As suggested, here's my diary
"I have to believe" - but truncated and re-titled with a new poll.
Many bits or bytes of news come flying through the ether as I listen to radio in the backgound. Occasionally, one of these bits or bytes sticks in my mind's craw. I can't absorb it, neither can I disgorge it. Here's two examples:
- A couple of weeks ago, NPR interviewed Senator Daschle, who took two or three calls from listeners - one call asking him about false intelligence on WMD. Daschle's response has stuck in my mind ever since: "I have to believe" (here I must paraphrase) that the President sincerely believed in the "intelligence" submitted to the Congress on Saddam's WMD.
- More recently, I hear Bush making a statement on the passing of Pope John Paul II, saying, "a good and faithful servant of God has been called home." There are many reasons why this statement sticks in my craw, but a leading reason is the fact that Senator McCain's Roman Catholic christianity was attacked to defeat McCain in the Carolina primary in Y2K . . .
Yes, one big reason for my discomfort with Bush's pious statement on the passing of John Paul is how his campaign back in Y2K made unethical use of Senator McCain's Roman Catholic christianity in order to defeat McCain in the Carolina primary in Y2K so as to assure the nomination of George W. Bush. Not to mention the attack on the sincerity of Daschle's own Roman Catholic christianity by the radical right --
WEEKLY STANDARD
Now, how do these two craw-sticking statements relate to each other? How and why do I find a convergence of import and implications? It has to do with the "have to believe" thing -- do you, dear reader, ever indulge in "have to believe"?
_______
"HAVE TO BELIEVE" AND ELECTION FRAUD
zentiger has posted a comment in the recent free-for-all of 500+ comments following the very brief diary by 3¢ NEW REPORT says PRES 04 vote outcome 1 in a million with a decidedly eloquent (IMHO) have-to-believe statement, as follows:
I either need to believe that my country, the country that my ancestors have built over 400 years, has turned to Fascism as the answer, or that the American voice has been silenced.
I am playing Jefferson:
"I deem ... essential ... a jealous care of the right of election by the People--a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided..."
to your Hamilton:
"Your People, Sir--your People is a great beast!"
Others -- while unwilling to submit to election fraud -- simply DO believe that Bush won by a substantial majority in 2004. Still others simply do not find the Edison-Mitofsky.pdf report to be the most effective tool or weapon with which to prosecute our election integrity campaign.
Myself, I apply a reductionist method and focus on Ohio. And I simply have to believe, based on the fact that Ohio alone could have tipped the election to Kerry, that the electoral college vote was rigged in 2004 as it was in Y2K with Florida. Regardless of the national popular vote count.
That doesn't mean that Kerry would have had a "mandate." It just means that Kerry should have had a chance. I would even equate that to "our constitutional democracy should have had a chance."
KERRY'S HAVE-TO-BELIEVE
In the 500 + comments following the very brief diary by 3¢ NEW REPORT says PRES 04 vote outcome 1 in a million there was some condemnation and some consideration of Kerry's too-easy concession immediately after the election. There's also been, all around the iNet, some condemnation and some consideration of Kerry's concession. I do believe in the philosophy of "moving on" as learning from the past while also studying the present to see what opportunities present themselves, rather than focusing on the obstacles only. So, I pointed out in a 4-rated comment titled "Remember the Precautionary Principle" as follows:
[T]his isn't a Democratic Party issue at all -- it's a non-partisan all-American issue. That is an unforeseen positive outcome of Kerry's decision -- that now the Ohio case (the point project for the election integrity issue) cannot be framed as a "sour grapes" Demo thing. We are in an alliance with the Greens and Libertarians around this! That means that we are potentially in an alliance with dissenting (thinking) Republicans and with independents! That means that maybe, just maybe -- if we pursue our election integrity campaign vigorously and effectively and starting IMMEDIATELY -- we CAN WIN THIS!
BACK TO DASCHLE ON WMD AND "REVEREND" BUSH ON JOHN PAUL II
Why does Daschle "have to believe" in the sincerity of Bush about the WMD's? Would he also believe in the sincerity of Cheney in allowing Halliburton insider standing in the non-competitive award of what will probably add up to $ billions in Iraq contracts? Would he believe in the sincerity of Senator Frist when Frist made absurdly opportunistic statements about the late Terri Schiavo?
Here's where the two statements -- the one by Daschle and the one about John Paul II by Bush -- converge. Other senators, even a vice-president -- these are still mere humans, whereas a PRESIDENT is like a Pope (human, yes, but authorized and charged with superhuman duties). Let's rephrase the question about WMD as "have to believe in the sincereness of the President of the United States." It has to do with the old saying, "I may not respect the man, but I have to respect the office." That's what it comes down to. Daschle has to believe whatever he has to believe in order to perpetuate what many (including myself) would call the American myth of the "god-king-president."
There is, however, a fundamental contradiction between democracy and any central authority that isn't strictly accountable to the people in real time. The SOVEREIGN in any analysis of the modern nation-state is the PEOPLE, not the President. Just as the Pope, although the head of the Church, doesn't equate to the Church -- so, too, the President, although the "head" of the people cannot equate to the people. This distinction was manifest in Daschle's treatment of requests in early 2002 by both Bush and Cheney to restrict the scope of any congressional investigation of the 9/11 events so as not to "take resources and personnel away from the effort in the war on terrorism." Daschle, while never doubting the sincerity of Bush in making that request, (never doubting that it could not be politically motivated), stated, as quoted by CNN.com
Daschle said [that] he has not agreed to limit the investigation.
"I acknowledged that concern, and it is for that reason that the Intelligence Committee is going to begin this effort, trying to limit the scope and the overall review of what happened," said Daschle, D-South Dakota.
"But clearly, I think the American people are entitled to know what happened and why," he said.
It has to be noted that Daschle has taken his faith -- in what I guess must be called the "goodness" of any U.S. president -- to its logical conclusion that Bush is an incompetent commander-in-chief. As quoted at
PeaceQuotes website
This president failed so miserably in diplomacy that we are now forced to war.
I guess this could be a way to retaliate against the "Why do you HATE Bush so much ploy?" -- "I don't hate him, I just feel sorry for him and for the country that he's been an incredibly incompetent Commander-In-Chief and a terrible diplomatic failure in gathering allies to support our efforts in this war."
You could say that all the senators that voted for the Iraq invasion must have been equally incompetent, but it was the President that sent the "intelligence" to the Senate and it is Bush who should be held accountable for presenting it as factual, if not for fabricating it. Bush is a broken link in the three-link chain of the separation of powers.
NOTE: As suggested by comments to my diary "I have to believe" I have divided that diary into three diaries of which this is the first.