Some people argue that the Bush Administration's War on Terror and the further merger of our civilian government with the military industrial complex is taking our country rapidly down the road to a fascist police state. That's a tall order for discussion. At the moment, I just can't call up the skill to weigh in on such a dark premise. Instead, I would like to digress and comment on the world of art and fashion currently in vogue among those leading our country during this time of war.

What graphic arts genre does this logo for our National Service Corps make you think of? Hint: It comes from a series of logos designed to look sharp when worn as armbands.  My first thought was that the artist who created it may have pulled his inspiration from something that evokes Godwin's Law.  But, really, "Learn and Serve?" Fourth Estate pretender Time Magazine thinks it's wunderbar. For me, that's just too close to "Serve and Obey."

Harsh you say? Let's jump to the world of high fashion in the Bush Administration. Imagine that you are the head of a major corporation that makes cars, or soap or something much more dour than cutting edge software. What would you consider as a reasonable dress code for a female executive or sales person calling on a client or vendor? Get that picture in your mind and then decide if what our Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wore for an appearance at our imperial outpost in Wiesbaden, Germany in the Spring of 2005 was appropriate attire. Compare your opinion to that of our war party's press organ The Washington Post, which gushed at the time:

Rice's coat and boots speak of sex and power...[her] appearance at Wiesbaden -- a military base with all of its attendant images of machismo, strength and power -- was striking because she walked out draped in a banner of authority, power and toughness. She was not hiding behind matronliness, androgyny or the stereotype of the steel magnolia. Rice brought her full self to the world stage -- and that included her sexuality. It was not overt or inappropriate.

Who am I to argue with the Washington Post? We are all probably just thankful that it was not Madeline Albright who tried to pull off this fashion statement.

In particular, should we trust the president when it comes to the question of whether or not to go to war? The Founding Fathers said no, and that’s why they delegated the awesome power to declare war to Congress, not the president. Yet beginning with the Korean War presidents have operated as if they possess the power to declare war, and both Congress and the American people have acquiesced to if not embraced this presidential usurpation of power.

Put simply, we’ve trusted our presidents to wield the power of the sword wisely. And that trust has caused us — many of us, anyway — to suspend any doubts we might have had and to get behind the president’s decision once his decision was made.

The Iraq War is no exception, and in recent weeks both Washington and the media have been talking a lot about former Bush press secretary Scott McClellan’s best-seller What Happened, which says that our trust in the Bush administration was misplaced. But McClellan did not always feel that way. In fact, in his book he describes how he too trusted the president and suspended his own doubts.

In McClellan’s own words: “Like many Americans at the time, I was uncertain about the necessity for war and the new doctrine of preemption that was being used to push us toward it. I wondered why we needed to move so fast toward military confrontation. But I trusted the president and the policymakers on his national security team…. After all, they had full access to the intelligence and an intimate knowledge of Saddam Hussein and his regime. I did not. So, also like most Americans, I was inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt unless and until they proved unworthy of it.”

For those who have paid little attention to what’s been going on lately in Zimbabwe, here’s a brief recap: Back on March 29, Zimbabwe’s president (which is Zimbabwean for “dictator for life”) Robert Mugabe unexpectedly came in second in the first round of reelection voting. A runoff election is scheduled for June 27, because according to the government’s count, Mugabe‘s opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party, received less than the majority of the votes. However, running against strongman Mugabe is an activity that tends to be hazardous to one’s health. Zimbabwean police detained Tsvangirai on two separate occasions during the first week of June and also directed his party to cancel political rallies. The opposition leader complained that he was being treated like a "common criminal," as his campaign tours were held up by police at roadblocks.

Tsvangirai had hoped to address his main campaign rally on Sunday afternoon, June 22, But, as the Australian Associated Press reported in a June 23 report carried by AdelaideNow: “Thousands of ruling party militants blockaded the show ground site and set up road blocs at the main approach streets, ripped branches from trees and hurled stones at cars…. The opposition Movement for Democratic Change claimed that the militants were beating opposition supporters who were trying to reach the venue and said at least two were seriously injured. It said the militants attacked journalists and forced African election monitors, who had been driving around the rally site, to flee.”

The incident, among others, convinced Tsvangirai that continuing the campaign would be dangerous both for him and his supporters and he withdrew from the race the same day. Soon afterwards, according to a statement issued by Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade, Tsvangirai took refuge at  the Dutch Embassy, after being tipped off that soldiers were on the way to his house. "He is only safe because, alerted by friends, he left in a hurry a few minutes earlier," Wade said.

Tsvangirai’s chief spokesman, George Sibotshiwe, fled to South Africa on June 23 as the police raided the MDC party headquarters, rounding up dozens of people, including women and children. After arriving in Johannesburg, Sibotshiwe said in an interview that he had four men armed with pistols approaching the door of his safe house on the morning of June 22 and only narrowly escaped capture.

Mugabe, however, denied that Tsvangirai was in any danger. "Tsvangirai is frightened. He has run to seek refuge at the Dutch embassy. What for? These are voters, they will do you no harm. Political harm, yes, because they will vote against you. No one wants to kill Tsvangirai."

Tsvangirai  — who has survived three assassination attempts — may not have been assured by Mugabe’s words.

On June 23, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged authorities in Zimbabwe to postpone the election, considering the ongoing violence and the “understandable decision” by the opposition candidate to withdraw from the polls. “Conditions do not exist for free and fair elections right now in Zimbabwe,” Mr. Ban told reporters in New York. “There has been too much violence, too much intimidation. A vote held in these conditions would lack all legitimacy.”

Despite Mugabe, however, has insisted that the election be held as scheduled on June 27.

In response to these events, the U.N. Security Council issued a non-binding statement on the 23rd that condemned "the campaign of violence against the political opposition ... which has resulted in the killing of scores of opposition activists and other Zimbabweans and the beating and displacement of thousands of people, including many women and children."

In a radio interview with Dutch public broadcaster Radio 1 conducted on June 24 from the Dutch Embassay in Harare, Zinwabwe’s capital, Tsvangirai said: “I think it’s a very important resolution. It recognizes the people who are accountable for the violence, and it squarely placed that responsibility at Mugabe’s leadership. I am sure that he can no longer remain defiant to that international position.”

The bystander who has followed neither the history of Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) nor the history of the UN, is apt to conclude from these events that Mugabe is just another a tin-pot dictator in another small African nation with a funny name, but what else is new? And, since it is obvious that tin-pot dictators are more likely than not to laugh at non-binding resolutions issued by the UN, the solution to keeping such tyrants in line is to give them some of the treatment that removed Saddam Hussein from power: issue binding resolutions against them, and if they fail to comply, send in the troops.

The track record of the UN over the course of its history indicates, however, that the organization is more “effective” at destabilizing peaceful governments and installing tyrants than it is in performing its alleged mission of maintaining “peace.” Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) is a prime example.

• One November 11, 1965. Rhodesia declared its independence from Great Britain, and the UN General Assembly immediately branded the land-locked country of just nine million people "a threat to international peace and security."

• On December 16, 1966, the Security Council (for the first time in UN history) voted to impose mandatory sanctions on Rhodesia, sanctions which destabilized the peaceful nation and helped the communist-backed insurgencies (including those led by the communist guerrilla Robert Mugabe) which eventually gained control of the nation.

• In 1979, British and American “negotiators” forced Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith to call an election. The winner was native African Bishop Abel Muzorewa, who proved to be merely a pawn used to remove Smith and install the leader really favored by the U.S. and British governments. The election was quickly declared invalid and in a second “managed” election, Robert Mugabe, identified as a “teacher” in AP reports, was installed.

• On April 18, 1980, Rhodesia officially became the Marxist-ruled nation of Zimbabwe. Afterwards, UN sanctions were lifted and the U.S. and other Western countries pledged more than $300 million in aid to the new communist regime led by the terrorist Robert Mugabe.

Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe ever since.

So now the UN Security Council has decided to slap Mugabe on the wrist. And U.S. ambassador to Zimbabwe James McGee said the Southern African Development Community (SADC) must declare both the election and Mugabe's government illegitimate.

In view of the treacherous history of how outside forces manipulated events in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, often at the brutal expense of all Zimbabweans — but especially black Zimbabweans, who have suffered disproportionately — the recent protestations emanating from the UN somehow ring hollow.

Zimbabwe is a beautiful land, inhabited by beautiful people who deserve far better than the suffering brought to them by the Western-installed tyrant Robert Mugabe.