Sunday, November 12, 2006

Hiatually speaking

Quiet, I have been. Not because I'm taking Yoda-speak lessons. Nope. Even better. I've been walking dogs. Twice weekly, even, for an hour and a half a pop. Why, you ask? Why have you forsaken your appointed blogdom post? Well, because.

Because my son is a freshman in the Scholars Program at Triton College. And as part of that program, he needs to put in 24 hours of "service learning" aka volunteering at something mildly charitable or noble or not having to do with normal selfish teenage pursuits. Alas, he does not drive so I am continuing my noble volunteer pursuit of driving him around, not only to school but to his service learning.

Good news is he's volunteering at the Animal Care League in Oak Park. The kids and I are all animals geeks, with dogs being our particular beasts of choice. And I've always wanted to volunteer at ACL but never made the time to do so. So, yippee! I get to meet new dogs and walk them and play with them, er, exercise and socialize them.

Jon is hanging out in the Cat Room, interestingly enough. Interesting to me, anyway. He's allergic to cats, enough so that we had to give our cat, Mimi, away many years ago. But he's enjoying this twice weekly venture into cat culture, psychoanalyzing each cat with his newfound wisdom from Intro to Psych.

That was a rather long-winded way of saying that my writing time has been short-circuited by my dog walking time. So I haven't had a chance to write about many events of late. Of course, I'm thrilled with the election results. We spoke decisively (ok, 40% of us spoke) against the war in Iraq, and Bush's leadership of same.

And Bush's response? Gotta ditch that Rumsfeld. But he didn't even do that in a timely fashion designed to help the Republicans. Did he truly believe right down to the end that the US supported his war, such that he didn't need to sacrifice Rumsfeld? Probably so. He's as stubborn as a mule. I'd impugn his intelligence with a comparison to same, but am not sure who might be more insulted, man or beast.

Now that we've passed through the obligatory kissy kissy bipartisan make nice phase, the very hard and challenging work of the Democrats begins. How DO we fix the mess we've caused in Iraq? Will the Iraq Study Group come up with a unanimously workable solution? And will Bush buy into it, particularly if it includes (as has been hinted at) working with Iran and Syria, and a sooner-rather-than-later withdrawal of troops?

Is the removal of Rumsfeld merely a bone thrown to the masses? It won't surprise me if it turns out to be a false attempt at appeasement, meant to mislead us into thinking he is ready to change the philosophy under which this administration has run this war. "See? Look. I
tried to follow the desires of the American People. I got rid of Rumsfeld. But I can't bend anymore. Gotta stay the course and not negotiate and not leave until we win . . . ."

The dim light that I see in all of this is Bush 41. Gates? Baker? GHW Bush 41. I don't think it's likely that GW Bush 43 would be bringing in his papa's team unless he plans to listen to them and use them. Too much of a slap in the face to 41. And 41 is a pragmatist. No fool, he didn't want to attempt this war during his years. He and his team knew better.

Perhaps Father Knows Best after all?