The Daily Grasshopper

(Disclaimer: As some of you know, I play guitar and sing in an Irish folk group, "The McLaughlin Brothers Band," and this weekend is usually a pretty busy time for us. Sadly, St. Patrick's Day coincides with President Bush's "moment of truth" for Iraq, so I'm not able to enjoy the festivities as much as I normally would, and I'm also unable to devote as much time to the "Daily Grasshopper" as I'd like to. My apologies, especially to the newcomers. Now might be a good time to read up on some of the back issues! http://www.dailygrasshopper.com...)

There's an interesting article up on the Alternet site, written by Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, congressman from Ohio. Kucinich was attacked by a Washington Post columnist, and when he wrote a letter to the editor to defend his position, he was told it wouldn't be published. You can read what he wrote, "Obviously Oil," here:

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15359

Remember that essay I wrote about a forum for the free expression of ideas? Imagine if newspapers in this country could be counted upon to provide such a thing. I know my life would be simpler...

White House flack Ari Fleischer was in front of the reporters again on Friday, assuring the American people that, in a matter of days, the President was going to come clean about why we're invading, er, I mean liberating, Iraq. Here's a quote from Saturday's New York Times:

"Mr. Fleischer said that if Mr. Bush decided to go to war, he would address the nation before the start of hostilities and would have 'much information to share with the American people' about the risks and costs of the conflict."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/15/international/middleeast/15IRAQ.html

Isn't that reassuring? They're going to be firing up the war machine out in the Persian Gulf and the President is finally going to deign to tell us, the American people, what this is all about. I'm not naive enough to think that a debate would actually change the President's mind on the issue, but can't he at least go through the motions, and pretend we have something like a democracy? Can't there be some discussion of the "risks and costs" before the bombs are loaded and the planes are preparing for takeoff from their Saudi bases?

Speaking of going through the motions, Bush made another commitment to the Middle East peace process on Friday. He stood at a Rose Garden ceremony and announced "we have reached a hopeful moment for progress toward the vision of Middle Eastern peace that I outlined last June." I find it shocking that Bush can invoke "Middle Eastern peace" on the eve of his massive bombing campaign. From what I've been led to believe, most of the bombs are going to land in Iraq, and on the maps I've looked, that country appears to be in the Middle East.

And people shouldn't get too excited about any real commitment from the U.S. on the issue. As Bush himself acknowledged, he threw the same pump fake at the Palestinians last June. Back then, he had just begun to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, and didn't want people to think he was anti-Muslim. So he threw a bone to the folks who have been pushing for a peaceful resolution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict (i.e., the rest of the world) and laid out his proposal for peace in the Middle East. Between then and now, he has done precisely nothing to advance the cause. Actually, it's worse than that. He's allowed Ariel Sharon (whom Bush calls "a man of peace," which, considering Bush's own "vision of Middle Eastern peace" may not be off the mark - both men want to achieve peace by resorting to massive violence) to crack down on Palestinians with unprecedented force.

Even the mainstream press, who have shown an unusually high capacity to be fooled by this president, aren't being taken in by the Rose Garden announcement. Here's the beginning of the Times' lead editorial from yesterday:

"It is hard not to be skeptical about the timing of President Bush's statement yesterday on a long-delayed push toward Israeli-Palestinian peace. At the end of a losing week for him on Iraq, Mr. Bush clearly felt the need to help Prime Minister Tony Blair quell political opposition at home by demonstrating a renewed commitment to Middle East peacemaking and proving that he had not abandoned the Palestinian problem. Nevertheless, Mr. Bush took an important step that needs to be encouraged - as well as matched and supported by Arabs, Israelis and Europeans."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/15/opinion/15SAT1.html

The Boston Globe was equally leery:

"PRESIDENT BUSH'S announcement that he intends to present a so-called road map for Mideast peace to Israelis and Palestinians looks like a transparent effort to placate European allies and Arab countries in the run-up to a possible war against Saddam Hussein. Nevertheless, Israelis and Palestinians desperately need outside help to rescue them from an inferno of violence and vengeance. So despite the formulaic quality of Bush's Rose Garden remarks, they should be seized upon as promises that Washington will help guide the Mideast antagonists back into peace talks."

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/074/editorials/An_advance_in_the_mideast+.shtml

For anyone wondering why it is so difficult to take any American president seriously when he talks about resolving the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, please take a look at the following document. Someone has gone to the trouble to document the U.S. vetoes at the United Nations over the past three decades. It won't take you very long to discern a pattern:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=3238

Anyone (Palestinians, Kurds, Shiite Iraqis, Turks) who believes that the U.S. government is dedicated to bringing real democracy to the Middle East should consult history before deciding how high to get their hopes up. Bush's "road map" leads in precisely the same direction every other U.S. president has headed: toward greater U.S. control over the Middle East, and, obviously, the oil.