ENLARGING THE PRESIDENTIAL TALENT POOL

I have played sports and followed sports all my life, but I am not that keen on using any sports analogy to illustrate a political point. Sports analogies often make sense only to sports-crazed guys—and leave most women and the non-sports-crazed guys scratching their heads. To paraphrase Joe Theismann, you don’t have to be a genius like Norman Einstein to dream up a sports analogy.

Still, there are times when a sports analogy makes perfect sense. For example, in sports, when owners and coaches must choose between bigotry and winning, most of the time they choose to win. Typically, they want to put the best talent on the field or court. That means playing the best athletes, regardless of color or ethnic origin.

Most young people today find it hard to imagine professional sports without black athletes, but if you are as old as I am you remember the times well enough. The transition was anything but easy. In the end, integration substantially improved the teams and the leagues.

How is this relevant to presidential politics? Obviously, it invokes the candidacy of Barack Obama, but it could just as easily invoke Hillary Clinton who represents many millions of female Americans. Though women don't participate in mens' sports, they participate in politics. Why should women be excluded from the presidential sweepstakes? Why, indeed.

Until now, every one of our presidents has been a white guy. Some of us believe it’s time to look beyond the white guy talent pool. Others disagree. As bad as things are now in America, those others are still more comfortable with a white guy in the Oval Office than a black guy or a woman. Making the American "team" better is less important than maintaining the status quo. Decide for yourself why they think the status quo is so peachy.

Here are a few examples from sports history where the desire for success trumped bigotry.

Jackie Robinson, Brooklyn Dodgers—"You can hate a man for many reasons. Color is not one of them"

Before Jackie Robinson broke into Major League Baseball on April 15, 1947, white racists maintained that black players—then called Negroes in polite speech—simply were not good enough to play at the big league level. Seriously. Robinson hit .297, had 175 hits, and stole 29 bases his rookie season, and went on to a 10-year, Hall of Fame career as a Dodger second baseman. He was Rookie of the Year in 1947, National League MVP in 1949, and a six-time National League all star. Once Robinson stripped away the competence objection, the racists were stuck with one thing: bigotry.

The quote above is by Dodger shortstop Pee Wee Reese, a native of Kentucky who never shook hands with a black person before he met Robinson.

George Preston Marshall, Washington Redskins—Burgundy, gold and Caucasian

George Preston Marshall was the long-time owner of the Washington Redskins. He was an ardent segregationist. The Redskins were the last team in professional football to acquire a black player, a receiver named Bobby Mitchell. Because D.C. Stadium was publicly-owned, the U.S. Department of the Interior forced Marshall in 1962 to integrate the team. In 1961, the lily-white Redskins had a 1-12-1 record.

Bill Russell, Boston Celtics—Three at home, four on the road, and five when you’re behind

Back in the 1960s, every black NBA player was familiar with this quip, but I believe Bill Russell was the first to introduce it to the general public. It had to do with how many black players you could put on the court at one time. At a home game, you could only start three black players; on the road, you could start four. If your team fell behind during the game, it was OK to have an all-black lineup.

Marlin Briscoe, Denver Broncos, and James Harris, Buffalo Bills—Integrating a white position

Until 1968, all starters at the quarterback position in the NFL were white. Quarterback was strictly a white position. Marlin Briscoe of the Broncos was the first black quarterback to start an NFL game. A year later, James Harris of the Bills was the first black to start the season at quarterback. Supposedly, no black athlete was intelligent enough to lead a football team.

Check your current NFL rosters. There are plenty of black quarterbacks today. What were we thinking back then?

Al Campanis, Brooklyn Dodgers—Necessities

Finally, there is the sad case of Al Campanis, a friend and former minor-league teammate of Jackie Robinson, and the Dodgers general manager from 1968 to 1987. On the 40th anniversary of Jackie Robinson's first MLB game, Campanis was asked by Ted Koppel on Nightline why there were so few black managers and executives in baseball. Campanis said that blacks "may not have some of the necessities to be, let's say, a field manager, or, perhaps, a general manager" for these positions. He resigned under pressure two days later.

I call it a sad case because by all accounts Campanis was a good baseball man and a decent person—hardly a classic bigot. It just goes to show how racism can be deeply ingrained in even the best of white people.

So you are thinking: What is your point, O.P.?

This is my point: America is the "team," and after eight years of Bush-Cheney-Republican misrule, America is the equivalent of the 1-12-1 Washington Redskins. We suck. It's time for a new general manager, a new coaching staff, and better players. We need more talented people at all levels of government. We need to put our best players on the field.

If we do, we'll get better results.

Obama is not perfect. If elected, he's going to make mistakes. Even the great Jackie Robinson went 0-3 in his first game at Ebbets Field. Still, Obama is a quantum leap better than John McCain who wants to crown his 52 years on the federal payroll with the presidency.

Let's put this kid into the starting lineup and see what he can do. If Obama performs well, as I believe he will, he'll open the door even wider for other blacks, for other ethnic minorities, and for women. And 40 years from now, our children and grandchildren will wonder what the fuss was about.


Feedback:

If you have an opinion about this essay, I would like to hear from you. Let's talk. Contact me at oregonpundit@efn.org. Thanks!

IRONY ALERT—HIGH OIL PRICES SCUTTLE THE ATTACK ON IRAN

Why Bush folded on Iran by Juan Cole (Salon)

In my last post, I wrote about the Bush White House sending an envoy to Geneva, Switzerland, to meet with Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator. Why the sudden switch in policy by the White House? Why discussions instead of a preemptive attack? It turns out the high oil prices that are crippling our economy and the world economy are the primary reason for the policy switch. An attack on Iran would only serve to drive prices higher. Even slow learners Bush and Cheney understand that. Therefore, it now appears there won’t be an attack on Iran.

This good news—coupled with the news that Ehud Olmert will stand down as prime minister of Israel in a couple of months—means that Iran is now off the neoconservatives’ regime-change check list.

We have five months to go. Never say never, but right now we have some grounds for optimism.

I had a hunch that high oil prices were the main reason Bush and Cheney capitulated on their hard line against Iran, but looking from the outside in I had no evidence to back up my hunch. Almost a week has passed. Most experts now concur it is a Bush-Cheney capitulation to reality.

Juan Cole summarizes the situation in his Salon piece. Cole concludes with these words:

The U.S. has therefore simultaneously been interfering with the availability of cheap petroleum products globally and making the case for military action against Iran less compelling. Both the U.S. and its European allies know that the negative fallout from a war could be immense. Its effect on the world oil supply would be catastrophic. Iran's perennial threats to close the Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Persian Gulf in the event that it is attacked have to be taken especially seriously when oil supplies are as tight as they are now. Some 40 percent of the world's petroleum flows through that choke point, and any significant interruption of supply under today's conditions could send prices skyrocketing so far as to threaten the world with another Great Depression. In short, Iran is far more powerful when petroleum is $127 a barrel than when it is $25 a barrel, and that power makes it more prudent to negotiate with it than to rattle sabers. The opening to Iran was not a victory of the realists, but of realism. That in the aftermath, Bush's Iran policy looks more like that of Barack Obama than that of John McCain, is just an indication that Obama is more realistic about the increasing constraints on U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle Eastern oil states than is McCain.

THE REAL REASON OIL PRICES ARE GOING THROUGH THE ROOF

There is one topic that has been on my mind continually for many weeks: an American or American-Israeli attack on Iran before the end of the Bush administration. I think about it every day. I believe such an attack plan is in place, ready to go. How do I know? I don’t know, but given the history of the Bush administration and based on the way the Bushies think and do business, I think an attack is more probable than merely possible.

Oil Prices: Two Parts Calculation, One Part Speculation

What does the probability of an attack on Iran have to do with high oil prices? No more than old fashioned supply and demand, plus the weak American dollar, I am sure. Those two factors are driving up the price, too. The difference is there are no verifiable metrics to evaluate speculation about some possible catastrophe in the future. You can measure supply and demand and you can measure the impact of our falling dollar in the oil markets. However, you cannot measure the odds that Bush and Cheney will go for broke in the final days of their administration and launch an attack on Iran.

The price of oil peaked at $147 a barrel on July 11, 2008. According to one expert, at least $30 of that peak price was attributed to speculators betting on American hostilities against Iran. On July 15th, the Bush White House announced it would send a diplomatic envoy to Switzerland to participate in talks focused on Iran’s nuclear program—talks that include Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator. This move by Bush had an immediate effect on oil prices. On July 23rd, the price was $127.

The decision to send an envoy to Switzerland calmed the markets immediately. It burst the oil speculation bubble. Supply and demand and the weak dollar had little to do with the sudden $20 drop in price.

How long the markets stay calm is a good question. It may be a short-term respite. Should the attack option reappear, the speculators will be back to once again bid up the price.

Why all the speculation? Think about it. If you know for a fact that Iran will be attacked before January 2009, you also know for a fact the price of oil will be driven up to record levels. Conversely, if you know Iran is completely safe from attack, what is your incentive to bet the farm on oil futures?

It is said that Dick Cheney and his neoconservative allies in America and in Israel are dead set on attacking Iran in the next few months. Cheney is an effective inside operator. He usually gets his way with Bush. That’s why attacking Iran is still a viable option.

Stupid Wingnut Logic

Meanwhile, the conservatives are trying to pin high gas prices on Barack Obama. I found the following article in the online version of Forbes magazine to be quite amusing. Notice how it reads more like a doctrinaire talking point than a true analysis (emphasis mine):

Why has the price of oil been going up this year? Galloping Asian demand, fears of scarcity, tensions in the Persian Gulf, the bruised dollar, terrorist attacks on pipelines—they're all likely suspects. But those usual explanations can't fully explain the second-quarter surge. Or the odd shape of the oil-futures price curve, which suggests the market thinks the price could spike later this year, then fall and return to today's prices by 2012.

Don't pin this one on speculators. Blame Barack Obama.

How's that? Ehud Ronn, an economist and director of the Center for Energy Finance Education & Research at the University of Texas, says the kink in futures prices, a condition known as contango, fits precisely with the theory that traders believe a U.S. military attack on Iran is more likely after the election than before. The futures price of oil spikes in early November. Inference: The market believes that Obama, the likely Democratic choice, will win. "If the Republican candidate is elected, the thinking goes, the Administration will say, 'This is your baby, you handle it,'" Ronn explains. "But if the Democrat is elected, they'll say, 'We can't trust him, we'll handle it ourselves.'"

Iran is fanning those fires, testing longer-range missiles and threatening to sink the U.S. Fifth Fleet in the Gulf. [Huh?]

Oil futures have been in contango since mid-May, in contrast to their usual state, known as backwardation, where prices continually drop from the current spot price. At the same time implied (annualized) volatility, reflecting the oil market's expectations about price fluctuations, is running around 45%, 15 points above normal levels. That's odd, given that oil supplies are plentiful and there's a surplus of gasoline in the U.S., Ronn says.

For further confirmation of the Obama/Iran theory, check out Intrade.com, a Dublin Web site, where people wager on world events—as in the possibility of an air strike on Iran by the U.S., Israel or both. While the Sept. 30 $10 contract trades for $1.25, the Dec. 31 $10 contract costs $2.70.

Think about that the next time you fill your tank.

Oh, please. If I am a serial killer, is it your fault if you fail to stop me before I kill again? Will the authorities arrest you instead of me?

This "argument," thrown up against the wall by Daniel Fisher, demonstrates in a concise nutshell how these guys think. In order to think like a doctrinaire conservative, follow these guidelines:

• Determine the intellectual outcome you want.
• Once you determine how you want your argument to end, work backwards to find the supporting evidence that validates your preferred outcome.
• As for contrary evidence, either (a) ignore it altogether or (b) depict it in the most absurd manner possible.
• Be sure to insert some gratuitous fearful imagery as this will encourage your audience to suspend disbelief.
• Shape your conclusion in the form of a conservative talking point.

Stop the Insanity

OK, that's enough silliness for today. Let's be serious. Fisher is absolutely correct when he says an attack on Iran is in the works. Forget the "Blame Barack Obama" meme. We need to get our arms around this problem, and do what we can to prevent an attack. As with many of our problems, our problem with Iran can be traced to the Office of the Vice President. If we are not going to impeach Dick Cheney (thanks, Madam Speaker), can we put him in a rubber room for the next five months? Can we send him to Jackson Hole for a permanent vacation?

Once we pry Dick Cheney's cold, dead hands from our foreign policy rudder, oil will settle into a more reasonable market price. Until then, oil traders will continue to use anti-Iran hysteria to enrich themselves.

BOLLIXED

Maliki Votes for Obama by Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post)

Instead of turning Iraq into an American colony where American energy corporations can just help themselves to Iraqi oil, and the American military stands guard for Israel in the heart of the Middle East, Bush and Cheney inadvertently created a new, predominantly Shiite nation that is destined to be a close ally of the predominantly Shiite nation of Iran. Bush and Cheney keep talking about Iraqi sovereignty, but they really don’t mean it. Remember the purple fingers? It’s just White House B.S.

Bush and Cheney never intended Iraq to be anything more than (a) an American oil patch and (b) an aircraft carrier the size of the state of California. But Bush and Cheney are as stupid as they are selfish. They screwed up—Big Time. And we hardworking taxpayers, plus our children and grandchildren, are stuck with their mess.

Some people are simply incapable of learning from their experiences. Charles Krauthammer and his neoconservative pals have learned nothing from the past seven years of Bush-Cheney misrule. They are still fighting the old Soviet Union—or whatever big bad wolf is standing in for the Soviets these days. Their Iraq adventure is in ruins. The results they expected turned out to be the polar opposite. This is what happens when stupid, greedy people are allowed to do anything they want.

One more thing—Krauthammer needs to find a new line of work.

MEET THE NEW BOSS

American voters and foreigners with an interest in our presidential campaign are slowly coming to the realization that Barack Obama will be the new boss in 2009. While there is no guarantee Obama has the election in the bag, the uninspired performance of the McCain campaign indicates there is no way John McCain is going to beat Obama in a straight-up battle on an level playing field. Obama is simply too well organized and too careful with his words to blow his chances.

McCain, on the other hand, is presiding over a disfunctional, gaffe-prone organization that seems to be banging on one cylinder. McCain himself appears to be a washed-up shell of the 63-year-old campaigner who wowed the press corps and a lot of independent voters during the 2000 campaign for the Republican nomination.

As the McCain campaign bleeds slowly to death, those individuals, corporations, and members of the media who want a place at the table next year are trying to make their peace with Obama and his entourage. The same can be said for foreign leaders. As Obama travels across South Asia, the Middle East, and Europe this week, our friends and enemies are viewing Obama as the new sheriff. They are sizing him up. American foreign policy will move in a different direction, and the rest of the world is trying to get ahead of the curve.

Everyone except the unreconstructed racists will be buttering up the new boss. Even the neocons who got us into our mess of unending war will try to influence Obama in some way. I don't applaud or condemn this state of affairs. That's just the way it is, for better or worse.

WHEN IRAQIS STAND UP, WE STAND DOWN

U.S., Iraq Scale Down Negotiations Over Forces by Karen DeYoung (Washington Post) and Maliki and the Timetable: It's all about Blackwater by Madhavi Bhasin (juancole.com)

WASHINGTON, June 28, 2005 – On the one-year anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq to a transitional Iraqi government, President Bush tonight promised that U.S. forces would remain in Iraq until the job is complete, "but not one day longer."

President Bush told troops at Fort Bragg, N.C., June 28 that the terrorists in Iraq will fail. He said "terrorists do not understand America. The American people do not falter under threat. And we will not allow our future to be determined by car bombers and assassins."

In a nationally televised speech at Fort Bragg, N.C., the president cited progress in Iraq and emphasized that the best way to complete the mission is to help the Iraqi people build a free nation they can govern and defend themselves.

"The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists," he said. "And that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi security forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

American Forces Press Service—U.S. Department of Defense

We are exposed to so much speculation on cable news, the Internet, and in the traditional mainstream media, that it often takes us aback when we get actual hard news. This story is actual hard news.

The Bush administration's attempt to establish a de-facto colony in Iraq will be over at the end of this year. No kidding.

Why? Because the Iraqis want us to leave. It's that simple. Gee, who could have imagined....

I love this quote from the Washington Post article:

The failure of months of negotiations over the more detailed accord—blamed on both the Iraqi refusal to accept U.S. terms and the complexity of the task—deals a blow to the Bush administration's plans to leave in place a formal military architecture in Iraq that could last for years.

There will not be 58 American bases on Iraqi soil, though certainly there will be some bases. There will not be lawless American contractors operating with reckless abandon within Iraqi borders, though certainly some American contractors will remain.

While U.S. bases were an issue, the intense Iraqi outrage over American contractors really scuttled the deal. The Post article alludes to the tension over contractors, but in a guest post on Juan Cole's Web site, Informed Comment, Madhavi Bhasin fingers Blackwater as the main reason the status of forces discussions failed. Bhasin says,

The Iraqi Government has come to realize that the U.S. is attempting to run the Iraqi state through private contractors who cannot be held accountable for their misdeeds.

and

Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater has been a major financial supporter of the Republican Party. Hence Republican Presidential candidate John McCain is an obvious supporter of Blackwater. Even Democratic Presidential candidate Barak Obama has refused to rule out the deployment of private security companies in Iraq. Prime Minister Maliki has realized that the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq is a lucrative business venture for the American private firms like the Blackwater Worldwide. Echoing the popular sentiment the Iraqi Foreign Minister stated that there will not be ‘another colonization of Iraq.’ This is precisely the reason that Iraq has demanded more time for discussions on the Status of Forces Agreement with the U.S.

I wonder where Bush's head was six years ago today. On July 13, 2002, did he have any idea just what would happen if we invaded Iraq? We now know—according to multiple sources—that by mid 2002 Bush had already made up his mind to go into Iraq. What was he thinking? Was he thinking at all? (Don't answer that.)

As Bush himself said in 2005, "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." That day will arrive a couple of weeks before he leaves office. A sad day for Bush, but a happy day for us.

I would like to close with this question: How did America come to be ruled by this simpleton, George W. Bush? Considering his privileged upbringing, his prep school and Ivy League education and training, and his life-long association with society's elites in business and government, this "man" is still a child. Emotionally, he seems to have the self-image of a person who sees himself as the action hero of a comic book adventure. Our problems are too great and the presidency is too important for us to ever again put our confidence in such an immature person.

BRASS TO BUSH: TAKE THIS WAR AND SHOVE IT

I can’t believe I am writing this. As a former military officer, the notion of not following an order is something I never considered personally. Even on my most uncertain days during the Vietnam War, I never asked myself, “Is this order the right thing to do?” Today’s top brass may not be so lucky. If the Bush White House orders a military strike on Iran, our most senior military commanders may threaten to resign en masse rather than carry out the order.

The fate of Admiral William Fallon, the CENTCOM commander who “resigned” abruptly on March 11, 2008, is a preview of the big showdown. For months, Fallon annoyed the Bush White House (read: Dick Cheney) because he made frequent comments to the press about how an attack on Iran would make the U.S. military mission a lot harder. On more than one occasion, he said life in Iraq and Afghanistan was tough enough without starting a third war. Then Esquire published a long flattering profile of Fallon—and that was the last straw. Within hours, Fallon was fired. His replacement: Bush White House lapdog General David Petraeus.

Thomas P.M. Barnett of Esquire writes:

And so Fallon, the good cop, may soon be unemployed because he's doing what a generation of young officers in the U.S. military are now openly complaining that their leaders didn't do on their behalf in the run-up to the war in Iraq: He's standing up to the commander in chief, whom he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war.

As you can tell from the quote, clearly the writer and Admiral Fallon himself anticipated that the White House would pull the plug on Fallon. The White House got its way, but Fallon sent an important message to the White House and the world. Not every senior commander is willing to buy into stupid policies and execute stupid orders—just because that is what the White House wants.

Yesterday, I referred to the latest article by Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker. I hope you take the time to read the whole thing. Hersh has an extended riff about the predicament of Admiral Fallon:

Fallon’s early retirement, however, appears to have been provoked not only by his negative comments about bombing Iran but also by his strong belief in the chain of command and his insistence on being informed about Special Operations in his area of responsibility. One of Fallon’s defenders is retired Marine General John J. (Jack) Sheehan, whose last assignment was as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command, where Fallon was a deputy. Last year, Sheehan rejected a White House offer to become the President’s “czar” for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “One of the reasons the White House selected Fallon for CENTCOM was that he’s known to be a strategic thinker and had demonstrated those skills in the Pacific,” Sheehan told me. (Fallon served as commander-in-chief of U.S. forces in the Pacific from 2005 to 2007.) “He was charged with coming up with an over-all coherent strategy for Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and, by law, the combatant commander is responsible for all military operations within his A.O.”—area of operations. “That was not happening,” Sheehan said. “When Fallon tried to make sense of all the overt and covert activity conducted by the military in his area of responsibility, a small group in the White House leadership shut him out.”

The law cited by Sheehan is the 1986 Defense Reorganization Act, known as Goldwater-Nichols, which defined the chain of command: from the President to the Secretary of Defense, through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and on to the various combatant commanders, who were put in charge of all aspects of military operations, including joint training and logistics. That authority, the act stated, was not to be shared with other echelons of command. But the Bush Administration, as part of its global war on terror, instituted new policies that undercut regional commanders-in-chief; for example, it gave Special Operations teams, at military commands around the world, the highest priority in terms of securing support and equipment. The degradation of the traditional chain of command in the past few years has been a point of tension between the White House and the uniformed military.

“The coherence of military strategy is being eroded because of undue civilian influence and direction of nonconventional military operations,” Sheehan said. “If you have small groups planning and conducting military operations outside the knowledge and control of the combatant commander, by default you can’t have a coherent military strategy. You end up with a disaster, like the reconstruction efforts in Iraq.”

Admiral Fallon, who is known as Fox, was aware that he would face special difficulties as the first Navy officer to lead CENTCOM, which had always been headed by a ground commander, one of his military colleagues told me. He was also aware that the Special Operations community would be a concern. “Fox said that there’s a lot of strange stuff going on in Special Ops, and I told him he had to figure out what they were really doing,” Fallon’s colleague said. “The Special Ops guys eventually figured out they needed Fox, and so they began to talk to him. Fox would have won his fight with Special Ops but for Cheney.”

The Pentagon consultant said, “Fallon went down because, in his own way, he was trying to prevent a war with Iran, and you have to admire him for that.”

In the minds of many of our senior military commanders, it would be stupid to attack Iran. There is no article in the Uniform Code of Military Justice that says one has the right to disobey a stupid order. Ordinarily, one follows orders, period—even stupid orders.

While the Nuremberg Defense (Befehl ist Befehl = "Only following orders") does not excuse war crimes, how does the military deal with civilian stupidity on a global scale? They do what they are doing now—dig in their heels and try to shape policy from within the system. They speak truth to power, as Admiral Fallon did. Thanks to Fallon, others are showing more courage now. Eventually, speaking truth to power may become the norm.

If and when Bush finally gets around to ordering an attack on Iran, the brass might just say, "Take this war and shove it." It could happen. Resistence against Bush White House stupidity is reaching critical mass among our top military commanders. Mass resignations? Just the threat of mass resignations would be mortifying to the Bush administration. There is not enough time left for Bush and Cheney to punish the mutineers. Since Bush is the short-timer, the military has time on its side. Stay tuned.

FOUR CHARACTERS IN SEARCH OF AN AUTHOR OF OUR IRAN POLICY

Preparing the Battlefield by Seymour M. Hersh (The New Yorker) and Iran Red Lines by Laura Rosen (Mother Jones)

Will the United States or Israel—or the two nations jointly—attack Iran before Bush leaves the White House? I have read hundreds of articles and blog postings about this topic over the last year, trying to make sense out of all the speculation. Depending on your political viewpoint, an attack on Iran would be either a disaster or a godsend. However, everyone agrees such an attack has the potential to eclipse instantaneously all other issues—important issues such as the crumbling economy, universal health care, spiraling energy costs, and even the 2008 elections themselves. It would be a huge event with long-lasting global consequences.

This is a confusing topic, but I think I have finally figured out why it is so confusing. With rare exceptions, every article and blog posting I read about Iran assumes there are four main characters in this play. These are the characters:

• Bush White House
• Congress
• U.S. defense and intelligence establishment
• Israel

In the mainstream media and on the Internet, most of attention falls on the Bush White House and the Congress, and the endless back and forth between these two entities. It’s rare for us to hear about what’s really going on at DoD or with the intelligence agencies—because that is all very hush-hush. Every two or three months, Seymour Hersh comes out with a blockbuster story, such as this one, to bring us up to date. Finally, there is Israel—truly a wild card if there ever was one. Generally, the subject of Israel’s intentions against Iran is quite mysterious. I have been reading Laura Rosen for five years now, and I have found her reporting to be very reliable and accurate.

So, why is this so confusing? It is confusing because, in fact, there are only three characters in this play:

• Bush White House
• U.S. defense and intelligence establishment
• Israel

To understand what is going on, you need to take Congress completely out of the equation. A lot of the real and virtual ink has been spilled over the role of Congress. The truth is: Congress plays no role whatsoever in this drama. The president and his administration, the defense and intelligence establishment, and the Israeli leaders will do whatever they damn well please, irrespective of the wishes of our congressional “leaders.”

Once I removed Congress from the equation, and concentrated my attention on the three remaining players, much of the confusion cleared up immediately. The Bush White House wants war with Iran; the defense and intelligence services are opposed to war with Iran; and Israel—well, read Laura Rosen’s article for the latest informed speculation on what’s happening over there.

When it comes to an attack on Iran, don't pay any attention to Congress. They will have nothing to say about it.

THE SORROWS OF YOUNG SCOTT McCLELLAN

What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception by Scott McClellan

You never quite know what you're going to get with these political tell-all books. Some are written as a form of revenge; they are designed to be payback, pure and simple. Some are 300-400 pages of finger pointing. Some are vehicles for self-aggrandizement. Some are such bland sweetness and light they are hardly worth reading. Almost all these books are written for money—not that there is anything wrong with that. As a book genre, tell-all books are pretty far down on my list of priorities. They seldom lead to enlightenment.

When Scott McClellan’s What Happened hit the books stores, I was uncertain whether I wanted to bother. Everything I knew about him was based on his undistinguished role as the White House press secretary. He did not appear to be the sharpest knife in the drawer. McClellan was good at staying on message and endlessly reciting White House talking points, which is why Bush kept him around for three years, but those qualities did not endear him to me.

I bought the book and read it during the 10 days I was in Eugene for the track and field Olympic Trials.

What Happened is a much better yarn than I expected. The writing is quite good. I don’t know if McClellan has a previously-unknown flair for writing or if he is fortunate to have an extraordinary editor. It’s probably a combination of the two. McClellan handles the first-person narrative with more skill than one might expect from a first-time author. What Happened is not a hack job for the quick buck. He meant to write a serious book and I believe he succeeded.

McClellan describes his self development from the time he joined Governor Bush’s staff in 1999 as a naïve, idealistic communications apprentice to his departure from the Bush administration in 2006 as an experienced but thoroughly disillusioned press secretary. Sure, he has his whiny moments of self-pity. He blames others for events in which he bears at least partial responsibility. At times he seems to be as dim as Forrest Gump when old hands like Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Dick Cheney take advantage of his gullibility. Thankfully, those passages are infrequent. For the most part, McClellan is man enough to admit his mistakes, and courageous enough to point out where he and others deceived the American people.

McClellan is no philosopher. His observations and conclusions about politics are ordinary fare. If you are looking for political insight, you won't find it here.

On the other hand, if you approach this book as a non-fiction version of the bildungsroman (novel of formation), a literary genre that began in the German Enlightenment with Goethe, you might find yourself pleasantly surprised, as I did. What Happened is a true coming-of-age story. It is a perceptive, first-person account of McClellan's maturation in the rough and tumble world of politics. Though he is 31 years old when he joins Bush's staff in 1999, McClellan has a lot to learn about life. Put yourself in his company, and travel with him as he undergoes his seven-year journey of self-realization. From that perspective, the time it takes you to read What Happened will be well spent.

MIGHTY OREGON SWEEPS THE 800 METERS

Locals in 800 Meters Put on Show for Fans by Lynn Zinser (New York Times)

For me, the highlight of the Track and Field Olympic Trials so far is the 800 meters final Monday night. Three runners with an Oregon connection swept the event. The crowd at Hayward Field went nuts. I have never been in a louder place in my life. What a blast!

I am providing a link from the New York Times, which gives you a non-homer perspective. Here is some streaming video from the actual race, and this is a post-race interview.

I think it is significant that none of the three Olympic qualifiers is from the state of Oregon originally. Nick Symmonds is from Boise, ID, and attended Division III Willamette University in Salem, OR. Andrew Wheating is from Vermont and attended high school across the border in New Hampshire. He is a sophomore now at the University of Oregon. Third-place finisher Christian Smith is from Kansas. He was a star at KSU. A lot of world-class track athletes come to the Eugene area following college because it is an excellent place to train with and compete against other elite athletes.

Some Thoughts about the 800 Meters

Twelve years ago I wrote a reference book called Track and Field Record Holders. The book was purchased by several hundred libraries across North America. In my research, I remember reading an article about the 800 meters. The author of the article (I can’t remember who) was making the case that the 800 meters is the toughest race and the toughest record in all of track and field, including the marathon. His point: 800 meters is too long to be a sprint and it is too short to be a middle distance run. To prove his point, he cited the world record in the 800 meters at the time—1:41.73 by Britain’s Sebastian Coe—as “soft.”

According to the author, when compared to the 400 and 1500 meter world records using a mathematical progression, the 800 time should be under 1:40. Either the race is too daunting for 400 meter runners to move up to a longer distance or middle distance runners simply do not have the raw foot speed to excel at the 800. So what you get is a hybrid event of two different types of athletes: sprinters moving up and middle distance runners moving down.

From the mathematical angle, the author may have had a point. From the human angle, the reason the record—now 1:41.11 by Kenyan-born Wilson Kipketer of Denmark—is “soft” is because it is humanly impossible to sprint 800 meters. Thus, runners are forced to make strategic adjustments just to win their races. Because the 800 is so difficult—perhaps the most difficult in the entire sport—I think it will remain a distance where winning will always have priority over record times.

Diana Pickler clears the bar during the women's high jump in the heptathlon at the U.S. Olympic Track and Field trials in Eugene. Pickler tied her record in the event at 6 feet, ½ inch (1.84m). Photo: David J. Phillip, AP. For complete coverage of the trials, see The Register-Guard of Eugene, OR.

TIME FOR SOME FUN

Now that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have joined forces, the race for the White House is all but over, right? Well, maybe not, but I plan to take a little break from politics and enjoy the final eight days of the Olympic Trials in Eugene, starting tomorrow afternoon. I have a seat 15 rows up near the finish line. Life is good!

Update: I arrived in Eugene late Sunday afternoon. It was 89 degrees at Hayward Field, but it would have been about six degrees warmer had it not been for the heavy haze from the fires in California. The athletes were joking that they are just getting ready for the smog in Beijing.

Tyson Gay (see below) is the real deal. He smoked the field with an unbelievable time in the 100 meters of 9.68. When the number 9.68 flashed on the screen, my mind registered 9.86 because that is more in line with what I expected. The new track at Hayward Field is arguably the fastest track in the world. Unfortunately, Gay's time won't count because it was wind aided.










Finally, it is obvious the athletes themselves love competing in Eugene. The fans love the athletes and the athletes love the fans. The stadium seats are right on top of the athletes, and the crowd is very loud. Yesterday, in the men's long jump finals, the fans clapped rhythmically before each jumper began his approach to the board. They do this in every meet, I am told. The winning jumper, Trevell Quinley, pulled out a victory on his final jump. To thank the crowd for its inspiration, Quinley made a deep bow before the main stands, and then kneeled in prayer for nearly a minute. The fans gave him a standing ovation the entire time. That is a moment I will never forget.

Tyson Gay photo by Brian Davies of The Register-Guard.