Statement to the County Board 12-27-05

Richard J. Garfunkel

 

Statement to the County Board of Legislators

December 27, 2005

 

Good Morning and Best Wishes to all of you in the coming year.

 

With regards to your consideration of raises reflective of your actions last week, I have a few suggestions for your considerations.

 

A)    The issues of raises should not be taken up after an election and in the last waning days of the session and term. With this action you are relying on the votes of lame-duck members. Also, for sure, new members should not be allowed to get this raise, and in fact, old members should not be allowed to get any raise until the end of the coming term. In other words this body should not be allowed to vote itself new raises. You ran for this current two-year term with the knowledge and proviso regarding the compensation it offered in the job description.

 

B)     By raising your salary to an amount that is commensurate with a % of the private sector, you should therefore be prevented by law from accepting any earned income from other employment or activities. Please take into consideration that this body is by definition non-profit, and non-profits pay lass salaries then are paid in the private sector. If you chose this option this raise would go into effect in January of 2008 with cost of living increases of 2.5% in each year after, unless amended by a future legislature. With regards to amending the 2.5% increases, the Board should do it two years hence or be allowed to increase it before the election of 2008 with the proviso that it will have a predetermined cap.

 

C)    If this body refuses to exclude the right to earn outside income, I recommend that you institute a 6% raise. In this way you would have been able to retroactively increase your salaries for 3% for each of the two years starting in January 2006. This raise would go into effect in year 2008, along with an annual cost of living increase of 2.5% each year until 2010 and beyond. If this current Board wishes to amend the current 2.5 % increases, which would mirror the current rate of inflation, an increase should be recommended and voted on before the election of November 2007. In this way the public maybe be in better position to judge the efficacy of the increase, reflective of inflation. Please understand the 2.5% floor increase would always remain in affect.

 

In conclusion a majority of you have full-time jobs and through these positions you receive, benefits that include 401Ks, profit-sharing plans, and health benefits. In no way should a full-time employee take benefits from the public sector, which is offered to you from the private sector. It is patently wrong that you should be saving money for you company or yourself and billing the citizens of Westchester County. This is a position of choice and not necessity. You are first a public servant here. With regards to a person that is retired, or chooses to work full-time here, that is your decision. Therefore a retiree should not have health benefits paid once on Medicare. If a person chooses to give up their other positions and work here full-time, please remember you are voluntarily putting in extra hours and should not be compensated for non-funded overtime. If you do not have other health insurance you should be allowed to join the County group plan and be held to whatever rules that an average worker is bound by.

 

Obviously the cost of government is both necessary and an ongoing burden to the taxpayer. Unfortunately, its need for greater tax increases, are putting greater and greater burdens on our fixed and lower income residents. Private homes do not generate income for its owners. If property taxes, that include onerous school tax increases continue to rise above the rate of inflation, and the ability of a vast amount of our homeowners to raise their compensation continues to be limited, the middle class will be forced to move. As a result will have more gentrification and a greater divide between rich and poor. It is up to you people to be a guardian of the public welfare and needs. Therefore I hope that you will set a strong example of being sensibly frugal and penurious with your selves, and therefore be more able to run this county in a more fiscally secure way.

 

 

 

King Kong, gthe Jewish Museum and E. Houston Street 12-26-05

King Kong, the Jewish Heritage Museum and E. Houston Street

 

Richard J. Garfunkel

December 26, 2005

 

 

Well Christmas and Hanukkah came into town not with the melodious sounds of Bing Crosby crooning Irving Berlin’s standard but more like Gene Kelly’s romp through puddles in Singing in the Rain. Of course to some wags in the newsrooms this was the first time these two gift-giving Holidays coincided since either 1997 or 1959. Of course Christmas seemed to come earlier this year. At one time holiday decorations would wait until Thanksgiving to be festooned from every stanchion and light pole. But this year, despite the high cost of electricity, the holiday seemed to take life not long after Halloween. Unfortunately the criticality regarding the profligacy that accompanies the holiday season was jeopardized by the ill-timed and abortive transit strike. The fiasco that threatened to quash New York’s merriment ended as abruptly as it started this the union head, Roger “I Get No Respect” Toussaint, shot himself in the driver’s pedal foot. With a sudden declaration that the executive board voted for the transit men/women to go back to work, all of the workers did, but with the unhappy reality that their Christmas stockings would be quite a bit lighter.

 

In the meantime my daughter Dana came to the Tarrytown with three friends from Boston. Of course they were here to see the big town all decked out with boughs of holly and attend the annual Jewish single’s fandango called the “Matzo Ball.” For all which that event is made up to be, it could be more accurately re-named the “Matzo Farfel!”

 

So the day after the “Ball” was over, on Christmas Day we all went to see King Kong III. Of course expecting huge lines and a madhouse at the theater we bought our tickets on line. But, lo and behold, despite the deluge, the lot was not crowded, the multiplex was not jammed and the line for the latest chapter of “Kong Meets the Blond” was sparse. Of course all of you remember the original, King Kong Merion C. Cooper’s epic masterpiece, which we just finished watching tonight on Turner Classic Movies. The current edition is much more loyal to that version and it is not a “tongue and cheek” updated, “politically correct” statement on the environment and fossil fuel. But of course, in retrospect, maybe the Charles Grodin, Jeff Bridges, and Jessica Lange romp around the ill-fated twin towers had a more significant message then “it was beauty that killed the beast!”

 

Naomi Watts looks a good deal like Fay Wray, who starred in the 1933 classic, and recently died in 2004 at the ripe old age of 97. Vina Fay Wray, who was born in Alberta, Canada, moved to Arizona with her large family and then on to Los Angeles. She entered films at the tender age of 13 and in 1926 she was chosen as one of 13 starlets picked to “make good” by the Western Association of Motion Picture Advertisers. Along with Janet Gaynor, winner of the first Academy Award for Seventh Heaven (and other works), and Mary Astor the co-star with Humphrey Bogart in the Maltese Falcon, Fay Wray hit pay dirt playing Ann Darrow in the first King Kong. The action and special effects in Kong III are quite remarkable, so if you go, be prepared to hold on to your seats and enjoy the ride.

 

After the excitement of King Kong, a large Chinese meal and the continuing and unrelenting rain we made our way back down route 9a to Tarrytown and a warm evening of Bond movies on Spike TV’s 8 days of James Bond.

 

Today was no different when it came to the weather. We made plans to drive downtown to the Jewish Heritage Museum on Battery Place. The traffic was light, and by the time we reached lower Manhattan the rains had abated. The Museum is directly south of the famously expensive Stuyvesant High School and the American Express Building. It is a relatively quiet area on a holiday afternoon and it sits right on the Hudson facing both Jersey City and the Statue of Liberty. Again, there were no crowds and the museum was pretty much all to ourselves. Its main focus is the story of the rise of anti-Semitism in Germany and the ensuing Holocaust promulgated by Nazi forces and their Fascist allies. But there is much on Jewish cultural life in Europe and the Americas during the period 1880-1930 that preceded the Holocaust, and of course, the end of the war victory and liberation along with re-birth of Judaism. What also impressed me was the new section devoted to the American Jewish contribution to the War effort. Over 550,000 Jews served in World War II, a higher percentage of individuals than any other ethnic or religious group. Over 11,000 Jewish servicemen and women gave their lives for their country and 55,000 received decorations. There were many pictures of World War II veterans adorning the walls. Most were of average Americans citizens doing their duty, but two stood out to me, former mayor Ed Koch, a sergeant in the US Army in Europe, and Robert Morgenthau, the long-time District Attorney of Manhattan County and the son of Henry Morgenthau, Jr., who was an officer in the United States Navy and one of the museum’s founders.

 

There is a lot to see there and a great deal to learn and re-learn. On one hand, we always must re-visit the struggle to preserve our own freedom to be ourselves, and on the other hand, we must not forget the contribution free men and women made to save the world from the dark night of Nazi tyranny.

 

After our adventure of coming to grips with the past, we headed over to Katz’s Delicatessen on East Houston Street. Our guests from Boston had never visited this classic gastronomic landmark that has been serving New Yorkers since 1888. Besides gaining recent notoriety in Harry Met Sally, Katz’s Deli famous for the often-quoted line, “send a salami to your boy in the Army,” has been host to numerous Presidents and foreign dignitaries. Of course adorning the walls near us were pictures of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachov, and of course Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I am not sure whether FDR ever got down to Katz’s Deli, but right nearby is a beautiful park named after his wonderful mother Sara Delano, who contributed time and money to the East Side Settlement houses.

 

Of course our group had the obligatory half-sour and sour pickles, matzo ball soup, corned beef and pastrami sandwiches, and French fries that were washed down by Dr. Brown’s black cherry and cream soda. Even at 3:00pm in the afternoon, Katz’s was very crowded. Finally after an hour of gorging we were able to finally stand up and crawl our way out to the car. We drove the gals up to Madison and 51st Street where they were able to walk over to the stores and see the holiday festooned windows and we headed back to Tarrytown and an evening with Fay Wray.

 

  

 

 

Holidays on the Hudson 12-19-05

Holidays on the Hudson

Richard J. Garfunkel 12-19-05

The Hudson River Museum is an enchanting place nestled into the banks of the Hudson in northern Yonkers, not to far south from the Village of Hastings. Linda and I invited Warren and Mary Adis to join us for the day on a sojourn to this wonderful hidden jewel yesterday (Sunday). Its off Route 9 and when one drives past Saint John's Hospital and turns down the steep Odell Avenue hill one will find Warburten Avenue, that parallels the mighty Hudson.

We were virtually alone as we sauntered through their exhibition of still photos from the archives of many of DW Griffith early film works. But the focus of the museum was the works of the famous celebrity photographer George Hurrell (1904-1992).

As Esquire Magazine said about him, “A Hurrell portrait is to the ordinary publicity still what a Rolls Royce is to the roller skate.” And, of course the great Mae West said, “George's work throughout the years reminds me that too much of a good thing can be wonderful.” Unfortunately, the show was devoted to Hurrell's men only (and that was fitting in more ways then one) and his fabulous photos of the great Greta Garbo, Jean Harlow, Marlene, Joan Crawford, Rita Hayworth, and Katherine Hepburn, among others were left for another day and visit. But it did feature fabulous pictures of a handsome young Gary Cooper, a remarkable one of Johnny Weissmuller in a pre-Tarzan, Paris-Olympic's study, Robert Taylor, the great Leslie Howard, the oily Adolph Menjue, an early Clark Gable, Franchot Tone, Tyrone Power and Loretta Young (how did she get in there), the garrulous Wallace Beery, and a plethora of other luminaries of the silver screen. It's too bad I didn't take any photo's of those shots. But if you open the attachment you can see pictures of the Victorian Home that abuts the museum and its fabulous rooms festooned for the holidays.

It is always exciting to see these magnificent relics of the Gilded Age, still preserved as they were a century ago and in their holiday finery. One can just imagine the warmth of the fireplaces and the smell of mistletoe and candles wafting through the air.

Happy Holidays

 

 

The Hudson River Museum is an enchanting place nestled into the banks of the Hudson in northern Yonkers, not to far south from the Village of Hastings. Linda and I invited Warren and Mary Adis to join us for the day on a sojourn to this wonderful hidden jewel yesterday (Sunday). Its off Route 9 and when one drives past Saint John's Hospital and turns down the steep Odell Avenue hill one will find Warburten Avenue, that parallels the mighty Hudson.

We were virtually alone as we sauntered through their exhibition of still photos from the archives of many of DW Griffith early film works. But the focus of the museum was the works of the famous celebrity photographer George Hurrell (1904-1992).

As Esquire Magazine said about him, “A Hurrell portrait is to the ordinary publicity still what a Rolls Royce is to the roller skate.” And, of course the great Mae West said, “George's work throughout the years reminds me that too much of a good thing can be wonderful.” Unfortunately, the show was devoted to Hurrell's men only (and that was fitting in more ways then one) and his fabulous photos of the great Greta Garbo, Jean Harlow, Marlene, Joan Crawford, Rita Hayworth, and Katherine Hepburn, among others were left for another day and visit. But it did feature fabulous pictures of a handsome young Gary Cooper, a remarkable one of Johnny Weissmuller in a pre-Tarzan, Paris-Olympic's study, Robert Taylor, the great Leslie Howard, the oily Adolph Menjue, an early Clark Gable, Franchot Tone, Tyrone Power and Loretta Young (how did she get in there), the garrulous Wallace Beery, and a plethora of other luminaries of the silver screen. It's too bad I didn't take any photo's of those shots. But if you open the attachment you can see pictures of the Victorian Home that abuts the museum and its fabulous rooms festooned for the holidays.

It is always exciting to see these magnificent relics of the Gilded Age, still preserved as they were a century ago and in their holiday finery. One can just imagine the warmth of the fireplaces and the smell of mistletoe and candles wafting through the air.

Happy Holidays

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.

Testimony at the Westchester County Board 12-19-05

Richard J. Garfunkel

 December 19, 2005

 Testimony at the Westchester Board of County Legislators Chambers:

Good Morning-

My name is Richard J. Garfunkel, a life-long resident of Westchester County, now residing in Tarrytown, NY.

 I have had the pleasure of working in politics and government, along with my wife Linda, who was an administrative assistant to Congressman Richard L. Ottinger from 1974-81, from 1969 through my role as campaign manager for Greenburgh Supervisor Paul Feiner in and during this past election cycle. In fact, I was the campaign manager for my good friend Marty Rogowsky when he ran for the Assembly in 1976.

 I come here this morning to voice my opposition to the proposed salary increases for members of the County Board of Legislators. Generally speaking I am opposed to the growth of unnecessary spending in government. Recently, during the summer, we were all enlightened by a strong and detailed op-ed by Milton Hoffman, a former editor of the Gannet-Westchester chain regarding the expensive layering of both municipal and education districts. I advise all of you to read or re-read that excellent piece.

 Here in Westchester we face very high local taxes that are serving as a catalyst to dividing this county into the very rich and the very poor. Property taxes are driving more and more elderly away from their families, and also are creating an economic climate where young adult children cannot afford to move back into this county to be near their parents. In other words the “tax and spend” cycle continues unabated and is driving the cost of living skyward.

 I believe that if you raise your salaries, for basically a part-time position you will be sending the wrong signal to other public officials, both elected and appointed that they have a license to demand more and more. Where should this all end? Should it end with a taxpayer revolt that could force binding legislation to cap all increases? Will it drive more people and businesses from Westchester? Will it send a signal that no one in office really cares except to feather his or her own nest? Each time you run for public office, you accept the current salary that is listed, as part of the job qualification. You have a choice not to and retroactive pay increases, reflective of the past, are non-existent in the private sector.

 Currently this legislature is one of the highest paid in New York and certainly one of the very highest in any county around these United States. If your record on cost containment was stellar, if tax increases were moderate and in line with inflation, if Playland Park was operating in the black, if the County Hospital was not a money pit, if traffic congestion and pollution wasn’t becoming onerous and a threat to the quality of life, if school taxes weren’t the highest in the nation, if duplication of service wasn’t rife, if we had affordable housing for seniors, young adults, civil servants and municipal workers I would say you deserve what you

Are being paid today. But unfortunately the record and responsibility of this Board has not reflected that.

 In the memory of the late William Proxmire, one of our greatest legislators on the national level, start looking for the “golden fleece” that abounds in Westchester, and start making government more efficient and responsible. Democrats should not be the party of “tax and spend”, but the party of innovation, and efficiency. Currently we are in an era of $500 billion Federal deficits, an $8 trillion National Debt and the cut back of more and more essential services that impact on the lives of the average citizen. It is time for the Democratic Party to show its leadership in being more concerned with the average citizen then rationalizing pay increases that rival the “private sector.” If you feel that you cannot devote the time without the added compensation retire. As president Truman famously stated, “If you can stand the heat in the kitchen, get out.” Also he said “The buck stops here.” Please stop passing the buck!

 I would take an example from Supervisor Paul Feiner, and establish cost savings and innovative goals, which involve a myriad of examples. I would promise to give back part of my salary, as he has done, if these goals have not been achieved. Government is a “public trust” not a business career of high salaries, benefits, perks for showing up and hidden compensation for doing one’s job. Look in the mirror and reflect are these incredible increases justified and will they send the wrong signal to the rest of the public sector that there is no cost containment in government.

 RJ Garfunkel   

Champagne, Oysters and the Harvard Club 12-13-05

Champagne, Oysters and the Harvard Club

December 13, 2005

Richard J. Garfunkel

 

 

Not far west on 44th Street, just past Brooks Brothers and J.Press stands that bastion of the Cambridge Ivy League in New York, the stately Harvard Club. The Harvard Club was founded in 1865 by a small group of alumni who were interested in perpetuating the Harvard spirit in New York. Eventually within the year there were about 98 members who met regularly at the Delmonico’s restaurant and other locations. By the early 1890s with 600 members, a permanent location was picked out 44th Street where a block of stables existed.

 

At number 27 West 44th Street, with the gift of a design by the celebrated architect Charles McKim, who himself was a club member; the Georgian-facade style club arose in 1894. Today it is a landmark (designated in 1967) and it’s interior is festooned with artifacts from the 1850’s which chronicle Harvard’s illustrious past.

 

It was a cold late afternoon as I parked in the packed Tarrytown RR Station area. It was much easier to take the rails into the city, at this time of the year, then to fight rush hour traffic. So it was on to the 4:47pm Hudson Line train. It pulled into the station, which sits in the shadow of the Tappan Zee Bridge, right on time. I put my heavy British warmer onto the rack with my brown broad-brimmed western hat from Sedona, and sat down with my half-read book by Jerry Lewis, Dean and Me, (A Love Story). We made excellent time and before long I was walking out into the frigid but windless air of Vanderbilt Avenue near 43rd Street. I walked briskly up to 44th Street and West to Fifth. Lo and behold at the corner was Linda who met me at Fifth. I would have been a minute or so earlier, but I had stopped to gawk at the jackets in J. Press. Wow! There wasn’t a jacket under $500 and some of the pants were over $250. I’ll never give away some of my better clothes again. She had walked down from 55th Street and we were to meet a Barnard colleague at 6:00pm.

 

Of course we waited and waited, and during those few minutes I scouted around looking for a portrait of FDR that I seen many years before. Linda and I had been to dinner there as guests of my brother-in-law Charles Hale, a graduate of the business school and my sister Kaaren. The club’s entrance was different then and I was later told it had been expanded quite a bit. As I recalled there was an oil painting of FDR in an undistinguished place near the stairway to the restrooms. Of course that was way back in the early 1970’s when Nixon was president. In my search I was gratified to see it on the main wall of the restaurant in a much more prominent place. The Harvard Club has all of its university presidents honored along with other famous alumni like FDR, JFK and Theodore Roosevelt. 

 

When her friend did not show up we checked our coats and went back to the incredible Harvard Hall room that featured a huge Christmas tree, five bourses with different champagnes, and beds of ice covered by oysters. Besides those goodies there were veggies and cheese platters galore. Before long we found her friend, who had missed the train from Larchmont and had driven instead, No wonder she was late. Along with us there were 277 others. The party was sold out to capacity and everyone who registered came to the event. In other words it was crowded and the food was consumed as if a swarm of locust had landed.

 

We had fun, met some interesting people, took some pictures and generally enjoyed the happening. Upon returning from taking a picture of the World War II Memorial Bronze, which listed the men of Harvard that gave their lives in the war, (President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Class of 1904 and his sixth cousin Theodore Roosevelt Jr., class of 1909 were listed) I saw Linda talking to this dark-skinned man with a colorful Sephardic-style kipa on his head. Well I quickly found out that he was one Dr. Ephraim Isaac, president of the Yemenite Jewish Federation of America, and he was the Director of the Institute of Semitic Studies in Princeton, NJ. Of course our long and great friends Lynne and John Weiner had taken part in operation Magic Carpet, in 1949, which had eventually evacuated 48,818 Yemenite Jews, with the help of Alaska Air Lines (believe it or not) and their chief pilot Robert Maguire. Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurian called Bob Maguire, who died in June of 2005, at the age of 94, the “Irish Moses”. He had directed almost all of the 430 flights and was so well regarded that Leon Uris based a character on him in his prize-winning novel Exodus. Dr. Isaac was very excited to hear that our friends had the only films of that effort. Lynne, a reporter by training was a young wife of World War II veteran, John Weiner, Captain USA (retired) from Livingston Manor, NY. Lynne, who was the daughter of the famous psychiatrist Philip Lehrman, and had sat on the laps of both Sigmund Freud and George Gershwin (try to beat that) had brought her 16” mm movie camera with her to Israel, and they hopped a ride with Bob Maguire to Yemen. We promised to inform the Weiners of Dr. Isaac’s interest in their film, and of course, Lynne, who has written a book about her exploits, wants to find new venues for her work. Therefore my next assignment is to get them together!

 

So as we talked, on and on, the Champagne was quaffed, the oysters slurped, the canapés were gobbled and a good time was had by all.  By 8:30pm we decided to catch the 8:48 pm from Grand Central, and we hustled out into the bone-chilling night air of 44th Street. Next stop Tarrytown! 

FDR and the Nazi Threat 12-7-05

Franklin Roosevelt and the Nazi Threat

From: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Champion of Freedom

By Conrad Black-

Comments by RJ Garfunkel

 

“Roosevelt had recognized from the earliest moments of the Third Reich that Western democracy could not coexist with it. He came to believe, by early 1939 at the latest, that the United States would be required to be the indispensable force to rid the world of Nazism and it would emerge not only as a post isolationist country bat as the pre imminent nation on earth. Supreme political artist as he was, he cannot have failed, by the beginning of 1939, to have glimpsed this destiny that would carry his country to heights no nation had ever occupied and himself to a position in American history, rivaled, if at all, only by Washington and Lincoln.

 

British historian D.C. Watts wrote ‘His personality was overpoweringly regal; his advisors constituted a court rather than a cabinet. His closest supporters complained that he deliberately concealed the processes of his mind, and that he never talked frankly, even with the people who were loyal to him. He displayed to them a mass of conflicting characteristics, not so much ill balanced as constantly shifting in balance*

 

            *In consistent in his inconsistencies, cold and distant behind the warmth of personality with which he could overwhelm even the most hardened visitor, listening always to some private voice whose tones we can recognize but never overhear, and whose advice we can imagine but never verify, his protean, almost chameleon like changes, his hesitancies, his willingness to leave initiative to others, the freedom with which he abused others for not acting with the strength he was not prepared to display himself, all this is difficult to reconcile with the reputation he has enjoyed as the great leader of the democracies. And yet a great leader he certainly was.

 

 

Like an agile predator, he knew when to emerge, reveal his design, and execute it. And once determined to lead opinion and implement a policy, he was unflappable, devious, utterly determined, an unusually inspiring. Now, in early 1939, his course, though indiscernible to others, was clear to him. It could be summarized in six points.

 

First, he had to complete the conquest of the Depression by arming America.

 

Second, he would arrange a virtual draft to a third term as the candidate of peace through strength.

 

Third, he would complete the acquisition of an overwhelming level of military might.

 

Fourth, and assuming a new world war was already in progress, he would engineer righteous hostilities with Germany and the lesser dictatorships, ensuring that the dictators would be seen as the aggressors.

 

The fifth stage would be winning the war and leading the world to a post imperial Pax Americana, in which, sixth, Woodrow Wilson’s goals of safety for democracy and international legality would be established in some sort of American-led international organization.

 

Nothing less can explain Roosevelt’s conduct from Munich on. No other American leader has ever conceived an immensely ambitious plan for making over the world.

 

Hans Dieckhoff, the German ambassador in Washington up into late 1938, recognized that Roosevelt had a ‘pathological hatred’ of Hitler, and was ‘Hitler’s most dangerous opponent,’ The President had persuaded the ‘credulous and mentally dull American people’ that Germany was ‘America’s enemy number one.’ The observant chargee Hans Thomsen headed the Embassy after the withdrawal of Dieckhoff. Thomsen constantly warned the Wilhelmstrasse and the Reichsfuerher himself that Roosevelt sought the ‘annihilation of Nazi Germany and the nullification of the New Order in Europe.’ Thomsen also predicted that Roosevelt would, in the event of war, try ‘creating the conditions for, and a skillful timing of, the entry in to war on their side (Germany’s enemies’) side.’ He cleverly foresaw that ‘Roosevelt will not neglect the possibility that as Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces he has the power to issue orders which in the course of execution might lead to the creation of a state of war. In the face of this Congress is powerless.’ Thomsen told Berlin that Roosevelt has ‘pathological hatred’ of Hitler and Mussolini, and even predicted that Roosevelt, in furtherance of his goals, might seek a third term as president.

 

The duel between Roosevelt and Hitler would become increasingly elaborate, like a primeval war dance, until the two mortal enemies came to grips with each other.”

 

 

Comments by Richard J. Garfunkel:

 

I selected these passages from Lord Black’s marvelous book on Franklin Delano Roosevelt because I felt it summed up quite well the complexity of his character, his underlying goals that were well masked, and his determination to find a way to lead the world in eliminating the scourge of Hitlerism.

 

Many have tried to capture the elusive personality of the great man. James MacGregor Burns in his seminal histories of FDR, The Lion and the Fox, and the Soldier of Freedom, attempted to capture the essence of his underlying strategy of both weathering and conquering the Depression and bringing a lethargic, isolationist America into the mindset of becoming the Arsenal of Democracy. America always had been a haven for escapists that were able to runaway from the political, social and religious ravages of the Old World. America had always been able, in a simpler time, able to rely on two vast oceans to protect it from foreign threats. But be that as it may, the threat to the stability of Europe, the specter of war and its possible impact on the Americas started to emerge with the rise of dictators across Europe. As a result of the First World War, old empires and dynasties had crashed and new states in this post royal age emerged with fragile semi-democratic governments. The struggles of nationhood, along with the onset of the worldwide Depression brought in a new age of strongman rule. Eventually the model of the corporate or fascist state that had emerged in Italy with Mussolini started to be replicated throughout Eastern Europe. Some were amalgams of various peoples like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, and others were more homogenous states like Hungary and Bulgaria that were carved from old empires. But whether they were fascist, or semi-fascist or Kingdoms that struggled to keep its warring and contentious minorities separated they were all vulnerable to the greater desires and objectives or the larger totalitarian states, Germany and the Soviet Union.

 

Franklin Roosevelt, like few other western leaders, was able to see the threat of this trend. He attempted, against great odds, to craft a position contrary to the conventional Western trend of know-nothingness. That thinking set the stage for his famous, but ill-fated speech in Chicago. In Roosevelt’s famous “Quarantine Speech” of October 5,1937, the President said:

            The epidemic of world lawlessness is spreading. When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, the community approves and joins in a quarantine of the patients in order to protect the health of the community against the spread of the disease.”

 

This was delivered almost two years before the outbreak of the Second World War and it brought almost universal condemnation by a vast number of America’s editorial pages. It stimulated cries from the isolationist right for his impeachment and American Liberty Lobbyists and other xenophobic groups criticized it as warmongering. His remarks and their reaction reflected his future uphill battle in alerting America to the threat from overseas, the difficulty of repealing or working around the Neutrality Act, and the challenge of re-arming the country and building up its preparedness. It was another difficult lesson that FDR learned in his difficult second term. He had always said that a leader must be careful not to get so far ahead of his constituency so that when he looks back he can see none of his followers. FDR learned that harsh lesson with the Federal Court Re-Organization Plan, known as the Court Packing, and his attempt to intervene in Democratic Primaries before the 1938 mid-term elections. His attempt to rid the party of its right wing Neanderthals in both the north and south backfired badly.

 

As we all know too well, the 20th century and its age of invention brought the world much closer together. The malevolent forces, that had always been out there, and for a long time were insurmountable distances away, started to encroach on the Western Hemisphere. Roosevelt understood more then anyone that it would take great personal skills to keep this country armed, unified and motivated in order to protect and defend not only itself, but also, its friends, fellow democracies, and allies from being overwhelmed.

 

Of course his deception, and seemingly subtle and not so subtle half-truths masked his plan to arm America, help our allies and keep his political friends and enemies guessing.

As it was said by James MacGregor Burns, “while he never formalized his highly personal methods of political administration, and indeed ignored all abstract formulations of administrative problems, he probably was well aware of the justification of his methods in terms of his need to keep control of his establishment. Certainly he hid not embrace unorthodox managerial techniques out of ignorance of orthodox ones.”

Basically much of the criticism of FDR’s style of management came from people who misunderstood the complexity of the political world that he was dealing with. Harold Smith, who became budget director in 1939, had difficulty with FDR as an administrator. At first he was disconcerted, along with many of subordinates over what he and others saw as erratic methods. Years later, as the size and immensity of the job Roosevelt faced, fell into a more focused view and retrospective, Smith told Robert Sherwood that Roosevelt “may have been one of history’s greatest administrative geniuses, ‘He was a real artist in government,’ Smith had concluded.

 

Of course on the other hand, FDR engendered much frustration over his methodology with the closest of his associates. As the world hurtled toward international fratricide in the last year of peace in 1939, Harold Ickes, one of his most loyal soldiers (The father of Clinton advisor Harold Ickes Jr., who, lived from1874-1952, was Secretary of the Interior from 1933-46 and was cum laude from the 2nd graduating class from the University of Chicago, was an independent progressive that supported Republicans and others but was drawn to Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. He remained closely aligned with the Progressive movement through the 1920’s, but grew frustrated at trying to “progressivise” Republicans and eventually headed up the Western Independent Republican Committee for Roosevelt in 1932.), who was known as “Honest Harold,” blurted to FDR’s face, “You are a wonderful person but you are one of the most difficult men to work with that I ever known!” FDR answered, “Because I get too hard at times?” Ickes answered, “No, you never get too hard but you won’t talk frankly even with the people who are loyal to you and of whose loyalty you are fully convinced. You keep your cards close up against your belly…” If the President would confide in his advisers, Ickes went on, their advice would prevent him from making mistakes. Roosevelt took the criticism with good humor- but did not change his methods. (The Lion and the Fox, James MacGregor Burns)

 

Of course this reflects part of FDR’s strength and weaknesses. FDR was able to depend on a coterie of extremely loyal and discreet people were part of his inner circle and team. But he was always quite cautious about revealing his intentions or complete plans. Maybe he was innately distrustful. He was brought up as an only child and kept his thoughts to himself. He was not a complainer and at an early age he had a broken tooth and an exposed root and refused to tell his mother. Though vulnerable throughout his life to numerous attacks of poor health, his strength of mind and body always helped him to rebound quickly. When after years of being around adults, (he did not go to Groton until he was 14 years old), he came in contact with his own peers in school and made a great effort to ingratiate himself. Quite often, as part of the hurly-burley of youthful expressiveness, his classmates rebuffed him. Many of his fellow classmates had already established friendships years before young Franklin entered Groton. It seemed that his difficulty with his peers extended to college, and it was there he was blackballed in his attempt to get into the exclusive eating club Porcellian. But he did get along with young fellows at school. He had sensitivity towards them as a young man and many appreciated that concern. One younger boy at Groton, Sumner Welles, adored FDR and later on he became his valued Under Secretary of State. FDR had a stubborn “Dutch” streak as he liked to say, and he established early on in his social; and political career a strong sense of secrecy. Even his engagement to the young Eleanor Roosevelt was kept secret for a year. He did not confide in people normally and if he did it was “off the record,” a political idiom that he coined. Throughout his career FDR had a penchant for secrecy and veiled his true purposes with guile, duplicity, and charm. Many left his office convinced that they had “captured” his ear. But of course he had a tendency to say to his guest the he “understood,” their positions. Most assumed that he had them with the impression that he “agreed” with them, but in fact Roosevelt was saying that he understood their positions.

 

To be continued… rjg

 

 

 

Letter to the Journal News -The Bush Disaster- 12-8-05

December 8, 2005

 

Letter to the Editor

 

The current road show of both the President and his Secretary of State that has taken him to the Naval Academy and the Council of Foreign Relations, and Ms. Rice to Kiev, and to Germany to speak to the new German Chancellor Angela Merkel is a cynical effort to obfuscate the real issue of their continuing failures at home and abroad. Even though Ms. Rice has attempted to shift international concerns about human rights abuses to the chastising of the Russian government, and Mr. Bush, in his own inimical fashion, has tried to convince us that we have “turned the corner” in Iraq, the truth is quite different. Whether we are not “stuck” in the tar baby morass that Iraq has become or whether we can shift the subject of our own nefarious tactics regarding prisoners to the subject of protest groups in Russia begs the issue. No matter how many trips abroad, and empty speeches that preach to the choir promising the classic “light at the end of the tunnel,” the truth is that this administration has basically been a failure of mismanagement, incompetence and forthrightness. It has supported itself with lies, have-truths and chicanery right from the beginning. From their record of planting phony news stories, to their linkage of terrorists with the Baathists, to their lies about Iraqi WMDs, to relying upon nefarious Iraqi double dealers, the record is clear. As Lincoln said, “It is true that you can fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”  The continued failure by the Bush Gang to manipulate the news has not lessened worldwide terror, it has not made us safer, and it has cost too many American lives and treasure by ill thought out adventurism. Hopefully the American people will rise up in righteous indignation come 2006 and start the process of long-needed change.

 

Richard J. Garfunkel

 

FDR and the Nazi Threat 12-5-05

Franklin Roosevelt and the Nazi Threat

From: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Champion of Freedom

By Conrad Black-

Comments by RJ Garfunkel

 

“Roosevelt had recognized from the earliest moments of the Third Reich that Western democracy could not coexist with it. He came to believe, by early 1939 at the latest, that the United States would be required to be the indispensable force to rid the world of Nazism and it would emerge not only as a post isolationist country bat as the pre imminent nation on earth. Supreme political artist as he was, he cannot have failed, by the beginning of 1939, to have glimpsed this destiny that would carry his country to heights no nation had ever occupied and himself to a position in American history, rivaled, if at all, only by Washington and Lincoln.

 

British historian D.C. Watts wrote ‘His personality was overpoweringly regal; his advisors constituted a court rather than a cabinet. His closest supporters complained that he deliberately concealed the processes of his mind, and that he never talked frankly, even with the people who were loyal to him. He displayed to them a mass of conflicting characteristics, not so much ill balanced as constantly shifting in balance*

 

            *In consistent in his inconsistencies, cold and distant behind the warmth of personality with which he could overwhelm even the most hardened visitor, listening always to some private voice whose tones we can recognize but never overhear, and whose advice we can imagine but never verify, his protean, almost chameleon like changes, his hesitancies, his willingness to leave initiative to others, the freedom with which he abused others for not acting with the strength he was not prepared to display himself, all this is difficult to reconcile with the reputation he has enjoyed as the great leader of the democracies. And yet a great leader he certainly was.

 

 

Like an agile predator, he knew when to emerge, reveal his design, and execute it. And once determined to lead opinion and implement a policy, he was unflappable, devious, utterly determined, an unusually inspiring. Now, in early 1939, his course, though indiscernible to others, was clear to him. It could be summarized in six points.

 

First, he had to complete the conquest of the Depression by arming America.

 

Second, he would arrange a virtual draft to a third term as the candidate of peace through strength.

 

Third, he would complete the acquisition of an overwhelming level of military might.

 

Fourth, and assuming a new world war was already in progress, he would engineer righteous hostilities with Germany and the lesser dictatorships, ensuring that the dictators would be seen as the aggressors.

 

The fifth stage would be winning the war and leading the world to a post imperial Pax Americana, in which, sixth, Woodrow Wilson’s goals of safety for democracy and international legality would be established in some sort of American-led international organization.

 

Nothing less can explain Roosevelt’s conduct from Munich on. No other American leader has ever conceived an immensely ambitious plan for making over the world.

 

Hans Dieckhoff, the German ambassador in Washington up into late 1938, recognized that Roosevelt had a ‘pathological hatred’ of Hitler, and was ‘Hitler’s most dangerous opponent,’ The President had persuaded the ‘credulous and mentally dull American people’ that Germany was ‘America’s enemy number one.’ The observant chargee Hans Thomsen headed the Embassy after the withdrawal of Dieckhoff. Thomsen constantly warned the Wilhelmstrasse and the Reichsfuerher himself that Roosevelt sought the ‘annihilation of Nazi Germany and the nullification of the New Order in Europe.’ Thomsen also predicted that Roosevelt would, in the event of war, try ‘creating the conditions for, and a skillful timing of, the entry in to war on their side (Germany’s enemies’) side.’ He cleverly foresaw that ‘Roosevelt will not neglect the possibility that as Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces he has the power to issue orders which in the course of execution might lead to the creation of a state of war. In the face of this Congress is powerless.’ Thomsen told Berlin that Roosevelt has ‘pathological hatred’ of Hitler and Mussolini, and even predicted that Roosevelt, in furtherance of his goals, might seek a third term as president.

 

The duel between Roosevelt and Hitler would become increasingly elaborate, like a primeval war dance, until the two mortal enemies came to grips with each other.”

 

 

Comments by Richard J. Garfunkel:

 

I selected these passages from Lord Black’s marvelous book on Franklin Delano Roosevelt because I felt it summed up quite well the complexity of his character, his underlying goals that were well masked, and his determination to find a way to lead the world in eliminating the scourge of Hitlerism.

 

Many have tried to capture the elusive personality of the great man. James MacGregor Burns in his seminal histories of FDR, The Lion and the Fox, and the Soldier of Freedom, attempted to capture the essence of his underlying strategy of both weathering and conquering the Depression and bringing a lethargic, isolationist America into the mindset of becoming the Arsenal of Democracy. America always had been a haven for escapists that were able to runaway from the political, social and religious ravages of the Old World. America had always been able, in a simpler time, able to rely on two vast oceans to protect it from foreign threats. But be that as it may, the threat to the stability of Europe, the specter of war and its possible impact on the Americas started to emerge with the rise of dictators across Europe. As a result of the First World War, old empires and dynasties had crashed and new states in this post royal age emerged with fragile semi-democratic governments. The struggles of nationhood, along with the onset of the worldwide Depression brought in a new age of strongman rule. Eventually the model of the corporate or fascist state that had emerged in Italy with Mussolini started to be replicated throughout Eastern Europe. Some were amalgams of various peoples like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, and others were more homogenous states like Hungary and Bulgaria that were carved from old empires. But whether they were fascist, or semi-fascist or Kingdoms that struggled to keep its warring and contentious minorities separated they were all vulnerable to the greater desires and objectives or the larger totalitarian states, Germany and the Soviet Union.

 

Franklin Roosevelt, like few other western leaders, was able to see the threat of this trend. He attempted, against great odds, to craft a position contrary to the conventional Western trend of know-nothingness. That thinking set the stage for his famous, but ill-fated speech in Chicago. In Roosevelt’s famous “Quarantine Speech” of October 5,1937, the President said:

            The epidemic of world lawlessness is spreading. When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, the community approves and joins in a quarantine of the patients in order to protect the health of the community against the spread of the disease.”

 

This was delivered almost two years before the outbreak of the Second World War and it brought almost universal condemnation by a vast number of America’s editorial pages. It stimulated cries from the isolationist right for his impeachment and American Liberty Lobbyists and other xenophobic groups criticized it as warmongering. His remarks and their reaction reflected his future uphill battle in alerting America to the threat from overseas, the difficulty of repealing or working around the Neutrality Act, and the challenge of re-arming the country and building up its preparedness. It was another difficult lesson that FDR learned in his difficult second term. He had always said that a leader must be careful not to get so far ahead of his constituency so that when he looks back he can see none of his followers. FDR learned that harsh lesson with the Federal Court Re-Organization Plan, known as the Court Packing, and his attempt to intervene in Democratic Primaries before the 1938 mid-term elections. His attempt to rid the party of its right wing Neanderthals in both the north and south backfired badly.

 

As we all know too well, the 20th century and its age of invention brought the world much closer together. The malevolent forces, that had always been out there, and for a long time were insurmountable distances away, started to encroach on the Western Hemisphere. Roosevelt understood more then anyone that it would take great personal skills to keep this country armed, unified and motivated in order to protect and defend not only itself, but also, its friends, fellow democracies, and allies from being overwhelmed.

 

Of course his deception, and seemingly subtle and not so subtle half-truths masked his plan to arm America, help our allies and keep his political friends and enemies guessing.

As it was said by James MacGregor Burns, “while he never formalized his highly personal methods of political administration, and indeed ignored all abstract formulations of administrative problems, he probably was well aware of the justification of his methods in terms of his need to keep control of his establishment. Certainly he hid not embrace unorthodox managerial techniques out of ignorance of orthodox ones.”

Basically much of the criticism of FDR’s style of management came from people who misunderstood the complexity of the political world that he was dealing with. Harold Smith, who became budget director in 1939, had difficulty with FDR as an administrator. At first he was disconcerted, along with many of subordinates over what he and others saw as erratic methods. Years later, as the size and immensity of the job Roosevelt faced, fell into a more focused view and retrospective, Smith told Robert Sherwood that Roosevelt “may have been one of history’s greatest administrative geniuses, ‘He was a real artist in government,’ Smith had concluded.

 

Of course on the other hand, FDR engendered much frustration over his methodology with the closest of his associates. As the world hurtled toward international fratricide in the last year of peace in 1939, Harold Ickes, one of his most loyal soldiers (The father of Clinton advisor Harold Ickes Jr., who, lived from1874-1952, was Secretary of the Interior from 1933-46 and was cum laude from the 2nd graduating class from the University of Chicago, was an independent progressive that supported Republicans and others but was drawn to Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. He remained closely aligned with the Progressive movement through the 1920’s, but grew frustrated at trying to “progressivise” Republicans and eventually headed up the Western Independent Republican Committee for Roosevelt in 1932.), who was known as “Honest Harold,” blurted to FDR’s face, “You are a wonderful person but you are one of the most difficult men to work with that I ever known!” FDR answered, “Because I get too hard at times?” Ickes answered, “No, you never get too hard but you won’t talk frankly even with the people who are loyal to you and of whose loyalty you are fully convinced. You keep your cards close up against your belly…” If the President would confide in his advisers, Ickes went on, their advice would prevent him from making mistakes. Roosevelt took the criticism with good humor- but did not change his methods. (The Lion and the Fox, James MacGregor Burns)

 

Of course this reflects part of FDR’s strength and weaknesses. FDR was able to depend on a coterie of extremely loyal and discreet people were part of his inner circle and team. But he was always quite cautious about revealing his intentions or complete plans. Maybe he was innately distrustful. He was brought up as an only child and kept his thoughts to himself. He was not a complainer and at an early age he had a broken tooth and an exposed root and refused to tell his mother. Though vulnerable throughout his life to numerous attacks of poor health, his strength of mind and body always helped him to rebound quickly. When after years of being around adults, (he did not go to Groton until he was 14 years old), he came in contact with his own peers in school and made a great effort to ingratiate himself. Quite often, as part of the hurly-burley of youthful expressiveness, his classmates rebuffed him. Many of his fellow classmates had already established friendships years before young Franklin entered Groton. It seemed that his difficulty with his peers extended to college, and it was there he was blackballed in his attempt to get into the exclusive eating club Porcellian. But he did get along with young fellows at school. He had sensitivity towards them as a young man and many appreciated that concern. One younger boy at Groton, Sumner Welles, adored FDR and later on he became his valued Under Secretary of State. FDR had a stubborn “Dutch” streak as he liked to say, and he established early on in his social; and political career a strong sense of secrecy. Even his engagement to the young Eleanor Roosevelt was kept secret for a year. He did not confide in people normally and if he did it was “off the record,” a political idiom that he coined. Throughout his career FDR had a penchant for secrecy and veiled his true purposes with guile, duplicity, and charm. Many left his office convinced that they had “captured” his ear. But of course he had a tendency to say to his guest the he “understood,” their positions. Most assumed that he had them with the impression that he “agreed” with them, but in fact Roosevelt was saying that he understood their positions.

 

To be continued… rjg

 

 

 

What Do We Do About Iraq? Vocal Discussion 12-1-05

What Do We Do About Iraq?

By

Richard J. Garfunkel

December 1, 2005

 

 

Hello and good morning to all of you. My name is Richard J. Garfunkel, and I will serve as the leader for this forum. I want first to thank Reva Greenberg, from Westchester County’s Office of the Aging and VOCAL, who invited me to partake in this endeavor and to also thank Vera Schiller who recommended me to follow her husband Irv, who led these “speak-outs” in the past. I want to welcome you to the 2nd session of the 2005-6 season of VOCAL’s Westchester County’s Intergenerational Advocacy Educational Program, speak-out forum for senior citizens. Basically this is a program that encourages seniors to voice their opinions on a subject of interest to our communities, whether local, regional or national. Its purpose is to help empower people to learn how to ask the right questions, find out information that is necessary for both their physical and mental well-being and add to their cultural and social awareness. By speaking out and using their mind with regards to current public policy issues seniors, like all of us will benefit.

 

I have passed out to all of you articles from various sources regarding this morning’s topic, “What Do We Do About Iraq?”

 

I also have a limited number of longer pieces that anyone can have. They also represent a broad spectrum of opinion:

 

My opening statement regards the important Public Policy question of “What should America do about Iraq?” Currently as a nation we are facing a very difficult situation in Iraq. We are spending approximately $7-8 billion per month. We are facing an ongoing insurrections that has escalated from 100 to 700 or so incidents per day that reflect bombings, small arms attacks, rocket propelled grenades, assassinations, kidnappings and general lawlessness. There has been some successes reflective or public voting, re-opening of schools, the development of a police force and army, the pumping of oil, the return of some services, businesses have reopened and the emergence of a free press. On the other hand there are people being killed every day by bombs, suicide bombers, and guerrilla warfare. The US has sustained over 2100 deaths, there are over 17,000 wounded and our armed forces are under great stress. This includes the stretching of our National Guard and Reserves, and the cost of medical care and disability. In other words is this effort worth the cost?

 

Therefore to frame our discussion this morning I would like to pose a few questions to our audience. Please note the following:

 

1)                 Should we stay the course with our current troop levels and rotation?

2)                 Should we increase our troop strength and therefore create more pressure on the insurgency?

3)                 Should we destabilize Syria whose porous border allows fighters to assist the Sunnis in their war against the Shiites?

4)                 Should we re-institute the draft and take the burden off our professional army, the Reserves, and the National Guard?

5)                 Should we establish a timetable for withdrawal of our troops?

6)                 Should we start pulling out our troops unilaterally without any regard to the progress regarding the Iraqi National Force?

7)                 Should Iraq be partitioned into three states, the Kurdish north, Shiite South, and the center left to the battle between the Sunnis and the Shiites?

 

Should therefore there be a change in Public Policy regarding the Middle East and the Islamic World

           

1)                 Should we alter our support for Israel?

2)                 Should we support a two state solution for Israel and the Palestinian Arabs?

3)                 Should we end our support for the oil oligarchies, like Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia?

4)                 Should we be making a greater effort to forge cultural ties with the Islamic/Arab world?

5)                 Should we de-emphasize democratic reforms in countries like Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia?

6)                 Should we overthrow Syria, and destroy Iranian nuclear facilities?

 

Vocal Seminar-Woodlands at Ardsley 12-1-05

What Do We Do About Iraq?

By

Richard J. Garfunkel

December 1, 2005

 

 

Hello and good morning to all of you. My name is Richard J. Garfunkel, and I will serve as the leader for this forum. I want first to thank Reva Greenberg, from Westchester County’s Office of the Aging and VOCAL, who invited me to partake in this endeavor and to also thank Vera Schiller who recommended me to follow her husband Irv, who led these “speak-outs” in the past. I want to welcome you to the 2nd session of the 2005-6 season of VOCAL’s Westchester County’s Intergenerational Advocacy Educational Program, speak-out forum for senior citizens. Basically this is a program that encourages seniors to voice their opinions on a subject of interest to our communities, whether local, regional or national. Its purpose is to help empower people to learn how to ask the right questions, find out information that is necessary for both their physical and mental well-being and add to their cultural and social awareness. By speaking out and using their mind with regards to current public policy issues seniors, like all of us will benefit.

 

I have passed out to all of you articles from various sources regarding this morning’s topic, “What Do We Do About Iraq?”

 

 

I also have a limited number of longer pieces that anyone can have. They also represent a broad spectrum of opinion:

 

My opening statement regards the important Public Policy question of “What should America do about Iraq?” Currently as a nation we are facing a very difficult situation in Iraq. We are spending approximately $7-8 billion per month. We are facing an ongoing insurrections that has escalated from 100 to 700 or so incidents per day that reflect bombings, small arms attacks, rocket propelled grenades, assassinations, kidnappings and general lawlessness. There has been some successes reflective or public voting, re-opening of schools, the development of a police force and army, the pumping of oil, the return of some services, businesses have reopened and the emergence of a free press. On the other hand there are people being killed every day by bombs, suicide bombers, and guerrilla warfare. The US has sustained over 2100 deaths, there are over 17,000 wounded and our armed forces are under great stress. This includes the stretching of our National Guard and Reserves, and the cost of medical care and disability. In other words is this effort worth the cost?

 

Therefore to frame our discussion this morning I would like to pose a few questions to our audience. Please note the following:

 

1)                 Should we stay the course with our current troop levels and rotation?

2)                 Should we increase our troop strength and therefore create more pressure on the insurgency?

3)                 Should we destabilize Syria whose porous border allows fighters to assist the Sunnis in their war against the Shiites?

4)                 Should we re-institute the draft and take the burden off our professional army, the Reserves, and the National Guard?

5)                 Should we establish a timetable for withdrawal of our troops?

6)                 Should we start pulling out our troops unilaterally without any regard to the progress regarding the Iraqi National Force?

7)                 Should Iraq be partitioned into three states, the Kurdish north, Shiite South, and the center left to the battle between the Sunnis and the Shiites?

 

Should therefore there be a change in Public Policy regarding the Middle East and the Islamic World

           

1)                 Should we alter our support for Israel?

2)                 Should we support a two state solution for Israel and the Palestinian Arabs?

3)                 Should we end our support for the oil oligarchies, like Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia?

4)                 Should we be making a greater effort to forge cultural ties with the Islamic/Arab world?

5)                 Should we de-emphasize democratic reforms in countries like Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia?

6)                 Should we overthrow Syria, and destroy Iranian nuclear facilities?