Obedience.

I was in a medical waiting room the other day, the ubiquitous television tuned to "American Morning" or "Good Morning, America" or "American America - Great Day in the Morning" or whatever the hell they call that show with old Nixon crony Diane Sawyer, joined on that particular day by sit-in co-host (and old Clinton crony) George Snuffleupagus. Their two big stories were the intelligence reports about a resurgent Al Qaeda and the interim report on "progress" in Iraq. While those two stories are, by virtue of previous intelligence reports, intimately related, Sawyer and Stephanopoulos were careful to keep them in their separate silos. No chance that either of these seasoned journalists would, say, ask Michael Chertoff whether or not Al Qaeda's new strength was further evidence that the Iraq war is spawning a new generation of terrorism, drawing more people to extremism, and alienating those people in the middle east who might otherwise harbor some affection for us. I mean, we know that this stupid war is making terrorism worse - why do we pretend otherwise?

This thing the mainstream media calls journalistic objectivity amounts to basically wiping the slate clean before every story. Know-nothing journalism, that's what it is. So even a not overly subtle White House communications team can fill that slate with whatever dreck they want and watch it passed along to the viewing/reading/browsing public without significant challenge. For christ's sake, is it at all controversial to say that this war was not a good idea? More than 60% of the American people believe it was a mistake. That's landslide territory, last time I looked. So why in fuck's name can't the corporate media build on that foundation? Why do reports on Iraq always proceed from the administration-encouraged assumption that the conflict needed to be fought, that our intentions have always been good, and that the success of the U.S. project in Iraq is essential to both our country and theirs? Political figures give voice to this nonsense - but does anyone really believe it?

Even in the face of no significant progress on the "benchmarks", Bush demands patience. That's basically the only card he has left. He's got nothing to lose by taking that position because... well... he's got nothing to lose. He can't run for president again and he knows it's unlikely that he'll be impeached, so he's got the office for the next 18 months. And as long as he never admits failure, Bush can always tag the collapse of Iraq on someone else. It won't be down to him. It will be Congress's fault if they cut off funds and Iraq falls apart. It will be the Iraqis' fault if the money keeps flowing but the place implodes anyway. It will be the skeptics' fault in either case for draining the American people's will to "stay the course." And when he leaves office with the war still rolling lethally along, he leaves the mess to someone else who will take the blame for the ensuing disaster. For now, Bush and company are content to prolong the fiction that there can be a good outcome to this war for anyone besides Halliburton and Blackwater. If doing so kills another World Trade Center's worth of Americans between now and the end of his term, it's no skin off his nose.

Dubya's message for now is clear: our portion is obedience. Wait 'til September. And be kind of scared.

luv u,

jp