Category: National

Now that we’re well within another interminable presidential election cycle, we’re also immersed in countless “get out the vote” campaigns. The message emanates from a good, democratic place and is diversely delivered from “hip-hop summits,” Teamster voter-drives and editorial-board sermons.

Two things, at least one of which will sound blasphemous.

If voters have to be cajoled, hectored or shamed into voting, they should strongly consider staying home again. If taking part in one’s own system of governance by exercising the right and responsibility to vote isn’t sufficient motivation, sitting it out may be the most viable option. That was the blasphemy part.

On the other hand, why not encourage accountability beyond showing up — too often with agenda-driven marching orders — with a “Get out the informed vote” campaign?

Once again Florida has been relegated to “Stupor Tuesday” status.

In the aftermath of Sen. John Kerry’s “Super Tuesday” triumph, Florida is again left to ponder its irrelevance in the primary system. Before Florida’s meaningless, anti-climactic vote this week, 30 states already had cast ballots. All but two — South Carolina and Vermont — for Kerry.

Critical enough to be a “battleground” state and significant enough to be decisive during the general election, Florida is less important than Iowa or New Hampshire in determining actual nominees. The Sunshine State is a primary black hole.

Nothing, mind you, against the old fashioned, participatory politics of caucus-going, demographically skewed Iowans, the silo minority. And it’s hardly New Hampshire’s fault that it’s as tiny as it is unrepresentative of the rest of the country. But it’s a farce that such electoral vote-challenged states are major players in the nominating process.

And Florida isn’t.

Once again we are reminded that a presidential primary system front-loaded with Iowa and New Hampshire is good for pollsters, pundits — and the media self-interest of the two states. The media get to play momentum kingmaker as they poll recycled Cedar Rapids’ “undecideds” and Manchester malcontents to declare who leads the horse race, who is “electable,” and who may have done himself in with a campaign rally “primal scream.”

When New Hampshire voters cast their ballots, their choices included: Gen. Wesley Clark, former Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. John Edwards, Rep. Dick Gephardt, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Sen. Joe Lieberman, former Ambassador Carol Moseley Braun, Rev. Al Sharpton — and Sen. John Kerry. When Florida Democrats voted this week, they were, in effect, handed a rubber stamp. Kerry may as well have been running against Ralph Nader. Or Ralph Kramden.

It’s enough to rouse nostalgia for a brokered convention. Remember John F. Kennedy only won seven primaries in 1960.

Both parties need to get serious about a primary system that ill serves its nominee-picking charge. Iowa and New Hampshire exercise an inordinate amount of influence. It’s time, candidly, to look at holding regional primaries on the same day. Would even make for less local pandering.

Prior to that, candidates can face the crucible of Don Imus for a real-world reading of their “electability.”

We’re not yet out of February, but already the presidential election seems too much with us. The Democratic cavalcade of candidates never ganged up on front-running John Kerry, so the well-heeled, GOP re-election machine is starting to fill the void. The John and (“Hanoi”) Jane refrain was the predictable, lame response to the cheap-shot Alabama National Guard imputations. It will only get nastier.

These thoughts on a campaign that is already top-heavy in disarming,Vietnam rhetoric and analogies.

*However self-serving and calculating John Forbes Kerry — JFK — was and is, his military service warrants a bye on Vietnam criticism. Even if he were thinking “PT 109” political kick-start, he put it on the line. End of issue.

*Anyone who lived through the Vietnam period — or at least read the minutes from those meetings — knows the reality of that era. Ho Chi Minh was no Osama bin Laden. The United States hadn’t been attacked. The bifurcated, Cold War world was filled with sinister scenarios, “red scares” and tremulous dominoes.

“If Vietnam falls, there goes Burma.” Not exactly rallying-cry material for G.I. draftees, who were doing what most Americans do when given government orders: follow ’em. Like it or not. Mostly not. Most young Americans weren’t saluting Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s priorities, which were typically vilified. History has been no kinder.

In fact, here’s McNamara’s take — “the unwisdom of our intervention” — from his 1995 mea culpa, “In Retrospect”:

“I concede with painful candor and a heavy heart that the adage (hindsight is always better than foresight) applies to me and my generation of American leadership regarding Vietnam.” admitted McNamara. “Hindsight proves us wrong.”

Patriotic young Americans didn’t see any moral abdication in seeking deferments, Canadian sanctuary or National Guard status. They were acknowledged ways, some more extreme than others, of avoiding — or LIKELY avoiding — service in Vietnam. It improved immensely one’s chances of staying alive. Can’t we all just acknowledge that reality and let it go? Especially after having given a pass to George W. Bush’s immediate predecessor?

*So suppose President Bush hadn’t opted to take advantage of family connections and join the Guard. Any doubt that there would be political partisans now saying that only underscores that he isn’t a very bright fellow. How dumb would that have been in 1968?

*In his criticism of the president’s Iraqi policy, Senator Kerry has accused Bush of repeating Vietnam-era, quagmire-plunging mistakes. Of having “not learned some of the lessons” of that “very difficult war.” Hardly an invalid point of discussion.

For what it’s worth in haunting coincidence, these further reminders of Vietnam’s context and irony. By the fall of 1963, the United Nations — with no encouragement from the U.S. — was working toward a political settlement in Vietnam. UN Secretary General U Thant had called for a coalition government in South Vietnam. The U.S. was not pleased.

Moreover, France — in the person of President Charles de Gaulle — was enraging the Kennedy Administration by announcing support for neutralization of the South and the eventual reunification of Vietnam. The White House also suspected the French were trying to broker a deal on their own.

*As the primary process has proceeded, it seems that more and more polls are pointing to the economy — in all its regional manifestations — as the top priority for voters. Americans voting their pocketbooks is, of course, nothing new. But it’s still surprising — and scary — that an exception wouldn’t occur during war — one that has cost us more than 500 soldiers in Iraq and 3,000 civilians at home. Has Sept. 11 faded that fast?

Whether it’s lost jobs, a huge deficit, Bush’s tax cuts or even John Ashcroft-as-Mephistopheles, the point can’t be underscored enough. We’re in a civilizational war with the worst kind of enemy, one that values its cause more than life itself. Including its own. What’s at stake is survival.

Just ask yourself this. How important will “tax cuts for the rich” or “outsourcing” seem if a “dirty bomb” explodes at a major port or if dozens of suicide bombers detonate themselves and murder countless shoppers in selected shopping malls throughout the U.S.?

Without a vanquished enemy and security that must scrutinize and profile, we have an economy that’s more hostage to perverted Islam than subject to Democratic or Republican policy and manipulation. If we get hit again, we can be assured of this: It will be worse, and it will render discussions about entitlement programs, drugs from Canada and Patriot Act Nazis moot.

Lots of speculation as to when the wheels started coming off the Howard Dean band wagon. Best guess: the day the angry, candid, anti-war outsider was endorsed by Al Gore, the persona-challenged, consummate insider best remembered for being much more responsible than Katherine Harris for the election of George W. Bush. Dean went from front runner with the most money and best organization to another candidate trying to be all things to all voters. John Kerry is much better suited for that role.

Is not Michael Moore as bad an endorsement as any candidate could want? He supports Gen. Wesley Clark. And Clarke hasn’t handled the albatross well. Imagine not strenuously disavowing — on the spot — Moore’s defaming reference to President Bush as a “deserter?”

While there’s always plenty of blame to share in the continuous bloodletting between Jews and Palestinians, this much needs to be said. Now more than ever.

It no longer matters who started it — or who has a better case for retribution. Neither is history an overriding factor. Everybody has their version — as well as a wholly convenient holy book to selectively cite. Proven true believers have all the proof they’ll ever need.

But here’s what does matter. Here’s where any sense of moral — or even immoral — equivalence summarily stops. It is this. Only one side would do the following: recruit a young mother to become a piece of shrapnel. Israel wouldn’t do that. The Third Reich wouldn’t have done it. Only the Tamil Tigers, the terrorists from Sri Lanka, have a similar modus operandi.

But becoming a human cruise missile is what 22-year-old Reem al-Reyashi, the mother of a 3-year-old son and a 1-year-old daughter, did the other day.

With marching orders from Hamas, she feigned a limp, requested medical help and then — in a fit of humanitarian irony — blew herself up at a Gaza Strip security inspection center for Palestinian workers. She had even strapped on ball bearings and screws for an extra measure of lethality. As a result of her suicidal homicide, she killed four Israeli security personnel and wounded — make that maimed — seven other people, some of them Palestinians. Collateral damage for the cause.

Another day at the office from hell.

But it gets worse. The twisted premeditation of it all was evidenced by the standard video that the bomber left behind explaining the inexplicable.

“It was always my wish to turn my body into deadly shrapnel against the Zionists, and to knock on the doors of heaven with the skulls of Zionists,” implacably noted the suicide killer.

“God gave me the ability to be a mother of two children who I love so,” said al-Shrapnel. “But my wish to meet God in paradise is greater, so I decided to be a martyr for the sake of my people. I am convinced God will help and take care of my children.”

Allah as nanny.

Such sick ambition, sophistic reasoning and perverted rationales underscore the only reality that matters. It IS about Islam. The movement comes from the mosques — not the universities. Terrorists now go imam-shopping.

For obvious reasons, President Bush can’t say that. Even had to apologize for using “crusade” as a verb. But we, at least, can acknowledge the obvious. Would that the sense of jihad were limited to the struggle for a Palestinian homeland. Were it, Yasser Arafat might have accepted the Bill Clinton-brokered deal.

This is not about compromise or coexistence. This is not about agreeing to find a way to end the bloodshed, for bloodshed is a Fundamentalist strategy. This is about victory — and pay back. A millennium’s worth of traumatized pride and underachieving Muslim cultures. The Middle East crucible is merely the most visceral of rallying points.

This is about Koranic parsing over suicide and justification for that which yields Paradise — 72 black-eyed virgins and all. This is about dividing the world into believers and infidels, the result of which too easily excuses and encourages any mistreatment of the latter. The Nazis — by dehumanizing and demonizing Jews — provided an excellent model to build upon.

It is also about picking on democracies, open societies that — in response to heinous acts — will stop considerably short of the “Mongol method” — the wholesale slaughter of a suicide killer’s native population.

Would that the contemporary threat to the West — and America — were confined to the evil likes of Osama bin Laden or Muhammad Atta. But the pernicious appeal of Wahhabism is growing — not slowing. The number of Muslims who applauded the World Trade Center atrocity was hardly limited to al-Qaeda fanatics.

The seeds of jihad are many places. As are infidels. And that’s us, the U.S.

It IS about Islam.

We ignore that cold-blooded reality at our own peril.

For those pondering the recent odd coupling of Cuban President Fidel Castro and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the Christian Orthodox spiritual leader to Latin America, consider this:

Cuba officially switched from “atheist” to “secular” in 1998 — part of the public relations prepping for Pope John Paul’s visit. The Castro government needs all the help it can get to provide necessities to those citizens, which is virtually all, who don’t have access to dollars. In a quid pro quo for greater religious tolerance on the part of the Cuban government, various denominations are providing basic services in their communities.

Make no mistake, Castro is still Castro — whether pressed out in blue pin stripes or olive battle fatigues; whether in the company of Bart I, the Christian Orthodox Patriarch, or Hugo Sanchez, the rogue, unorthodox populist.

In fact, look no further than last weekend’s five-hour speech to Latin American activists opposed to the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas. Castro accused President Bush of plotting with hard-line Cuban exiles to kill him. The allegation was widely covered by foreign correspondents in Havana and dominated the domestic news.

It was vintage Castro. While he has certainly dodged his share of assassination threats, the 77 year old’s demise will likely be biological — not geopolitical.

But playing the assassination card still works as a rallying ploy against the U.S. — Uncle Scapegoat. When times are toughest in Cuba, Castro can be counted on to be Castro — whether it’s schmoozing a religious icon or reminding the natives who’s really to blame for Cuba’s failed social experiment.

While there’s always plenty of blame to share in the continuous bloodletting between Jews and Palestinians, this much needs to be said. Now more than ever.

It no longer matters who started it — or who has a better case for retribution. Neither is history an overriding factor. Everybody has their version — as well as a wholly convenient holy book to selectively cite. Proven true believers have all the proof they’ll ever need.

But here’s what does matter. Here’s where any sense of moral — or even immoral — equivalence summarily stops. It is this. Only one side would do the following: recruit a young mother to become a piece of shrapnel. Israel wouldn’t do that. Neither would Nazis.

But that is what 22-year-old Reem al-Reyashi, the mother of a 3-year-old son and a 1-year-old daughter did the other day.

With marching orders from Hamas, she feigned a limp, requested medical help and then blew herself up at a Gaza Strip security inspection center for Palestinian workers. She had even strapped on ball bearings and screws for an extra measure of lethality. As a result of her suicidal homicide, she killed four Israeli security personnel and wounded — more like maimed — seven other people, some of them Palestinians. Collateral damage for the cause.

Another day at the office from hell.

But it gets worse. The twisted premeditation of it all was evidenced by a video that the bomber left behind explaining the inexplicable.

“It was always my wish to turn my body into deadly shrapnel against the Zionists, and to knock on the doors of heaven with the skulls of Zionists,” implacably noted the suicide killer.

“God gave me the ability to be a mother of two children who I love so,” said al-Shrapnel. “But my wish to meet God in paradise is greater, so I decided to be a martyr for the sake of my people. I am convinced God will help and take care of my children.”

Allah as nanny.

Such sick ambition and perverted rationales underscore the only reality that matters. It IS about Islam. The movement comes from the mosques – not the universities. Terrorists can go Imam-shopping.

For obvious reasons, President Bush can’t say that. Even had to apologize for using “crusade” as a verb. But we, at least, can at least acknowledge the obvious. Would that the sense of jihad were limited to the struggle for a Palestinian homeland. Were it, Yasser Arafat would have accepted the Bill Clinton-brokered deal.

This is not about compromise or coexistence. This is not about agreeing to find a way to end the bloodshed, for bloodshed is a Fundamental strategy. This is about victory — and pay back. A millennium’s worth. This is about Koranic justification for that which yields Paradise, however perversely defined.

Would that the contemporary threat to the West — and the US — was confined to the evil likes of Osama bin Laden or Muhammad Atta. But the pernicious appeal of Wahhabism is growing — not slowing. The number of Muslims who applauded the World Trade Center atrocity was hardly limited to al-Qaeda fanatics.

The seeds of jihad are everywhere. As are infidels. And that’s US.

It IS about Islam.

We ignore that cold-blooded reality at our own peril.

Howard Dean says he’s tired of being the designated “pin cushion” in the Democratic presidential sweepstakes. That’s understandable — although understated. He’s more like a punching bag.

Such status comes, of course, with the front-runner territory. No one is queuing up to skewer Carol Moseley Braun. Dean, for example, was on last week’s cover of Time magazine, while everybody else got a group photo in the Des Moines Register.

Most of the body blows Dean has received, however, are well within the norms of campaign in-fighting. Anything he might have said in another time and in another context is fair — even if unfair — game. That’s part of the trade-off for being the leader in polls, money, organization and key endorsements. Everything he says is scrutinized for quid pro quotes.

Whether America is safer as a result of Saddam Hussein’s capture is part of the hardball, rhetorical mix. Whether Dean is anathema to party centrists is up for grabs. Whether his Vermont record — liberal on abortion and conservative on gun control, for example — can be squared with enough voters is a valid question.

But what isn’t relevant is what made all the headlines recently in Iowa, when Dean was challenged on race by the irreverent Al Sharpton. The latter rebuked Dean for his all-white cabinets while governor of Vermont.

To note that Vermont had Caucasian cabinets during the Dean years is meaningless, except as a reminder that Sharpton earned his way into the national consciousness as a professional race opportunist. The black population of Vermont is virtually nil.

It would make as much sense to criticize Sharpton for not having had a more diversified entourage for James Brown, when he was “The Godfather of Soul’s” road manager.

But let’s hear it for Moseley-Braun, the other black candidate, for putting the proper spin on Sharpton’s racial cheap shot. “You can always blow up a racial debate and make people mad at each other,” she told Sharpton. “It’s time for us to talk about what you want to do to bring people together.”

Don’t be surprised, however, if Moseley-Braun has more such opportunities as the campaign heads into more racially diverse states, such as South Carolina.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, Congressman Jim Davis signed on to the Patriot Act. There had been — and arguably still were and are — terrorists in our midst. He later supported the president on the use of force in Iraq to enforce United Nations’ resolutions. He saw merit in the military prerogative of pre-emption.

Now count Davis among those with major misgivings on all three.

At the recent Tiger Bay Club of Tampa luncheon, Davis said the Patriot Act now needs to be re-evaluated.

“Parts now need to be trimmed back,” he acknowledged. “A judge, fundamentally, should always be in the loop.” He also said that the ambiguity shrouding the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the disposition of enemy combatants “disturbs me enormously.”

“Ultimately, we are judged on our moral authority,” opined Davis. “And we’ve lost some ground.”

The war in Iraq now seems to belie its justification, intimated Davis. It’s no longer about a despotic regime believed to be developing weapons of mass destruction. Davis supported military force when WMD was the rationale. Now he has serious doubts.

“I’m concerned with what I know today,” stated Davis. “I’ll reserve judgment for now, but I’m only as good as the information I’m relying on.”

He speculated that the President’s motivation was driven — at a gut level — by a sense of “Never again on my watch.” And he went for it — with most of the country queuing up behind him.

The President, said Davis, would have been better off leveling with the American people about the “chance,” however small, that Iraq was “doing business” with Al Qaeda and might be a WMD menace.

“But the President didn’t say that,” recalled Davis. “He said there was ‘new evidence.'”

Davis’ reservation on the pre-emption policy is that it “isn’t clear enough,” he explained.

“We should reserve the right to go it alone if necessary,” he allowed. “A pre-emptive act can be appropriate” — but must be engaged in “judiciously.”

“I will not cite Iraq as a model,” he concluded.

For the record, Davis believes the American military needs to “stay the course.” It also needs more help.

“We need to be reaching out to our allies,” he said. “You know how many Canadian troops there are in Iraq? One. We also need more Arab-speaking soldiers and civilian workers.”

Davis, who was in Iraq last month, said he was impressed with U.S. Central Command chief General John Abizaid. “He’s highly skilled,” said Davis. “But I asked how many other senior military officials speak Arabic. No one could name one.”

Davis agrees that the U.S. “misjudged” the extent to which oil production could underwrite reconstruction efforts. But he disagrees with naysayers who maintain that Iraqi is just too different — too tribal — for nation-building to really succeed. Nor is it necessarily a Vietnam redux.

“Yes, they (Iraqis) are different, but there are some remarkable similarities,” noted Davis, who pointed out how much Iraqis wanted security and how students expressed ambitions to be teachers and doctors.

“Remember, Iraq has enormous resources and a relatively high literacy rate,” said Davis. “The potential is enormous. Nation-building can be done, even though, yes, it’s tribal. We get pretty tribal ourselves on Sundays.”

There are two fundamental tenets the Iraqis need to absorb, emphasized Davis. One is “to disagree in a civil fashion.” The other is that “power should be transitory