Okay, follow my procession here.

#1: Here’s Colin Powell in March of 2001, stating the current Conventional Wisdom of US Intelligence: “[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq.”

#2: Here’s George W Bush’s 2002 State of the Union Speech, which will forever be known as the “Axis of Evil” speech. It is here that the W Administration formerly launched the Iraq War project.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens — leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections — then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

Leave aside the “kicked out the inspectors” — common misrepresentation — when confronted, Clinton-Bush officials haved called the “misrepresentation”ness a “technicality”. And leave aside the sentence that marks the fallback rationale for the war … the decade old mass graves and the torture of the Hussein regime. Let’s even allow the meaning of the first sentence and the implied meaning to fall by the wayside.

The only sentence that matters here is: The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. Really, this is not too unreasonable.

#3: The Office of Special Plans. And, yes. Enter here Ahmad Chablabi as numero uno… on a two-front assault — one front with the gummint, the other front with the media. (Let’s pretend they’re not the same thing.)

#4: The 2003 State of the Union Speech. Here, things get interesting. At times he can pass the list off to the UN, in one infamous example he can pass it off to the British, and other times he’s holding the bag.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents also could kill untold thousands. He has not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq’s recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction – but why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East, and create deadly havoc in the region. And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody, reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

#5: Colin Powell’s UN Speech. Colin Powell sells his soul, and in retrospect we have to say that that’s what happened. Perhaps this is a case of office politics at work: if it weren’t for him, the presentation would come out even further from the reality on the ground. This fact check looks rather conservative these days.

#6: Now, we get to the anticlimax as we skiddadle to the 2004 State of the Union Speech.

Already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.

Yes, I remember rolling on the floor laughing when he actually used the phrase “DOZENS OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION RELATED PROGRAM ACTIVITIES.”

(An important aside is this phrase: Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats. We had weapons inspectors on the ground, because we acted, and then … the US told them to go because they weren’t uncovering anything. If some things had broken down, we’d have ended up at the Kerry position — one I disagree with, but would be more understandable.) The rest on Iraq involves the, you know, cutting out tongues and such.

#7: Things really deflate with W’s Convention speech.

Everything he had to say about the central purpose of the war:

In Saddam Hussein, we saw a threat. Members of both political parties, including my opponent and his running mate, saw the threat, and voted to authorize the use of force. We went to the United Nations Security Council, which passed a unanimous resolution demanding the dictator disarm, or face serious consequences. Leaders in the Middle East urged him to comply. After more than a decade of diplomacy, we gave Saddam Hussein another chance, a final chance, to meet his responsibilities to the civilized world. He again refused, and I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office a decision no president would ask for, but must be prepared to make. Do I forget the lessons of Sept. 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.

The rest I deem meaningless until that day comes our policy toward Uzbekistan changes. Otherwise: a lie, more dishonest than the discrepency in the official version of events with the reality of what happened when the inspection program broke down in 1998. I have a haunting feeling that the official lie will become standard history. Like it or not, the dictator of Iraq, the brutal tyrant, complied. There were inspectors on the ground. Which brings us to the quiet and desperate crescendo, the haunting question there is no answer to: what would have happened if, at the end of the day, Hans Blix had delivered the same report that David Kay eventually ended up delivering? It’s an eerie question, and one where the US would have held steadforth to discredit the Blix/Kay Report and other UN Members would have thought “Well then. Let’s lift the sanctions! Jolly good!” This… is not… acceptable… is it?

Never mind, though. My point? My agnosticity over the central question of which the war was based on came from the discreprency between points #1 and #2 and points #4 and #5, with a full awareness of the meaning of points #3. The cognitive dissonance that I felt watching the bash of hot air amongst a bipartisan grouping of politicos and talking head figures moving along with the conventional wisdom… while, added pieces that were even then obviously false were added to the mix. Today, we have a contigency of Americans who don’t believe David Kay, and believe everything in Points #4 and #5 (and the hot air muddled water that was brought up between those points by the Dick Cheneys [ “mushroom cloud” ] and — even more hilariously the Oliver Norths of the world) has been moved to Syria: cognitive dissonance to the max.

In the realm of the Democratic contenders in the primary, the only ones who bothered questioning the conventional wisdom were, with all due respect to the former and less respect to the latter, two candidates considered on the fringe: David Kucinich and Al Sharpton. The only candidate who made a respectable showing for himself when questioned on the matter was Howard Dean, who shrugged and said “while some Clinton people advised me on the matters.” In the realm of the Republican party — we have backbenchers such as Ron Paul. A cynic would say that the fact that the frontbencher Doug Bereuter made his mea culpa on the war after retiring shows the facade of Democracy, and the lack of power supposed powerful figures actually have…

I started to piece together a modest directory of political speeches. I stopped when I couldn’t figure out my point… having no “mission statement” to speak of… it’d end up a scattershot of speeches that inspire me personally (to show how odd I am: I find Jimmy Carter’s political-suicide address “A Question of Confidence” inspiring), some historically fascinating addresses (Malcolm X), and some “WTF” speeches of demogaugory (Buchanan and Zell). No unification, thus… not worthy of an effort.

Looking through the American Rhetoric page — found on my sidebar under “Keepers of the File”*, the “Rhetoric of 9/11” page pops out at me. The speeches have the twilight-quality to them — a dual nature of being both faded and starkly driven into my memory. Do I dare read the speech he gave before the Joint-Congress? I guess Bush’s “finest moment” — the bullhorn speech — wasn’t formal enough to be included. Otherwise… yep! There it is! The 1 year anniversary speech at Ellis Island, stagecrafted agitprop to propell us into Iraq… as infuriating now as it was then.

Here’s Barbara Lee‘s speech upon providing the lone dissenting vote for authorizing force against Afghanistan. Yes, I would’ve voted yes, but I can’t say that much of what she said didn’t bounce through my mind at the time. I’d be curious to see some of the words behind a handful of the yes votes — the less jingoistic ones who could keep a general sense of perspective and a realization that how we proceed must be measured a wee bit more carefully. Ron Paul, I’m looking in your direction.

It then pops into my mind that someone online must have whatever words Congresswoman Jeanette Rankin entered into the Congressional Record upon giving her “no” vote to the Declaration of War for World War II. A google search yields nothing. I see a mention that a copy of the Congressional Record is on display at the Jeanette Rankin Library — which, I must say, I would hope would be the case.

Other than that, there’s this:

Among the NBC Memovox recordings of December 8th, is the beginning of a commentary by Earl Godwin at approximately 1:41pm Eastern time 12/8/41 (I think it was on Red), who begins ranting against Jeanette Rankin, saying “The fact that Jeanette Rankin, who would just as soon see the Japanese sweep over the country and kill everyone on the street…” . He was cut off at that point, with the network switching back to the House, ostensibly for a news bulletin concerning the vote on the war resolution which had just been completed. I wonder if cutting him off was a coincidence or did he go too far, in the network’s eyes?

And I see some reference to her being shouted down in the House, and her vote — either by her choosing or by the choosing of the Keepers of the Record — recording her vote as “present” and not “no.”

And I find the oh-so-endearing term “congresscreature” being used to describe Lee and Rankin… I don’t know if this is expanded to include all women.

Other than that, I find confusing accounts — a suggestion that she voted no not so much because she was opposed so much as to expressly remind the inherent cost of war. Or that she voted out of stupidity, someone claiming she said that she didn’t know if Japan striked Pearl Harbor. Or, the somewhat more cryptic When it came her turn to vote in 1941 she replied “God Bless America!” This was recorded as “Present” in the Congressional Record. And I find the quotation “You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.” And I find some reference to the “Jeanette Rankin Brigade” as being a “Communist front group” during the 60s… which may or may not be the case, as seemingly everyone not establishment politician was called a communist in those days (as opposed to the fifties when establishment politicians were called communists as well), but then again… a quarter-decent number were indeed communists.

Ah well. It’s mostly a blight of curiosity. Maybe it’s online somewhere, deep in the bowels of cyberspace. Or maybe it’s not.

…..
*If anyone knows of a website that keeps the transcripts of all of the Nixon tapes that find its way into the news every so often — let me know.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jenna and Barbara Bush, and Zell Miller: three different styles; three different freakshows; three affirmations of my biases.

I assume that Arnold played well with the swing-voter, and at least he gave some persona of optimism.

I see this suggestion that Jenna and Barbara Bush might have had some appeal to parents who see in them their own tweens. Tweens are that marketer’s demographic segment of 9 to 14 year olds. Jenna and Barbara Bush are twenty two years old. It appears that it was Karen Hughes’s idea to give fuel to the sterotype of spoiled rich immature Bushes.

As for Zell Miller… The keynote speech is supposed to outline a political party’s philosophy with a flair of eloquence. In that vein, do we dare compare Barack Obama with Zell Miller? I suspect he worked in the way that negative campaigning works — the memes perpetuated. I hope he at least had the common courtesy of deleting some of the “chain email. Otherwise, the persona of Zell Miller… the verdict is in. I never thought we’d get from a staged major political party convention a primetime speech like Pat Buchanan’s 1992 harbinger. I was wrong. Expect Zell Miller to continue to make the rounds on the Sean Hannitys of the world; expect him to disappear from the Meet the Presses of the world.

Perhaps better to realign the speeches to better compare with the Democratic Convention speeches. Zell Miller’s speech thus sits next to Edward Kennedy’s as the “red meat for the partisans” speech. I don’t have to look back to say that Zell Miller’s was more bilous.* Arnold Schwarzenegger better sits next to Barack Obama’s speech. The theme is about the same: personal life story as party message as meaning of America. Where does that leave us with the Bush twins? Why, remember that cutesy “Kid for Kerry” who said that “Bush needs a time out”? (In four years, he’s going to be in his adolescence, brooding over whatever the then version of Black Sabbath is, thoroughly embarassed by his prior electoral political activism.)

What do I make of the Rudy Giuliani and John McCain speeches? McCain provided a lackluster speech, but that was enough… whatever extent that he gives Bush coattails is in play by his very presence. Giuliani provided a speech that probably better than McCain set the themes and tone: nostalgia for 9/11, a storyline from 9/11 straight to Iraq, and bash John Kerry. More importantly for Giuliani’s courtship of the conservative base for the 2008 election — endear himself with at least what he has in common with them: muscular military policy indeed.

It’s remarkable how quickly the storyline changed. At first, it was supposed to be the Moderates Stepping Up to the Plate — the most popular politicians in the nation (Giuliani, McCain, and Schwarzennager) — the backstory for the media to discuss about the fight between the moderates and the conservatives showing the “big tent” for the party. But that all changed fairly quickly, and excellerated with Zell Miller and Dick Cheney. This convention will be remembered for its negativity.

….
* Updated: the Democratic Convention speech that comes closest to Zell Miller’s is probably Al Sharpton’s speech, where he ventured astray from his prepared and vetted remarks… and which was outside of primetime.

The camera pans around. We have a man dressed like Abraham Lincoln. We have Rudy Giuliani. We have George Bush Sr.

And, we have a black couple.

……….

I picture Tony Blair after George Bush mentioned his name, saying “Ixnay on my me-na.” Bush ain’t too popular over there, you see, and his negative coattails are dragging Blair’s numbers down.

……..

Bush’s delivery on the first half, the domestic policy, was slow as moleasses and overtly deliberate.

What do you suppose that signifies?

January 25, 1936 […]

Further than that I have no axe to grind. There is nothing personal in this whole performance so far as I am concerned. I have no feeling against any man, woman or child in the United States. I was born in the Democratic party and I expect to die in it. […]

It is not easy for me to stand up here tonight and talk to the American people against the Democratic Administration. This is not easy. It hurts me. But I can call upon innumerable witnesses to testify to the fact that during my whole public life I put patriotism above partisanship. And when I see danger, I say danger, that is the “Stop, look, and listen” to the fundamental principles upon which this Government of ours was organized, it is difficult for me to refrain from speaking up.

What are these dangers that I see? The first is the arraignment of class against class. It has been freely predicted that if we were ever to have civil strife again in this country, it would come from the appeal to passion and prejudices that comes from the demagogues that would incite one class of our people against the other.

In my time I have met some good and bad industrialists. I have met some good and bad financiers, but I have also met some good and bad laborers, and this I know, that permanent prosperity is dependent upon both capital and labor alike.

And I also know that there can be no permanent prosperity in this country until industry is able to employ labor, and there certainly can be no permanent recovery upon any governmental theory of “soak the rich” or “soak the poor.” .[…]

Millions and millions of Democrats just like myself, all over the country, still believe in that platform. And what we want to know is why it wasn’t carried out. […]

My friends, these are what we call fighting words. At the time that that platform went through the air and over the wire, the people of the United States were in the lowest possible depths of despair, and the Democratic platform looked to them like the star of hope; it looked like the rising sun in the East to the mariner on the bridge of a ship after a terrible night.

But what happened to it?[…]

As a young man in the Democratic Party, I witnessed the rise and fall of Bryan and Bryanism, and I know exactly what Bryan did to our party. I knew how long it took to build it after he got finished with it. But let me say this to the everlasting credit of Bryan and the men that followed him, they had the nerve and the courage and honesty to put into the platform just what their leaders stood for. And they further put the American people into a position of making an intelligent choice when they went to the polls.

Why, the fact of this whole thing is — I speak now not only of the executive but of the legislature at the same time — that they promised one set of things; they repudiated that promise, and they launched off on a program of action totally different.

Well, in 25 years of experience I have known both parties to fail to carry out some of the planks in their platform. But this is the first time that I have known a party, upon such a huge scale, not only not to carry out the plank, but to do the directly opposite thing to what they promised. […]

Sixth: I suggest that from this moment they resolve to make the Constitution the Civil Bible of the United States, and pay it the same civil respect and reverence that they would religiously pay the Holy Scripture, and I ask them to read from the Holy Scripture the Parable of the Prodigal Son and to follow his example.

Stop! Stop wasting your substance in a foreign land, and come back to your Father’s house.

Now, in conclusion let me give this solemn warning. There can be only one Capitol, Washington or Moscow!

There can be only one atmosphere of government, tl1e clear, pure, fresh air of free America, or the foul breath of Communistic Russia.

There can be only one flag, the Stars and Stripes, or the Red Flag of the Godless Union of the Soviet.

There can be only one National Anthem. The Star Spangled Banner or the Internationale.

There can be only one victor. If the Constitution wins, we win. But if the Constitution — stop. Stop there. The Constitution can’t lose! The fact is, it has already won, but the news has not reached certain ears.

When George Bush I was introduced at the convention, the screen showing him walk in to his seat, the conventioneers played in the background some snippets from Van Halen’s “Jump”. A tribute to his hobby of jumping out of airplanes.

I’m trying to find confirmation for this, but Zell Miller was introduced with…

The devil went down to Georgia
He was lookin’ for a soul to steal
He was in a bind
‘Cause he was way behind
And he was willin’ to make a deal

[Instrumental to end]

I’m trying to figure out what Zell Miller’s career is going to be in retirement. Should Bush be re-elected, I guess he’s done… unless he decides to zig-zag again, and goes off to speak before Moveon.org crowds. Should Kerry be elected, I guess he’ll continue speaking on the right-wing circuit.

Supposedly, the theme for the night was “Land of Opportunity”. Indeed, that would match Zell Miller’s 1992 speech before the Democratic Convention. The 2004 speech offered… no hope. The curious thing about the RNC Convention speeches, with the exception of Schwarzeggar: How hard is it to stick some rhetoric into speeches that smack of hope? And is it just me, or has Bush Campaign just decided to wave domestic issues altogether?

Well, I guess, let’s… listen to this voice.

In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their “private plans” than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

Hold on a minute. Is this an endorsement for the return of the draft?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat’s manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

I find it curious. Shouldn’t it be un-American to think that the nation is so weak that it cannot handle politics — politics in the true and most noble sense of the term, ie: differences of opinion? Yet, there we have it. Some think that America is weak, weak, weak.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Sure. It was Democratic President Harry Truman who also decided it was a bad idea to overthrow the Nationalistic freely elected president of Iran Mossadegh. It was the British Prime Minister Churchill who bid his time until some more acceptable president would do so, so that Great Britain could again enjoy a free flow of oil. It was the Republican President Dwight David Eisenhower who was sold on the idea that we should overthrow him for the sake of defeating Communism. And it was the Democratic President Jimmy Carter who got the blame for it when the Iranians revolted against this, and gave themselves a crappy repressive fundamentalist Islamic regime. (And I’ll tie this in with a later Zeller Miller comment.)

It was also the Republican President Dwight David Eisenhower who stopped (technically stalled) the Korean War… before we liberated every last Korean, and for that matter every last Chinese.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

My point being, time after time Democrats and Republicans looked at the price-tag, saw that these things were counter-productive to the overall goal, and moved on. Or, time after time Democrats and Republicans decided “liberation” wasn’t a worthy goal, alternating roles.

It was the Republicans who opposed the Democrat Bill Clinton’s “liberation” of Kosovo.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today’s Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

My opinion, your opinion, his opinion, her opinion does not matter here. The question of whether “American troops are occupiers or liberators” belongs to… IRAQIS. And, for the sake of fighting nationalistic guerilla warriors… not even necessarily very many of them.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

You know… we occupied Germany. We occupied Japan. In fact, we can consider those two America’s most successful occupations.

I’ll get to Reagan in a minute, but question: what nation did our troops “liberate” during his reign? Grenada… I guess, though that was pure “wag the dog”. (In the case of Latin America, he let native fascists do his dirty work… therefore we didn’t occupy them. In the case of Europe — diplomacy as the Soviets disintegrated, largely due to overreach.)

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

You can never go wrong bringing up the dirty spector of “flag burning”. I might as well add this: the reason the coffins come home draped in flags is because otherwise they looked too depressing.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn’t believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

“And they were happy — they’re not happy they’re occupied. I wouldn’t be happy if I were occupied either. ” — W, April 13, 2004.

But don’t waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don’t believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

Things are rather complicated. Nuanced, if you will. Why, take Eisenhower and Iran, for instance. I don’t think Superman is even pure good… is he?

Beyond which, I’m not going to dwell on a red herring straw man that is the second sentence.

It is not their patriotism — it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter’s pacifism would lead to peace.

Carter was a pacifist? Huh? He started the military budget buildup after the Committee on Present Danger told the public the world of the growing Soviet threat… the military buildup that Reagan merely accelarated. His administration aided the Afghan Holy Warriors… in fact, according to , Brzezinski… nay, that can be too easily construed to fit the “America is the problem” canard.

They claimed Reagan’s defense buildup would lead to war.

Well, in the old “guns vs butter” debate, we have, as Zell Miller put it in 1992: without a government that is on their side, those children have no hope. And when a child has no hope, a nation has no future. But never mind.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

Pointless to go down his list. Most of them come from a few votes, which if we want to put in historical context, I’ll just say go dig up George Bush I’s 1992 State of the Union speech where he proposes, at the behest of Dick Cheney, a “streamlined military”. John Kerry was joined by Dick Cheney, who requested more cuts… during the 1980s as a congressman he had this crazy, insane concept of “balancing the budget”. Don’t you hate career Senators who make compromising votes?

Besides which, here’s a campaign slogan: John Kerry: Fighting Against Bloated Pentagon Pork. Thanks for reminding me!

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

Depends on how you define “military”. He blamed the government. The government deserved blame.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away.

He actually did vote for the bill. Before he voted against it. Actually kudos to Al Franken for his phrase on the matter– Kerry trying to rescind some tax cuts so as to– pay for it: The Republicans were actually against that vote, before they were for it. Spread that meme!

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

No. Not really “new”.

I have knocked on the door of this man’s soul and found someone home

Kind of like Bush looking into Putin’s eyes and catching a glimpse of his soul?

Now, let’s listen to this voice on Chris Matthew’s show (past the roundtable composed of a batch of Republicans). Zell Miller seems to not understand the idea that Democrats offering “spitballs in combat” is the same cartoonish version of reality as Republicans “starving the kids”, and thus… challenges Chris Matthews to a duel.

MILLER: I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel.

….

MATTHEWS: Well, that was unexpected turn of events.

Yes, looking over the blogosphere, he has his rightwing partisans, and it might be added that part of Zell Miller’s doofusness may be a little overblown because of the noisy environment Miller and Matthews were in… We’re stuck in a sort of la-la land.