Pinky Sans the Brain

Well, "The Architect" is leaving the President, and bid tearful farewells before he boarded a plane, flying back to Texas—the land of political bloodbaths and resulting political rebirths. We will not see the last of Karl Rove. Or rather, we will not see the last of his influence, since he is careful not to leave fingerprints. In some ways, he was easier to monitor when in the West Wing. Now he will truly be "the Great Oz," operating behind a big curtain of bluff, cynicism and arrogance. And it was Rove's superciliousness that brought him down, and Josh Bolton, Chief of Staff; the man, who after taking the reins, moved Rove to a small corner office without a window (hint, hint, Karl). Bolton told Rove that if he was going to leave, he had to do it by August 31st.

This is a no brainer. Petraeus' report comes in September, and Rove leaving after that would appear to be a direct "cause and effect," further weakening, if that is possible, the administration. Geez, Karl, it is said that you are a devout and insatiable student of history; Bill Bennett says you have five full rooms full of books. But what is the downfall of rulers engaged in battle, from Darius to Napoleon? Huh, huh? It's hubris. Hubris is ubiquitous "tragic flaw" that connects all failed power-hungry leaders. Now you claim you would like to teach. Hmmmmm, methinks you should reconsider that profession since your book-schooling didn't teach you what any first year history or literature major knows. I suggest that you read Shakespeare, read Richard II, Macbeth, and Richard III since you have squandered your "political capital" and leave your position plagued by subpoenas (which you can't claim "executive privilege" anymore as an excuse not to appear before Congress) and infamy. Read Shakespeare. He knows the soulless pursuit of power and its consequences better than any pop historian or political hack. Better than most any writer in the Western canon.

So who is Bush's brain now? Other than Cheney? Bolton? Tony Snow? Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't know.

Speaking of "soulless," read the American soldier, Teflon Don's blog on the deficits of Kellogg, Brown and Root:
http://acutepolitics.blogspot.com/2007/07/sleeping-in-hell.html
You know, the no-bid contractors in Iraq. It's sickening.

Of Myth, Man and Movies

A few years ago I read Malory's "Le Morte d'Arthur," which I have discussed in this blog before. What struck me about the "original" Arthurian compilation (Malory patched together a lot of oral tradition and some written tradition into a coherent whole) is that Arthur was not a nice guy, not much of hero (at least in modern Hollywood terms). He effectively killed all children, three and under, after he learned of the birth of Mordred, his son, the product of an incestuous union with his half sister. It was prophesied that Mordred would kill Arthur, and the kingdom would end disastrously. So Arthur launched his own "slaughter of the Innocents" by launching an unmanned ship with all the children aboard into the sea. Although this seems absolutely barbaric, it was in keeping of the times. Sacrifice children to save the community.

So I have to laugh when I see the recent spat of Arthurian movies, such as "Arthur" and "The Legion," which is yet to be released. Although they claim to portray the historical Arthur, an Arthur that serious historians don't know if he actually existed, they portray a heroic man, a man that kills only his enemies, and respects the honor of the women and the sanctity of children. Right. That's what we want to happen in war, but that 's not reality. Malory is closer to the truth than the movie biz. War is brutal, and brutality is not just an attribute of the 'enemy,' but anyone who engages in it. There is little chivalry in Malory's 15th century account, and there is little chivalry in actual war. So, Hollywood, spare us the "300"s and all the other "heroic" tales. Give us something real. Give us an "Apocalypse Now," not "The Legion." Give us "The Deer Hunter" updated; give us something real and gritty. Give us an Arthur that is willing to ship the progeny of his kingdom in order to "save" the kingdom (he ultimately fails, of course). If I see one more glorified legend released during the time of an inglorious war (all wars are inglorious), I'm boycotting the studio that produced it.

Doh!

I saw Defense Secretary, Gates, on "Meet the Press" this a.m. I must admit he is absolutely refreshing after the almost cartoonish Rumsfeld (you know, V.P. Cheney's nomination for "the best Secretary of Defense this country has ever had," an accolade from Cheney at Rumsfeld's resignation ceremony). Personally, I think Rumsfeld should have traveled to wherever he hails from "by light of [his] own burning effigies" as an unpopular Civil War general noted about himself when he was removed from his post and traveled from Kansas to Boston.

Gates played his cards close to the vest, but did note that he was incredibly unhappy with the Iraqi government's decision to go on vacation when Baghdad's citizens are suffering the majority of the day and night without electricity in 130 degree heat. He apparently told the government of Iraq that "their vacation would be paid for in the blood of fallen Americans." Not to mention Iraqi civilians and Iraqi troops and police. (Read Treasure of Baghdad's blog about the ineffectual government: his blog is linked to this one)

Gates also noted, rather cryptically, that "things would change," if Petraeus' report was negative." Do tell. We would like to have more detail, Secretary Gates, on what those changes would entail. Don't tell us your battle tactics: give us the broad strokes. We KNOW the report will not be good, regarding Baghdad and the military relations with the government—that's a given—but what are we to do? Withdraw? Chaos. Stay? Chaos. Withdraw to the borders and let the sects and groups slug it out? Chaos and unethical. Overthrow Maliki? Chaos and hypocrisy (like we see in Gaza). What exactly do you have to threaten the Iraqi government with? The government that refuses to work on the division of oil profits (at this point, what oil? The sabotage and inability to fix the sanction-damaged equipment has strangled oil production). That Americans are going to leave? Maliki said that would be fine, that the Iraqi government could handle an American withdrawal. That America will withdraw financial support? That sounds familiar, sort of like sanctions, and there are plenty of bad actors that will funnel money to their proxies in Iraq. What's the plan? We, and Iraqis, want a plan. You know, the "plan B" that in the past was the same as plan"A" and better be different now? Even Homer Simpson has a plan B, albeit "we move to Alaska, where you can never be too fat or too drunk." (See the Simpson movie. It is a scathing commentary on the mismanagement of the war by "the suits." There is even a depiction of the outrageousness and the affront that is the "Green Zone," but I won't give it away. I hate it when people give away an entire movie I haven't seen.")

The complexity of this war is mind-boggling, and I wouldn't want to be in Gate's shoes for any amount of money. But I hope his clarity and seeming honesty manifest in some sort of solutions, solutions that are spelled out for the American and Iraqi public.