered little-boy-lost expression.   I have come to believe that his character and administration are accurately defined by those two expressions.

You don’t like the President, do you?

            I like a man who drives around his property in an old truck and cuts his own brush.  But as President, no.  I think the man is totally inept and unqualified to be president.  He should never have been nominated.  It’s not just him.  I think our political system weeds out the better qualified people.  The skills for getting elected are not the same as those needed for job performance.  There is some overlap, but not enough.

            In one sense, this is a good thing.  Maybe the best you can say about the American system of government is that it usually doesn’t work very well.  Maybe when it does work well is the time we are really in trouble. 

But our government and people worked  together after 9-11 to fight terrorism.

Exactly.  The popular reaction to 9-11 suddenly aligned most Americans and politicians in one direction so that for a time, government worked “well.”   And look at the result.  The Patriot Act.  Afghanistan. Iraq.  Explosive deficits.   Paranoia and fear bring people together, who as often as not move in an irrational direction toward disaster.  In Germany of the 1930s, inflation and governmental chaos stampeded the Germans to the ascension of the Nazi party and a scapegoat agenda.  Beware a panicked crowd. 

Are you saying we should have done nothing in response to 9-11?

            I am saying we went way too far, that like a herd of spooked cattle we allowed ourselves to join in a stampede that trampled on our civil rights as Americans and killed a lot of innocent people.  Every moral crusader should take careful note: Most people killed in any “morally justified” war are totally innocent, as a general rule.   

In retaliation for the 3,000 Americans killed, we have killed somewhere between 40,000 and 60,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan, fewer than 100 of whom were directly linked to 9-11 and the WTC.  Most of those we have killed have relatives, and some of those relatives are going to join in the endless cycle of revenge.

Will life be better for people in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Maybe.  We just do not know yet.  We could not have known. Bush did not know.  And that brings up the question that hews at the root of what has happened in the last three years:  By what right did we make the decision to kill in order to improve the world?  What would-be philosopher-king weighed the pros and cons in his flawed, biased mind and decided that it would be best to kill in order to be kind?  We are self-appointed judge, jury and executioner over the lives of 40 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It would never have happened if Russia were still a superpower and able to curb American excesses.  And in the end, from our point of view, we have triggered a chain reaction that breeds more terrorists than we killed.

            I am saying something else, too.  We should not base our foreign and domestic policy in reaction to the events of 9-11.  It is not a major issue.  3,000 people were killed, it was a tragic event, and an avoidable one.  Things like that happen.  They will always happen.  There will always be a Timothy McVeigh, an Osama Ben Laden, a Red Brigade, a Black Panther movement, a Squeaky Fromme. There will always be individuals and groups who have a grudge and are willing and able to kill.  Mourn for a month, and get over it!  We—and I mean all of us—have lost our sense of proportion.  

            Look. Every year in this country 40,000 of us are killed because of medical mistake.  Is Bush calling out the National Guard for posting to our hospitals?  Lives could be saved by doing just that.  If a guardsman tested every doctor coming into the hospital   to make sure the doctor was coherent, sober and drug free, we could save 5,000-10,000 lives a year.  Way more than the number who died at the WTC on 9-11.  But the Bush administration instead wants to limit lawsuits filed by victims against drug companies.  That’s their idea of medical policy.

            In the 20^th century, at least 250 million Americans died from alcohol or tobacco as a direct cause of death.  Alcohol or tobacco will be a factor in upward of a million deaths this year.  If we are appalled at the killing of 20-35 million Russian peasants in the 1930s by Joe Stalin, and the killing of ten million civilians by the Nazis between 1933 and 1945, what can we say about licensing American companies to commit institutional genocide over generations for profit?  Hitler and Stalin pale in comparison to American business as perpetrators of genocide.  But did Bush order the air force to drop napalm on the tobacco fields?   Are cruise missiles targeted on R.J Reynolds headquarters?  Commando strikes scheduled for the Anheuser-Busch brewery?  Is a marine sniper sighting in on the window of the Seagram’s Building where the board of directors meet?

            If we had a universal medical insurance plan in place that would cover those of us unable to afford health insurance, many, many thousands of lives would be saved. But it is the Bush administration’s policy to kill tens of thousands of Americans by neglect.  Death by neglect is okay, genocide is okay as long as it is home-grown and American businesses profit.  But if a minor terrorist threat exists that can scare the voters and be milked for political mileage, that threat becomes the number-one Republican campaign issue for 2004.

            I’ll say it again.  Get over 9-11.  Shit happens.  We cannot eliminate every danger; we need to look at the big picture, and the big issues.  Osama and Al-Quaida are dangerous nuisances, nothing more.   Wake up and take off the blinders.

Do you contend Kerry can do better than Bush?

I first heard Dean speak in late 2002 and liked him quite a lot, then jumped to Edwards when Dean’s campaign ran aground and sank; now I support Kerry. Actually I prefer Teresa Heinz Kerry, who is a stone fox, over her husband.  Kerry is a politician; but his wife can afford to have liberal principles.  Pity she is foreign born and cannot run for president.

            Environmental issues and supreme court appointments are important issues to me.  I am a Green Party man at heart, and Nader says a lot I agree with. 

But to answer your question directly: Anyone—anyone!--but the incumbent.  Let someone who does not have blood on his hands take a turn.  Joe Blow of Altoona would be just fine.  Beat bloody Bush.

Why does Nader run when he has no chance?

            We have always had a two party system because, when a third party arose with a platform that appealed to voters, the other parties would steal the platform, and the upstart party would fade away.  Nader would say publicly that he runs in order to influence the Democratic party platform, in the hope the Democrats will respond to his threat by incorporating Nader’s platform, and in that case, that he would be happy to just fade away.

            Some would say (quietly in order not to anger Nader, which neither Republicans nor Democrats want to do) that he runs out of pure vanity.

            But I speculate there might be another subtler reason--that Nader is  machiavellian enough to want to torpedo the Democrats.

Why would he want to do that?

            You have heard the expression, “an addict has to hit bottom before he can change.”  Our politico-governmental system is reactive rather than proactive.  A problem has to jump up and bite us in the cojones before something can be done about it.  And even then, what we get is an ugly patch instead of a solution.

            Look.  Al-Queda is a dangerous nuisance, but not a big problem.   North Korean nuclear warheads--same thing.  They are little problems that are diverting us from the big picture.  They are a smoke screen thrown up by George W. Bush to panic voters and drum up support for his robber-baron agenda.  Our biggest problems are energy, water, overpopulation, poverty, pollution. Nurturing sustainable industry. Conservation. The economic gradient between rich and poor in our own country and elsewhere. Do you realize that the ocean fisheries are nearly depleted?  That we in this country have built cities on top of our most productive farmland?  We have drained our aquifers, and pumped out most of our petroleum, all in the span of just a century.  Non-renewable resources are thrown away without a thought.  We have skimmed the cream off the world’s resources, and face sharply diminishing returns in the near future; these are real issues. But doing something about it is not politically or economically feasible.  We are a runaway train, and there will be a crash, unless our governmental and economic systems are fundamentally and radically altered.  I personally see no solution.

            But Nader might believe that with one more Republican administration, conditions may get so bad there will be a mass revolt against both parties--that the green party may have a real chance to win national offices in four years with enough of a mandate to make a real difference. That will not be true following a Kerry administration.

How can matters “get bad” as you describe?

            We moral Americans are callous to starvation, suffering and death, as long as it occurs on the far side of the world, and nobody wealthy and famous is involved.  Our economic problems are a different story.  The real way to sway a voter is closest to the voter’s heart: the pocketbook. Dubya’s explosive spending on the war has pretty much guaranteed a high inflation rate of 10-15% within four years if employment rises.  There has been a lot of home mortgage financing lately, at extremely low interest rates.  What happens to the holders of that debt paying 6% when the prime rises to 15%?  Consumer credit is still high. What happens to homeowners with ARMs?  Look for a lot of bank failures and government bailouts.  Rising personal bankruptcies. 

            And there are Iraq and Afghanistan, if anyone cares, where there are no pleasant surprises in store--continued American casualties, tottering governments, rising hatred. 

           

Aren’t there technological solutions to the energy problems you described earlier?  Alternative energy sources like hydrogen and alcohol, for example.   

            Many idiot politicians—Schwartzenegger for one—do not know what an energy source is.  Hydrogen is not an energy source.  (Unless you are talking about nuclear energy from deuterium, and we do not know if controlled fusion will ever be possible.) There is a nearly infinite supply of hydrogen in seawater.  But it takes energy to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. About 120% or so of the energy you will get when you burn the hydrogen thus produced.  You lose energy in the overall  process.

            Hydrogen is a way of storing chemical energy, like a battery.  And like a battery, every time there is a transmission of electric power or conversion of energy from one form to another, there is energy loss.  Besides, hydrogen as a fuel is no cleaner than the source of the electrical energy that must be generated to produce it.  But hydrogen does have the advantage of not increasing carbon dioxide levels itself when it burns, unlike hydrocarbons.

As for alcohol—did you know that a gallon of alcohol contains roughly 60% of the chemical energy contained in a gallon of gasoline?  That alcohol is corrosive when exposed to untreated metal? That alcohol has a much higher heat of vaporization than gasoline, which means you have to warm up a cold engine to get it to start?

                       

Okay. Back to the election.  What about Hillary Clinton?

            Are you from the National Enquirer?  What is this fascination with Hillary?

Why are we so attracted to kings and lords?  Is it the fascination of celebrity or the desire for security and certainty of succession?  We Americans pretend to reject kingship, but dote on all the news and scandals pertaining to the “royals.”  Then we talk about “Camelot” and JFK and rest our hopes on a young “John-Boy” who by any measure was hopelessly unfit for high office.  So it is with George W., who would never have been considered for president—or for governor, or even mayor, except maybe of Crawford, Texas--if his father had not held high office.  Is it just name-recognition, or is there some deep-seated anti-democratic flaw in us that hankers for dynasty?   Do we hate having to learn new names and make new choices so much that we want to look to the same old families for leadership?

Was the American Revolution for nothing?

            About Hillary.  A few years ago, I speculated that Foster had been murdered and that his papers were removed at Hillary’s behest to hide the Clintons’ involvement in embarrassing or criminal activities.  The investigation into Foster’s purported suicide and access to Foster’s papers was inadequate.   I have suspicions.  Enough said.

           

You must agree that President Bush has proved himself to be a strong leader.

George W. took office with a pre-conceived agenda to Americanize Iraq, a perspective fed to him by his daddy’s rich cronies with global ambitions and designs on opening up a new frontier for American business in the land between the rivers.  He twisted the facts to fit his agenda, used the public paranoia about Al-Quaida and terrorism to garner public support, told a bunch of bald-faced lies that Saddam posed a direct threat to the U.S., and on the pretext of enforcing a UN resolution (which only the UN itself had a legal right to enforce!) he launched a costly and dangerous war.  He even told us that the oil from Iraq would help finance the war!   He lied to us and maybe to himself.  He is either a con man and a fraud or not quite sane.  Take your pick.

Is a leader in front because he is leading, or because he is being chased?  Bush has a lot of ghosts in hot pursuit, and I don’t know how he can close his eyes at night with the specters hovering about.  I see him as a male lady Macbeth, wandering the halls of the White House, stopping in every bathroom to wash the blood from his hands.

But wasn’t the CIA to blame for poor intelligence?

Sure, but that’s not the point.  Every president should be suspicious of intelligence, that the data they are being fed are imperfect.  A president always has to act on imperfect or unreliable information. Or on no information.   That’s where common sense comes in.  The president has to use caution and good judgment in weighing data.  And if the president has a mind-set or bias leading toward a certain action, he (or she) must be especially cautious trying to sell or justify that action.  This is the quality we have to look for most in a president—good judgment.  And that is the quality that George W. utterly lacks.   Neither does he have good advisers.  Look at the people close to him.

The people close to him?

            Watergate occurred 30 years ago, and we still refuse to learn its lessons.  The problem is that the president wears two hats, one as chief administrator of the country, and another as political campaigner and party hack.  The president naturally appoints cabinet and advisors whose primary loyalty is to the president (not to the presidency) and who are also dedicated to ensuring reelection.  And, not by coincidence, these people are closely aligned with the president on the issues even apart from their loyalty to him.  Those not aligned are quickly weeded out.

            This means the president is surrounded by yes-men and yes-women who are inclined by inclination and circumstance to agree with the chief.  When diversity of opinion fails, judgment fails, morality fails.

            Can the term “advisor” have any meaning in this environment?

            George W. needs somebody close to him who can say, one-on-one, “Boss, you’re full of shit and you need to reconsider.”  There’s nobody like that in this administration.  Powell is the only one who might have tried it.

            If the administration were even run like a typical business, the president would have had Rumsfeld’s head brought in on a platter for Abu Ghraib, and for multitudinous other SNAFUs in Iraq. That may happen yet during the Olympics, when there is so much competing news that embarrassing news stories can be leaked with minimal effect.  Or not.  It’s not that Dubya is loyal to his people, it’s that he is afraid of seeming weak, indecisive or desperate.

How can you blame the administration for the actions of a few jailers at the Abu Ghraib Prison?

First of all, it was not a “few jailers” who were responsible for what happened at Abu Ghraib.  Dozens were involved.  Colonels and generals are going to be forced into retirement over this.  But of course, only a few privates and non-coms will likely do hard time; that’s the way the system works. 

Second, the abuse—and even murder--of prisoners is not limited to Abu Ghraib.  It exists elsewhere in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Guantanamo, and in the United States itself.  There is a mind-set in the Bush administration that the end justifies the means--that in order to preserve our Constitution we have to scrap the bill of rights.

It started with the so-called “Patriot Act,” which was not only overreaching but unnecessary.  Existing laws were quite sufficient to hunt down terrorists and prevent terrorism.  That an act of terrorism was permitted to occur was a human, not a legal, failure.  The problem was coordination of agencies and forthright sharing of information between them and limiting agency rivalries and jealousies. And finding time and manpower to do a thorough job.   Mr. Bush was so dismayed and embarrassed  that 9-11 happened on his shift that he overreacted and promoted a set of laws that we are going to have to spend the next 20 years trying to weed out.  This mind-set filtered down the command structure.  A paranoia and overreaction similar to the anti-Japanese American paranoia of WWII.  To the administration’s credit, it has tried to avoid popular backlash against Arab-Americans.

Third, the Bush administration has been incredibly stupid.

How has the Bush administration been stupid with respect to the prisoner scandal?

            Because the treatment of prisoners was obviously going to be a hot issue, and the propaganda war is the real war in Iraq.  Rumsfeld and Bush should have made certain that nothing in the treatment of prisoners—Iraqi or otherwise—could come back to haunt us.  I would have appointed a team of independent observers at the first—not necessarily military personnel—to oversee all interrogation and holding procedures and continually report straight back to the Secretary.  Prevention is always better than cure. Abu Ghraib has cost American lives and will cost more lives over the next few years.  Not to mention national prestige.

            This is typical of the screw-ups in Iraq.  The administration utterly failed to anticipate problems before they arose. 

           

President Bush is a moral, church-going man.

            Many of the worst crimes of history have been committed by the most devout. The deeply religious are often the worst scoundrels and manipulators.  And I believe that membership in a Christian fundamentalist church should be a disqualification for the presidency.

How can you possibly justify that belief?

            They see the world filtered through their paradigm.  For example. 

If you believe that human beings are a sort of creator’s prize pet, that the world was made for us and for our use and exploitation, and that the end of the world is coming soon, how does that affect your views on long-term issues?  Conservation?  Pollution?  Wouldn’t it mean that we have a god-given right to alter the natural world and consume its resources as we see fit? 

If you believe in a life after death, and that evil is a discrete force in the universe, then you are more likely to kill someone you regard as evil, more likely to risk the lives of your own men to do so.  Sound familiar? This is why true believers tend to be blood-thirsty.

If you believe that the State of Israel is somehow tied in with a prophesied end of days, won’t that affect your foreign policy toward Israel?

The rest of us are compelled by circumstances to constantly test and revise our paradigm--our little mental model of the world.  We modify it or throw it out entirely as we gain in knowledge and experience.  But religious fanatics change their perception of the world to fit their model.  They refuse to test or change their model.  Because they define those beliefs as unchangeable.

This is the problem with Muslim extremists.  It is the problem with Christian extremists.

I submit that a Christian fundamentalist makes a dangerous and irrational president.  We cannot afford to have such a president.  Give me an atheist or agnostic any time.  Give me anyone who questions his own beliefs.  Who can experience doubt

President Bush’s critics claim that he went to war over business or oil.  What’s your position?

I think Dubya had a lot of reasons for invading Iraq.  Including as he said, the fact that Saddam tried to kill his dad.  He and Condi Rice wanted to send a message to North Korea and to Iran:  “We are dangerous and unpredictable, and you may be next.”  Frankly, Iraq was an easier target than anybody else except Libya, and Libya had been rather helpful to the U.S. in recent years.  And Dubya wanted to redeem what he saw as a loose thread of his father’s legacy, maybe even show up his father by accomplishing something the senior Bush could not. Maybe we had a little father-son rivalry.  No doubt many people Dubya had talked to since 1990 wanted a piece of the Iraq economy, post-Saddam.  I am quite sure Dubya discussed post-Saddam scenarios before he took office.

You have to understand what it was like to be part of the Bush family even before a Bush became president.  You have all these wealthy people offering the Bush children salaries and consulting fees for doing absolutely nothing, in the case of Neil Bush.   And doing favors like keeping George W. out of Vietnam. When Dubya’s oil business failed, friends of his dad bought his near-worthless business for an exorbitant sum, and kept him on as a paid advisor!     I’m not saying these were clear-cut bribes.  Favors create good will and facilitate access.  Access means opportunity to share information.  Sharing of information influences decision-making.  A president’s decisions nudged in the right direction are very profitable.

So many life and death decisions trace back to information derived from conversations at the golf course, or over drinks at a party.  Or in more formal settings, such as the infamous discussions between Cheney and Bush and Ken Lay.  This administration has denied the American public has a right to know how much the administration’s energy policy was affected by those secret meetings.  Shine the light!

Back to Iraq. The Iraqis are free now, and have a brighter future without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, thanks to President Bush.

            We’ve killed a lot of people in Iraq.  Probably 20,000-30,000 in the “Gulf War.”  Others died in the in-between years as a consequence of our embargo against Iraq.  Some claim 50,000 a year because of the shortage of medicines.  Embargoes always hurt the poor harder than the leaders they are supposed to hurt, but this figure may be a little high.  Probably we killed another 30,000-50,000 (including 15,000 civilians so far) in this war.  More have been maimed.  What do the children of those dead and maimed Iraqis think?  Will better schools and some soccer fields buy their affection?  Candy and chewing gum?    Will a working TV set and chance at a better paying job make people forget? 

How would you feel if your home were bombed, and members of your family killed? Even if there were a good rationalization for doing so.   Think how Americans feel now about the World Trade Center.  But let’s suppose that instead of a half a dozen buildings destroyed and three thousand people killed—that three million people were killed on 9-11 and  10,000 buildings were destroyed.  How would an average American feel then?  How long would that hatred last?

I’ll tell you--unto the seventh generation and longer, if people mope and nourish their hatred.  The U.S. government is chief recruiter for Al-Quaida and other extremist groups.  And now there are a lot more candidates to recruit from—we’ve seen to that.

We are good at fighting a war.  We have the most expensive, best-equipped and best-trained military in the world and we absolutely defeated those rag-tag Third World armies.  They couldn’t stay in the field with us.  We should be very proud of ourselves and our great dedication and heroism.   There should be a special medal for killing poor people with superior firepower.  Call it the “Bush/Rummy Big Bully” medal. A lot of people might retroactively qualify.  The last time American troops fought an enemy on an equal technological footing was WWII. 

On thing for sure:  no Iraqi candidate will win public office in a free election anywhere in Iraq if that candidate is overtly pro-American.   That is going to be so for a long time. What else happens in Iraq is anybody’s guess. 

What is your guess?

            Dubya’s confident assertion to the contrary, we are not so hot at nation building.  Our only successes at nation building were in rebuilding countries that were already cohesive nations, like Germany and Japan. 

Ever read Uncle Remus?  Iraq is our tar baby.  And there will be U.S. military presence there for 10-20 years.  Most likely, when the U.S. gets really desperate to get out, a dictatorial committee will be set up, with some rather un-democratic powers to ensure its survival.  If a powerful, ruthless political leader clearly emerges, the U.S. will do a deal with him to allow him to take over as a kind of Neo-Saddam-style dictator.  So far,  there is no such leader.  

This situation, where there are radically disparate religious, ethnic and political elements—you have a number of sheiks kind of like the ward bosses of American cities, the Baathists, the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shiites, etc.—usually requires a strongman like Marshall Tito, or Joe Stalin, or Saddam Hussein to bind the country together by force.  Democracy will not work unless Iraq is split up into three or four small independent countries.  If there is no glue to bind Iraq together, then it has to be held together by force.

Is there no “glue” that would work?

            One thing only.  Hatred of the U.S. can be a binding force.  But it will take time.  We may have that kind of time in Iraq.

Do you deny that eliminating Saddam Hussein makes us safer?

            Of course we are no safer.  Quite the contrary.  What Americans often don’t grasp is the fact that Saddam Hussein was the enemy of Muslim fundamentalism and of Al Quaida.  Saddam had to limit fundamentalist activity in Iraq in order to survive. He might have thrown them a bone now and then for political reasons.  But there was no relationship.

But whether the new Iraq descends further into chaos, or firms into a strong democratic government, Iraq will be a fertile breeding ground for anti-American and  terrorist activity.  No new government will ever be as effective at suppression of Al-Quaida—or other dangerous groups--as Saddam’s regime was.  Unless they are as bad as his regime.  And then in that case, what did we accomplish in overthrowing Saddam?

            And as for that claim of the Bush administration that Saddam was working on a robot plane that could deliver WMD to the U.S. mainland—well, that was absurd.  Just a scare tactic to bolster support for the war.  Saddam even with biological weapons and nuclear materials would have been a threat to Israel, and a de-stabilizing force in the Middle East.  Not a direct threat to the U.S. 

            Of course, right now, Israel is the main threat to Israel.  That country is in the throes of self-destruction.

Surely you do not maintain that Saddam Hussein was not an enemy of the United States.

            Do you know one reason why we were so certain that Iraq had anthrax cultures?  Because some cultures came from us!  Saddam had two sugar daddies: the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. of A.  The Reagan and Bush I administrations attempted to use Saddam Hussein as a pawn in the Middle East and were covertly leaking weaponry and technology to Iraq—until the news stories broke about genocide and the pictures of the dead lying on Iran/Iraq battlefields became too offensive to the delicate stomachs of the American public.  And then the Republicans backed away from Saddam to avoid embarrassment.  Before invading Kuwait, Saddam asked the U.S. ambassador what the American response would be if Iraq pressed its claims against Kuwait.  There was no response from the State Department. (Instead of saying “Daddy Bush, can I have the keys to the car?”  Saddam asked, “Daddy Bush, can I have Kuwait?”  Silence gave consent.)

            Ever wonder why our self-proclaimed democracy so often befriends and uses dictators and tyrants?    That’s because our government is influenced and controlled by wealth more than by any other factor, and throughout the 20^th century the wealthy feared nothing as much as socialism and communism, which among small countries tended to rise up in opposition to fascist dictators and tyrants.  And the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  Therefore, America was at one time or another, bosom buddies with a whole passel of murderous megalomaniacs, including Somoza, the genocidal Chilean Colonels (who came to power after the CIA caused a duly elected president to be deposed and killed, just because he was a Marxist), Chiang K’ai Shek, Reza Pahlavi a/k/a The Shadow of God On Earth (placed on the Persian throne by the CIA), Noriega, Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier (presidents-for-life just off our shores) Batista (just off our own shores), Saddam Hussein, and a host of others. And don’t forget the Taliban, who as the Mujahideen were Cold War pawns of the Reagan and Bush I administrations but were dropped cold just as soon as the Berlin Wall came down; hell, some of the weapons used against Americans in Afghanistan had been supplied by us! 

If Adolf Hitler rose to power during the Cold War, the Republicans would have made him an ally, as long as he stayed anti-communist. And maybe the Democrats too. (Actually, before WWII, Republican business interests did press for an alliance with Nazi Germany.)

            But to answer the question, yes, at this point in the relationship, Saddam had become an enemy, but a rather impotent one.  E pleuribus unum. 

           

Do you maintain Saddam Hussein should have been left in power?

The jury will be out for a long time.  We’ll be counting bodies for a generation.  Or more.  Call me in 20 years. 

Was 9-11 preventable?

            In the form that it took, hijacking U.S. airliners and crashing them into ground targets, absolutely.  And so easily.  Hell, Tom Clancy in his 1994 novel, Clear and Present Danger, had a pilot crash an airliner into the Capitol building during, I think, a State of the Union Address before a joint session of Congress.  Took out almost the whole government. Clancy’s fictional airliner flew from California and did not have full fuel tanks; so the 9-11 terrorists improved on that scenario.

Maybe the government should hire Tom Clancy as a consultant.   

            Maybe.  You know, I read a few years ago in Newsweek that Tom Clancy was invited to a meeting with some government bigwigs.  He thought he was going to be asked for real input on policy.  But they just wanted to use him for PR.  Arrogant government bastards.

But just think, to prevent what happened on 9-11, all we had to do was install strong, locking cockpit doors on all commercial airliners allowed to fly in this country, and establish a protocol that the doors would stay shut and locked in flight, no matter what.  A few hundred dollars an airplane, max.  That is the one significant anti-hijacking measure we have seen.  It should have been in place by 1975.

And it would have been politically acceptable too, while long lines at security checkpoints would not.  Remember, on September 10, 2001, the big story in the airline industry was the flight delays.  Passengers were so frustrated that politicians were talking about congressional hearings and legislation to speed up flights.  One day changed everything.  Then for a while passengers felt better about standing in line.

Of course, terrorists can always find a way to attack, but some ways are easier than others.  And do more damage.  We left that door wide open.

And searching passengers for box-cutters and knives helps too.

            No.  9-11 should have taught us that we want passengers to have pocketknives.  We should pass them out to passengers who are unarmed.  Passengers are the last line of defense, and we don’t want them totally unarmed. 

Some things you may not be aware of.  Weapons are not necessarily made of metal.  The sharpest and best knives are ceramic, but they’re expensive.  There are plastic composite knives you can buy for a $5 bill that will go through an ordinary metal detector, but are sharp enough to slit a throat or punch through a rib cage. There’s a hairbrush that hides a plastic dagger. Shit, if you have real glass eyewear and duct tape, you can build an edged weapon in the airplane rest room.  Ditto watch crystals.   You can sharpen a credit card with sandpaper enough to slice into the jugular.   And dental floss can be a dandy strangling cord--come up behind the flight attendant, and slip a double loop around her tender neck.  Maybe her screams will get the pilot to open the door.

There are chemicals you can easily carry onto a commercial airliner undetected, that can be absorbed through the skin, for disabling flight personnel.  Just get close, and slap a plastic patch onto the attendant’s skin.

            You don’t want passengers to bring bombs or guns on board, but small knives are not a big problem.  What I am trying to point out, the only way to keep weapons off a plane is to do a strip search.  Or, what is more practical, have all passengers take off all their clothes and effects, put them into sealed bags, and put on clothing supplied by the airline just for the duration of the flight.  Of course, without a body cavity search….

Never mind.  If what you say is true, why confiscate pocketknives and metal nail files?

            Two reasons.  It makes the passengers feel more secure, and it does make it a little bit harder to take out the air marshal, if there is one on the plane.  If the air marshal can be identified, he or she can be killed with a long blade before the hijacking starts.  Then the hijackers will have a gun of their own, and no armed opposition except, maybe, the pilot.  But identifying the air marshal is not a sure thing.  Neither is fatally stabbing him; you’d have to grab him on the way to the toilet.  Or reach over his seat from behind very fast and sever the carotid artery. 

You sound like one of those freaks who read Soldier of Fortune magazine.

            Never picked up a copy.  I oppose the NRA lobby and the politicians they bribe with campaign contributions and political support.  I’m just an informed citizen who happens to hate a lot of the idiots in the federal government.  Especially the ATF, the FBI, and most especially the top people in the Bush administration.  I stand for reinstating the Bill of Rights, the decisions of the Warren Court, states’ rights, for militant environmentalism, and for curtailing non-environmental and non-health related powers of the federal government.  My positions overlap a bit with some of the militia groups.  But not much.

What have you got against the NRA?

            Other than for their corrupting influence on politicians, I oppose them for their illogic. 

Illogic?

            The fact is, if you own a handgun, it is more likely that it will be stolen and used to commit a crime than it is that you will ever use it to prevent one.  Your gun will more likely take your life, or the life of a family member, than save a life.  The NRA’s claims to the contrary are anecdotal and based upon questionable surveys and data.  And wishful thinking.

You are a gun control liberal?

I go back and forth.  If you value human life and safety above all else, you have to favor strict gun control, far, far more strict than we have today. But because I tend to believe the people may need to effect a fundamental change of government soon, I tend to favor plenty of private firepower.  

People are so unpredictable.  “Guns don’t commit crimes, criminals commit crimes.”  Nonsense.  Any of us is potentially a criminal and capable of extreme violence.  And there is a psychological synergy between people and their guns. Availability of a gun may give rise to the notion of killing.  Sure, you can kill with a ballpoint pen or a beer bottle, but it’s a lot easier with a gun.  And less messy for the physically weak or squeamish.  Just point, close your eyes and pull the trigger.  You don’t even have to watch.  If you stand back a ways, you won’t even get blood on your clothes.

A ballpoint pen?

            Sure.  Earholes, eye sockets, nostrils.  Right into the brain.

That doesn’t sound easy to do.

            Not easy at all.  Just the point.  Guns are really easy to use.  Way too easy.

We never had a hijacking threat before 9-11.  It was totally unexpected.

Wrong. You’re too young to remember, but 30-odd years ago, we had an epidemic of airplane hijackings.  It became a joke, that if you were flying to Miami, you would probably end up in Cuba.

What was done about it?

            Armed air marshals.  And metal detectors.  Most of the early airline hijackers had guns.  But I think the hijackings really petered out because would-be hijackers got the message that Cuba was really not a very nice place to visit, and no red carpets would be rolled out in Havana.  Just a long-term guest membership at Uncle Fidel’s favorite prison.  And intimate acquaintance with some unhygienic people.

            There was no safe comfortable place for a hijacker to go to.

What will the terrorists’ next target be?

            They may go for symbolic targets over mass casualties, or maybe not.  I have speculated that the 9-11 bunch purposely sought to avoid large numbers of casualties.  A night attack on the WTC would have minimized casualties, but then they would have more trouble finding the targets.  They could have hit the WTC just after dawn and cut the number of people killed by one-half.  Maybe it was unplanned that so few were killed on 9-11.    Maybe they didn’t care one way or another.  One thing we can say--maximizing casualties was not a primary objective at that time.

Three thousand is a lot of people killed.

            No.  It is a very low number.    Could have been 25,000-30,000 later in the day.  But the hijackers certainly did not know the buildings would collapse.  No one did.

A mad bomber could kill more than 3,000 at a sports event or in a crowded street or subway using a pretty small bomb.  A Black Sunday scenario could kill 50,000 plus.

            Even if the 9-11 bunch did want to minimize incidental killing, that will not be the case now with their successors.  There is blood in the water.

An intelligent, rational, but suicidal terrorist would probably want to spend his or her life on something significant and important.  Not penny-ante street stuff that Palestinian suicide bombers go for.  There’s no intensive planning and preparation with the Palestinian kids.   They’re just naïve kids with issues and a short attention span who are egged on and used by handlers who supply the goodies and point out the target.  If they wait too long, they would be apt to change their minds. 

So you’re looking at either large numbers of people or something prominent and symbolic of America’s power structure.

Or both.

            Or both.

How would you prevent acts of terrorism?

            You don’t.  Anyone can be a terrorist, even our own citizens.  And they can strike from outside our borders.  Example.  Al-Quaida buys a rust bucket freighter for $200,000.  They equip it and send it toward a major port, NYC, LA or Houston.  Before it enters U.S. waters, a hatch opens.  A Scud-type tactical missile is launched out of the hold with a NBC [Nuclear, Biological, Chemical] warhead right toward the port.  What can you do?  Nothing.  If the Patriot system were a thousand times better than the high priced fuck-up it is, it couldn’t do anything except spread the NBC over a wider area. 

You just live with the dangers.  The human species grew up with continual danger from famine, disease, predators, war.  Why should the future be any different?