“It’s hard, really, to recreate in our minds just how trusting most Democrats were, how most Americans were, how the media was in a patriotic rallying behind the President after 9/11.” Keith Olbermann

Given that most American’s wanted someone to ease his or her pain after the tragedy of 9/11. They were willing to give up some of their free will to believe that a leader was doing something to retaliate for the attacks on 9/11. People wanted to do something. Who can’t remember the cartoon images of the American Eagle sharpening its claws to revenge the death of 3,000 + citizens. Yes, it was important. The whole world was behind America.

How was that trust that desire to be led handled? With kid gloves, surgical strikes, elimination of Al Queda, censure of Saudi Arabia (who provided most of the financing and most of the attackers)? NO—Corner Osama, let him get away, find an enemy no could love (in one very real sense, Saddam Hussein was a puppy killer and worse. He killed thousands of his own citizens because they were the wrong race and religion), attack them, reinvigorate the economy through the military complex, fight two wars (one on a front where we did not understand the enemy and could not define the enemy, Shias, Sunnis, Kurds and others) and in an end game, try to establish 50 permanent military bases in a country that wants us out. And ruining the economy on the way.

A long time ago, Tom Tomorrow made fun of going into the past for the cabinet. Not quite the 1890s, but back to the Iran-Contra boys of Ronald Reagan who dealt arms to the enemy and sold drugs to the impoverished in our own country to fund another war in Central America. And what did we get—the same kind of muddled, confused foreign policy that has led America to the brink that Russia was brought to years ago. Bankruptcy, possibly. Except, I think America’s national emotional make up may be more resilient, hopeful and varied and willing to go through the painful reconstruction process so sorely needed.

But there are loose ends. Bill Clinton, in a conciliatory gesture, did not pursue Iran-Contra fellows, which allows “experts” like Ollie North to continue to speak and sway public opinion instead of castigating them to the shadows, as they should be.

Richard Clarke had something interesting to say on this—

“You (need) to come forward and admit that you were in error or that you lied, admit that you did something and you are forgiven. Otherwise you are censured in some way. I just don’t think we can let these back into polite society and give them jobs on university boards and corporate boards and just pretend nothing ever happened, when there are over 4,000 Americans dead and over 25,000 Americans grievously injured…Someone should have to pay in some way for the decisions they made to mislead the American people.”

I agree!!! But for me, censure or admitting mistakes is not enough. Many of the decision makers have many more dollars in their trust funds than I will ever make in my lifetime. Perhaps they need to share their millions with the survivors of those killed in this horrible, horrible mistake. How well would Dick Cheney or George Bush do on $50,000 per year? Hey, at least they have their significant other. That is more then those surviving the war dead or living with and loving the war injured will have.

I cannot begin to express my rage and sorrow that we were lied into a war, Americans were killed and profits were made on the BLOOD of the willing by people who opted out of Vietnam on “lucky sperm club” deferments. It puts a whole new perspective on the term BLOOD MONEY.

And to think I sat down at my computer to comment on a new ruling on what are navigable waters of the United States and what can be protected by the Clean Water Act. Later today, I guess.

rojo