I'm currently reading Glenn Greenwald's "A Tragic Legacy: How a Good Versus Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency" and it's become even more apparent to me that President Bush must go sooner rather than later. Greenwald's main premise is that the Bush Presidency views all things in a good and evil mentality, and that all decisions are based on this binary system. You are either Good or you are Evil. There is no middle ground and there are no other motivations for actions other than these two simple choices. It's difficult to disagree with the premise as you hear these very words in nearly every speech the president delivers where he puts himself and America squarely on the side of Good in the eternal battle against Evil.
What is beyond frightening is that the leader of the most militarily powerful nation in the world is so much of a simpleton that he believes that Good and Evil are the only forces at work in the world, and hence bases all of his decisions on this black and white criteria. And by placing himself on the side of Good, he is justified in taking any action, including violation of long established laws and usurping powers never intended for the Executive Branch, in his crusade against Evil. By doing so, Mr. Bush has created the paradox of protecting our way of life by systematically destroying it. According to his actions, freedoms and protections afforded to the American people by the Constitution are now luxuries we can no longer afford in the battle against Evil. To an educated person, this makes absolutely no sense at all. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush is not an educated man and he is incapable of any serious reflection on the impact of his decisions on America and the world at large. He simply continues along in his mission against Evil, and believing that we, the American people, do not understand his place in history.
In the midst of all of this, the Democratic leadership in the US Congress has been making some effort to end the war in Iraq with lackluster results. An obstructionist Republican minority and several Democrats of the Republican-lite variety have made this legislative body an unfortunate bystander in the course of history that Mr. Bush has selected for America. Still, the Democratic leadership can't see the forest for the trees. They treat the Iraq war as the only issue on the table, and while it is very important, they are missing the bigger picture. Mr. Bush's vision for a new world order goes beyond Iraq. It goes beyond Iran. It is a global struggle of Good versus Evil and America's place in that struggle. Congress must wake up and deal with this. And the only way to do that is to deal with Mr. Bush himself. He must be removed from office as soon as humanly possible. Every day that he remains in office, his decisions continually damage the world and America's place in it.
While there has been more of a groundswell of public support for the impeachment of the president, there is little to no momentum for this in Congress. Why is that? Well, I received two answers to that question from my own Congressional representative - one explicit answer and one implied. The explicit answer was that "Congress should focus on putting an end to the war." I agree that that is a focus that Congress should have, but as stated above, it's only part of the problem. It also suggests to me that Congress can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Why can't impeachment and efforts to stop the Iraq war go on simultaneously? In fact, impeaching the president would probably greatly assist in ending the war in Iraq as well as his stopping his Good versus Evil approach to world affairs. Seems like a win-win situation to me.
However, the real reason we aren't seeing any movement on impeachment by lawmakers is starkly revealed by this quote from my representative - "Unlike my Republican counterparts, I do not take the act of impeachment lightly." And there it is as plain as day for anyone to see. The Democrats are so afraid that the Conservative spin machine will say that they are politicizing the impeachment process because that is exactly what the Republicans did to Bill Clinton in 1998. If the shoe were on the other foot, do you think the Republicans would hesitate to impeach a Democratic president under these same circumstances? Of course not - we'd be knee deep in impeachment procedures right now. Yet the Democrats are more concerned with how they will be perceived rather than the fate of the nation. That's sad because now they have a perception problem among those people who should be their base, like me. It's simple cowardice, and our nation will pay for it through the continuation of Mr. Bush's legacy. He will continue to apply his simplistic world view on all his decisions. He will continue to break the law in the name of Good versus Evil. He will continue to bleed this country dry of able young men and financial resources. And finally, he will continue to destroy America's legacy and its place in the world. To impeach or not to impeach? That is the question, and the answer is rather obvious to me.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Saturday, May 26, 2007
The Disappointment And The Fury
Like many progressives, I'm extremely disappointed with Congress' capitulation on Thursday to the President on funding for the war in Iraq. My disappointment has morphed into fury as I think about how the Democratic Party once again refused to do what's right, and instead chose a political maneuver that only serves to protect them from criticism from the White House. Well, President Bush will criticize them anyway, and the Democrats have merely confirmed their role in Washington as cowardly doormats. Too many of them fell for the bogus argument that not supporting funding means not supporting the troops – an intellectually bogus assertion which I addressed previously.
Of course, being from Massachusetts, I have no quibble with our Congressional delegation. They all voted No on the bill. However, many other Democrats in both the Senate and House chose to give the President what he wanted – a bill with no timetables for withdrawal. Many of these Democrats are truly Democrats in name only and instead would be more accurately described as Republican-lite. How can we possibly trust this cadre of Democrats when it comes to standing up to the White House in the future? Answer: We can't.
Over the years, I've given money to the Democratic Party. Admittedly, it hasn't been a lot of money, but it was some. Shame on me. I've been duped and I should have known better. Well, I won't be repeating that mistake in order to support a party that has no courage, no convictions, and no sense of right and wrong. I can't wait to get that next tele-marketing call from the DNC. The person on the other end of the line won't be a policy maker, but he or she will get an earful anyway.
This whole episode confirms my belief that this country is totally screwed and that there's no way back. It's quite depressing actually. Big corporations own America and its policies. From oil to finance, our government simply acts as their servants rather than the servants of those who actually elected them, and there doesn't appear to be a single candidate out there who is ready to address that situation. As I said, it's quite depressing.
Of course, being from Massachusetts, I have no quibble with our Congressional delegation. They all voted No on the bill. However, many other Democrats in both the Senate and House chose to give the President what he wanted – a bill with no timetables for withdrawal. Many of these Democrats are truly Democrats in name only and instead would be more accurately described as Republican-lite. How can we possibly trust this cadre of Democrats when it comes to standing up to the White House in the future? Answer: We can't.
Over the years, I've given money to the Democratic Party. Admittedly, it hasn't been a lot of money, but it was some. Shame on me. I've been duped and I should have known better. Well, I won't be repeating that mistake in order to support a party that has no courage, no convictions, and no sense of right and wrong. I can't wait to get that next tele-marketing call from the DNC. The person on the other end of the line won't be a policy maker, but he or she will get an earful anyway.
This whole episode confirms my belief that this country is totally screwed and that there's no way back. It's quite depressing actually. Big corporations own America and its policies. From oil to finance, our government simply acts as their servants rather than the servants of those who actually elected them, and there doesn't appear to be a single candidate out there who is ready to address that situation. As I said, it's quite depressing.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Why We Fight
Why do we fight? It's an interesting question and one that is being more thoughtfully evaluated by the American public as the war in Iraq lingers. It is also a question that is examined by the 2005 documentary entitled "Why We Fight" which approaches the topic based on President Eisenhower's farewell speech warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex and its potential threat to democracy. It's an excellent film and one that I highly recommend especially based on what we know about Iraq today.
So why do we fight? In 2007, one is likely to get a greater variety of responses to that question than if it had been posed in early 2003. Four years ago, the prevailing wisdom was that we fight for freedom, democracy and the American way of life. That's exactly how the Bush administration wanted the American people to respond in the post-9/11 era. The real answers to why we fight were evident in 2003, and in 2001 and all the way back to the 1960's, but they were concealed by a shroud of patriotism and extra-nationalistic purpose for America. Since World War II, many political elites have believed that America's role in world affairs was to spread and protect democracy through whatever means required including covert operations and the use of military force. In the film, Senator John McCain espouses this exact philosophy although he also warns of the dangers of overstepping into imperialism.
With the Bush Administration's waning credibility on the war, that shroud has been removed and average Americans are perhaps for the first time beginning to see the nefarious reasons for American war-making. Fewer and fewer people are spouting the jingoistic arguments of 2003 as credible reasons for the invasion of Iraq. A realization is emerging that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th and that the invasion was unrelated to the War on Terror. "Why We Fight" examines President Eisenhower's prescient warning to the American people about the military-industrial complex and adds a third element to the alliance between the Pentagon and the Defense Industry: Congress. The US Congress has been totally complicit in the dominance of the military-industrial complex in American politics to such a point that there is never a question of whether we should be spending money on the military, but rather how much should we spend and can it be spent in my district.
The conclusion of Mr. Eisenhower's warning was that the emergence of the military-industrial complex would force the needs of capitalism to supplant those of democracy. The needs of corporations, both military and fossil fuel related, now control the foreign policy of the United States. Iraq is the latest and most glaring example of this corporate foreign policy in action with the war creating opportunities for defense contractors such as Halliburton, and opportunities for fossil fuel companies in a country with the world's second largest oil reserves.
Of course, the military-industrial complex has also cemented the image of America as a beacon of good for the world in the collective minds of Americans and that in order to accomplish our mission of helping the world, American forces need to be deployed throughout the world. But has this policy truly been effective? American intervention in the affairs of other nations (Iran, Guatemala, Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, just to name a few) has created more anti-US sentiment rather than good feelings toward America in the last 50 to 60 years. One reason for that is that American intervention has been driven through the needs of US interests rather than doing the right thing for the world. American foreign policy since World War II has been designed to keep America as the dominant world power both militarily and economically without regard for the rest of the world. The ironic thing is that now that the façade of our global mission has been smashed, America stands on the verge of losing its place in the world and the very policy that was designed to keep us there is responsible for our fall. Ah, the irony.
Economically, Asia is poised to displace the US at the top of the food chain. The United States no longer manufactures anything. Electronics, clothing, footwear are all made overseas. Our economy is dominated by financial institutions, defense and oil, and our government's spending reflects these priorities rather than the needs of our society. Eisenhower attempted to tell the nation how much defense armaments cost American society by equating the costs in social terms (the cost of a missile equals the cost of a certain number of new homes for Americans). One can only imagine what our country would look like today if we had heeded Mr. Eisenhower's warning. And what would the world be like?
Part 2 of this post: What's the alternative to fighting?
So why do we fight? In 2007, one is likely to get a greater variety of responses to that question than if it had been posed in early 2003. Four years ago, the prevailing wisdom was that we fight for freedom, democracy and the American way of life. That's exactly how the Bush administration wanted the American people to respond in the post-9/11 era. The real answers to why we fight were evident in 2003, and in 2001 and all the way back to the 1960's, but they were concealed by a shroud of patriotism and extra-nationalistic purpose for America. Since World War II, many political elites have believed that America's role in world affairs was to spread and protect democracy through whatever means required including covert operations and the use of military force. In the film, Senator John McCain espouses this exact philosophy although he also warns of the dangers of overstepping into imperialism.
With the Bush Administration's waning credibility on the war, that shroud has been removed and average Americans are perhaps for the first time beginning to see the nefarious reasons for American war-making. Fewer and fewer people are spouting the jingoistic arguments of 2003 as credible reasons for the invasion of Iraq. A realization is emerging that Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th and that the invasion was unrelated to the War on Terror. "Why We Fight" examines President Eisenhower's prescient warning to the American people about the military-industrial complex and adds a third element to the alliance between the Pentagon and the Defense Industry: Congress. The US Congress has been totally complicit in the dominance of the military-industrial complex in American politics to such a point that there is never a question of whether we should be spending money on the military, but rather how much should we spend and can it be spent in my district.
The conclusion of Mr. Eisenhower's warning was that the emergence of the military-industrial complex would force the needs of capitalism to supplant those of democracy. The needs of corporations, both military and fossil fuel related, now control the foreign policy of the United States. Iraq is the latest and most glaring example of this corporate foreign policy in action with the war creating opportunities for defense contractors such as Halliburton, and opportunities for fossil fuel companies in a country with the world's second largest oil reserves.
Of course, the military-industrial complex has also cemented the image of America as a beacon of good for the world in the collective minds of Americans and that in order to accomplish our mission of helping the world, American forces need to be deployed throughout the world. But has this policy truly been effective? American intervention in the affairs of other nations (Iran, Guatemala, Korea, Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, Haiti, just to name a few) has created more anti-US sentiment rather than good feelings toward America in the last 50 to 60 years. One reason for that is that American intervention has been driven through the needs of US interests rather than doing the right thing for the world. American foreign policy since World War II has been designed to keep America as the dominant world power both militarily and economically without regard for the rest of the world. The ironic thing is that now that the façade of our global mission has been smashed, America stands on the verge of losing its place in the world and the very policy that was designed to keep us there is responsible for our fall. Ah, the irony.
Economically, Asia is poised to displace the US at the top of the food chain. The United States no longer manufactures anything. Electronics, clothing, footwear are all made overseas. Our economy is dominated by financial institutions, defense and oil, and our government's spending reflects these priorities rather than the needs of our society. Eisenhower attempted to tell the nation how much defense armaments cost American society by equating the costs in social terms (the cost of a missile equals the cost of a certain number of new homes for Americans). One can only imagine what our country would look like today if we had heeded Mr. Eisenhower's warning. And what would the world be like?
Part 2 of this post: What's the alternative to fighting?
Monday, February 19, 2007
Supporting The Troops And Supporting The War
I had been meaning to write on the topic of the alleged inseparability of supporting the war and supporting the troops for some time, and now that the Boston Globe's excuse for a conservative columnist has weighed in on the subject, it's given me renewed vigor to discuss this. The fact is that this is just another example of a conservative verbal bear trap that is a non-issue and is easier to discuss than the real issues at hand. With that being said, let's delve into the fallacy of the "issue" regardless.
So, are supporting the troops and supporting the war inseparable and one in the same? Is it possible to support the troops, but not support the war? The latter is the question at hand as the debate in the US House of Representatives has been focused on the conflict in Iraq and what to do about President Bush's plan for a "surge" in troops. Democrats have been tip-toeing around the minefield of anti-war rhetoric and are being careful not to suggest in any way that they don't support US troops in the field. Yet, is that really an issue? Let's remember that this is Mr. Bush's war, and one of his choosing. The troops did not choose to go to Iraq to start this conflict. They are merely doing Mr. Bush's dirty work as ordered. For all we now know about the lying and distortion of intelligence in the run-up to war, it's dishonest to suggest that the military had any say at all in the mission. So this war is not the troops' war, it is Mr. Bush's and his alone.
The conflation of supporting the troops and supporting the war goes back to the start of the Iraq War, if not before, when Americans started putting ribbon style magnets with the slogan "Support our troops" on their cars. The magnets themselves were a brilliant idea and they fed perfectly into creating a verbal trap for any war dissenters. Did placing a magnet on your car mean that you supported the war? Maybe, but the magnet didn't say "Support the invasion of Iraq". No, it said something that no American in a post-Vietnam War era wanted to disagree with - support our troops. That was the brilliance of the slogan. Who in their right mind would not support our volunteer American forces? And by placing it on your car, you weren't explicitly saying that you supported the war in Iraq, but in reality you were.
Now the verbal trap has been sprung. House Democrats are finally able to do something in opposition of Mr. Bush's war, and the conservative spin machine has gone into action so as to put them in a bind. If you're against the war, you're against the troops and you want them to fail. If you cut off funding for the war, you'll be cutting off the funding for our troops and presumably they'll start dying of hunger in the Iraqi desert.
These assertions are ridiculous, of course. One could easily suggest that the best way to support the troops is to get them out of a futile situation in which they have become nothing more than target practice in the middle of a civil war. If there is any failure to be associated with the invasion of Iraq, the blame for it clearly sits in the White House, not with the military and the troops. It's questionable whether the latest stated goals in Iraq are even achievable militarily.
To go further, how can one possibly suggest that supporting the troops entails sending more into Baghdad so that even more of our brave youth can go to their deaths on Mr. Bush's watch? Does supporting the troops mean extending the tours of regular servicemen and National Guard troops beyond their commitments so that they too can continue the facade? Troops who are exhausted and have been separated from their families for an extended period of time that goes beyond what this nation should be asking of them - this doesn't sound like supporting the troops to me. It sounds like supporting the war. The conservatives who cloak their support of the war with the declaration that they are supporting the troops are simply using those troops as human shields to protect their irrational arguments to continue the war. That is dishonest debate, but it is what has become of America since the early '90s.
So in the spirit of being candid on the topic, here is what to do in Iraq. End the war immediately and bring the troops home. History will declare the war to be a failure, but the blame should not lie with the military. For that, pay a visit to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and ask for Mr. Bush. He's the one you want to see when assessing what has gone so wrong over the last 4 years.
So, are supporting the troops and supporting the war inseparable and one in the same? Is it possible to support the troops, but not support the war? The latter is the question at hand as the debate in the US House of Representatives has been focused on the conflict in Iraq and what to do about President Bush's plan for a "surge" in troops. Democrats have been tip-toeing around the minefield of anti-war rhetoric and are being careful not to suggest in any way that they don't support US troops in the field. Yet, is that really an issue? Let's remember that this is Mr. Bush's war, and one of his choosing. The troops did not choose to go to Iraq to start this conflict. They are merely doing Mr. Bush's dirty work as ordered. For all we now know about the lying and distortion of intelligence in the run-up to war, it's dishonest to suggest that the military had any say at all in the mission. So this war is not the troops' war, it is Mr. Bush's and his alone.
The conflation of supporting the troops and supporting the war goes back to the start of the Iraq War, if not before, when Americans started putting ribbon style magnets with the slogan "Support our troops" on their cars. The magnets themselves were a brilliant idea and they fed perfectly into creating a verbal trap for any war dissenters. Did placing a magnet on your car mean that you supported the war? Maybe, but the magnet didn't say "Support the invasion of Iraq". No, it said something that no American in a post-Vietnam War era wanted to disagree with - support our troops. That was the brilliance of the slogan. Who in their right mind would not support our volunteer American forces? And by placing it on your car, you weren't explicitly saying that you supported the war in Iraq, but in reality you were.
Now the verbal trap has been sprung. House Democrats are finally able to do something in opposition of Mr. Bush's war, and the conservative spin machine has gone into action so as to put them in a bind. If you're against the war, you're against the troops and you want them to fail. If you cut off funding for the war, you'll be cutting off the funding for our troops and presumably they'll start dying of hunger in the Iraqi desert.
These assertions are ridiculous, of course. One could easily suggest that the best way to support the troops is to get them out of a futile situation in which they have become nothing more than target practice in the middle of a civil war. If there is any failure to be associated with the invasion of Iraq, the blame for it clearly sits in the White House, not with the military and the troops. It's questionable whether the latest stated goals in Iraq are even achievable militarily.
To go further, how can one possibly suggest that supporting the troops entails sending more into Baghdad so that even more of our brave youth can go to their deaths on Mr. Bush's watch? Does supporting the troops mean extending the tours of regular servicemen and National Guard troops beyond their commitments so that they too can continue the facade? Troops who are exhausted and have been separated from their families for an extended period of time that goes beyond what this nation should be asking of them - this doesn't sound like supporting the troops to me. It sounds like supporting the war. The conservatives who cloak their support of the war with the declaration that they are supporting the troops are simply using those troops as human shields to protect their irrational arguments to continue the war. That is dishonest debate, but it is what has become of America since the early '90s.
So in the spirit of being candid on the topic, here is what to do in Iraq. End the war immediately and bring the troops home. History will declare the war to be a failure, but the blame should not lie with the military. For that, pay a visit to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and ask for Mr. Bush. He's the one you want to see when assessing what has gone so wrong over the last 4 years.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Atheism and Popular Misconceptions
With the war on Christmas over for another year (anyone know who's winning?), it's a good time to review some of the many misconceptions about atheists that exist in the public domain. One of the most popular misconceptions being pushed by the likes of Bill O'Reilly and the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby is that atheists (or secular progressives as O'Reilly likes to refer to them) are trying to eradicate Judeo-Christian references from American public life. A massive secularist-atheist conspiracy against all religion is afoot and it's a terrible threat to our society. Christmas cards that don't mention Christmas, retailers saying "Happy Holidays", and nativity scenes banned from public grounds are all signs of the vast left-wing plot. So naturally, we should expose the men behind this nefarious conspiracy? Ah, but this is where the assertion that such a conspiracy exists breaks down. While religious conservatives may throw out the names of various individuals (George Soros) and organizations (ACLU), it amounts to nothing more than mud-slinging.
It's true that Christmas has morphed into a more secular holiday over the last 40 years, but that hasn't been the work of atheists. In fact, the largest contributor to the secularization of Christmas is one of the tenets of American society today - Capitalism. Capitalism, and more specifically retailers, has transformed Christmas into a gift-giving bonanza for children and family, and has completely de-emphasized the traditional meaning of Christmas. Christmas in America has nothing to do with Jesus - it's all about shopping and Santa Claus. Some retail chains base their whole year on the Christmas season, so why should they restrict themselves to just Christians and Christmas? Why not entice people of all faiths to come in during November and December to shop for their loved ones? Thus was born the religiously neutral "Happy Holidays" - a term of inclusion, rather than exclusion as Bill O'Reilly would like you to believe. Capitalism is blind with respect to religion so the secularization of the Holiday season makes perfect sense. Everyone can now take part whether you celebrate Christmas, Hannukah, Ramadan, Kwanzaa or Festivus, you too can shop to your heart's content. The American Christmas Holiday - brought to you by Wal-Mart, Sears, Best Buy, Macy's, Target, and your local mall.
Another popular misconception about atheism is that if religion is removed from society, there will be no system for determining right and wrong. This is a favorite of many religious conservatives in their argument for the necessity of religion, but it is a baseless claim. Many religions teach and promote ethical behavior, but these religions did not invent the standards by which we define right and wrong. At the core of the issue is how we as humans are exposed to the definition and standard of right and wrong, and the answer is through family and community. Families and Communities are our basic units of human interaction. This interaction creates a society and the society defines the standards of behavior that it believes to be correct. Some societies may be religious and some may not be. The standards of right and wrong are applied by the family and community units regardless of religion. When you were a child, who taught you more about right and wrong, your parents or your clergyman? I suspect that the answer is the former.
In his December 13, 2006 column in the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby states that "... without God, the difference between good and evil becomes purely subjective." Reversing that statement says that with God, the difference between good and evil is objective. Yet Jacoby doesn't really tell us much about the objective difference between good and evil other than to cite the ethical standards as defined by Judeo-Christian monotheism as the saving grace for the world (I guess other world religions don't have the "correct" definition of good and evil). "Thou shalt not kill" - that seems fairly objective and probably simple enough to have been adhered to before monotheism became popular, but this is one of the tenets of ethical behavior ascribed to the Judeo-Christian God. However, Jacoby wrote in his column some time after the 2004 Tsunami in Asia that killed 230,000 people that he believed that God sent the tsunami for some purpose, but he didn't know what it was. Was that objective, ethical behavior on God's part? Is it acceptable for God to kill, but not man?
It's easy to poke holes in the arguments of religious conservatives who continue to press for more religion in our lives because they seldom have any basis in fact or logic. However, Jacoby has a moment of clarity when he states "the atheist alternative is a world in which right and wrong are ultimately matters of opinion, and in which we are finally accountable to no one but ourselves." While I don't believe that the difference between right and wrong is a matter of opinion, but is instead defined by families and communities, the second part of his statement is dead on accurate. We are most certainly accountable to no one but ourselves, yet that is a reality that religious leaders don't want you to grasp for fear of it ending their power over millions of people. Do you think it's possible that ethical behavior would improve if humanity learned that we are responsible for ourselves and not accountable to some mythical being defined by ancestors who have long past? Perhaps, perhaps.
It's true that Christmas has morphed into a more secular holiday over the last 40 years, but that hasn't been the work of atheists. In fact, the largest contributor to the secularization of Christmas is one of the tenets of American society today - Capitalism. Capitalism, and more specifically retailers, has transformed Christmas into a gift-giving bonanza for children and family, and has completely de-emphasized the traditional meaning of Christmas. Christmas in America has nothing to do with Jesus - it's all about shopping and Santa Claus. Some retail chains base their whole year on the Christmas season, so why should they restrict themselves to just Christians and Christmas? Why not entice people of all faiths to come in during November and December to shop for their loved ones? Thus was born the religiously neutral "Happy Holidays" - a term of inclusion, rather than exclusion as Bill O'Reilly would like you to believe. Capitalism is blind with respect to religion so the secularization of the Holiday season makes perfect sense. Everyone can now take part whether you celebrate Christmas, Hannukah, Ramadan, Kwanzaa or Festivus, you too can shop to your heart's content. The American Christmas Holiday - brought to you by Wal-Mart, Sears, Best Buy, Macy's, Target, and your local mall.
Another popular misconception about atheism is that if religion is removed from society, there will be no system for determining right and wrong. This is a favorite of many religious conservatives in their argument for the necessity of religion, but it is a baseless claim. Many religions teach and promote ethical behavior, but these religions did not invent the standards by which we define right and wrong. At the core of the issue is how we as humans are exposed to the definition and standard of right and wrong, and the answer is through family and community. Families and Communities are our basic units of human interaction. This interaction creates a society and the society defines the standards of behavior that it believes to be correct. Some societies may be religious and some may not be. The standards of right and wrong are applied by the family and community units regardless of religion. When you were a child, who taught you more about right and wrong, your parents or your clergyman? I suspect that the answer is the former.
In his December 13, 2006 column in the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby states that "... without God, the difference between good and evil becomes purely subjective." Reversing that statement says that with God, the difference between good and evil is objective. Yet Jacoby doesn't really tell us much about the objective difference between good and evil other than to cite the ethical standards as defined by Judeo-Christian monotheism as the saving grace for the world (I guess other world religions don't have the "correct" definition of good and evil). "Thou shalt not kill" - that seems fairly objective and probably simple enough to have been adhered to before monotheism became popular, but this is one of the tenets of ethical behavior ascribed to the Judeo-Christian God. However, Jacoby wrote in his column some time after the 2004 Tsunami in Asia that killed 230,000 people that he believed that God sent the tsunami for some purpose, but he didn't know what it was. Was that objective, ethical behavior on God's part? Is it acceptable for God to kill, but not man?
It's easy to poke holes in the arguments of religious conservatives who continue to press for more religion in our lives because they seldom have any basis in fact or logic. However, Jacoby has a moment of clarity when he states "the atheist alternative is a world in which right and wrong are ultimately matters of opinion, and in which we are finally accountable to no one but ourselves." While I don't believe that the difference between right and wrong is a matter of opinion, but is instead defined by families and communities, the second part of his statement is dead on accurate. We are most certainly accountable to no one but ourselves, yet that is a reality that religious leaders don't want you to grasp for fear of it ending their power over millions of people. Do you think it's possible that ethical behavior would improve if humanity learned that we are responsible for ourselves and not accountable to some mythical being defined by ancestors who have long past? Perhaps, perhaps.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Next Steps For Iraq
With the New Year nearly upon us, the euphoria felt by many liberals based on the 2006 mid-term elections is waning, and is instead being replaced by a feeling that very little will change in Washington in 2007. That is unless liberals continue to make their positions known to a Congress they helped elect. The message for Progressives in 2007 must be that the work is never done and there is no time for rest in Washington. Politicians are politicians; they aren't liberals and they must continually be pushed to support the causes of those that helped get them elected.
The major issue on which liberals need to work is of course the Iraq war. Incredulously, President Bush has stated publicly that he supports an increase in troop levels in Iraq and keeping US forces there through the end of his presidency. That's in direct conflict with what the American people told George Bush on November 7, but the Decider has little interest in the will of the people. And apparently the same can be said of John McCain who also supports a troop increase as he positions himself as the Republican replacement for President Bush in the 2008 election. So much for "Mr. Straight-talk". Are Democratic representatives and senators ready to battle the Administration on the President's proposed strategy for Iraq (to be revealed some time in January)?
With a few exceptions, it appears that the Democrats are prepared to fight the White House in January on Iraq, but the worry is over whether they have the courage to take decisive action to stop the war and withdraw the troops. I think that is in serious doubt, and that is what liberal and progressive constituents need to continue to pressure their representatives to do.
Here is what I think the next session of Congress should do with respect to Iraq. First, stop funding for the war. In November 2005, Massachusetts Representative James McGovern introduced a bill to do just this - the bill was referred to the Armed Services Committee and hasn't seen the light of day since. If Democrats truly want to end the war, cutting off the funding is the way to do it, which leads to the second initiative - withdrawing the troops immediately. Third, impeach the President and Vice President.
New House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has stated that impeachment is "off the table", but her reasoning for this position appears to be built on the same wishy-washy attitudes that earned the Democrats a seat on the sidelines for the last 12 years. Talk of healing and bi-partisanship is code for not having the guts to take decisive action and show the American people that a Democratic Congress can be strong and effective. In the era of Karl Rove, bi-partisanship is a conservative ploy to share blame where possible. It is not in any sense an invitation to do the right thing. When will the Democrats learn this simple fact? The actions of this Congress will play a large role in how the American public choose in the 2008 and 2010 elections, and rest assured that if the Republicans reclaim power in either of the next 2 elections, there won't be any talk of bi-partisanship. They will resume their strategy for one-party rule.
In a previous post, I stated my reasoning for impeachment and danced around the subject of accountability. In his acceptance speech for the 2006 Christopher Reeve First Amendment Award, Sean Penn is more effective in communicating his thoughts on the impeachment of the President based on accountability. Although Speaker Pelosi doesn't want to pursue impeachment of Bush, there are several organizations that are keeping the initiative in the public eye. That's exactly what liberal and progressive groups need to do in 2007 - keep working the issues in Washington as if nothing has changed, because in reality, not much has.
The major issue on which liberals need to work is of course the Iraq war. Incredulously, President Bush has stated publicly that he supports an increase in troop levels in Iraq and keeping US forces there through the end of his presidency. That's in direct conflict with what the American people told George Bush on November 7, but the Decider has little interest in the will of the people. And apparently the same can be said of John McCain who also supports a troop increase as he positions himself as the Republican replacement for President Bush in the 2008 election. So much for "Mr. Straight-talk". Are Democratic representatives and senators ready to battle the Administration on the President's proposed strategy for Iraq (to be revealed some time in January)?
With a few exceptions, it appears that the Democrats are prepared to fight the White House in January on Iraq, but the worry is over whether they have the courage to take decisive action to stop the war and withdraw the troops. I think that is in serious doubt, and that is what liberal and progressive constituents need to continue to pressure their representatives to do.
Here is what I think the next session of Congress should do with respect to Iraq. First, stop funding for the war. In November 2005, Massachusetts Representative James McGovern introduced a bill to do just this - the bill was referred to the Armed Services Committee and hasn't seen the light of day since. If Democrats truly want to end the war, cutting off the funding is the way to do it, which leads to the second initiative - withdrawing the troops immediately. Third, impeach the President and Vice President.
New House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has stated that impeachment is "off the table", but her reasoning for this position appears to be built on the same wishy-washy attitudes that earned the Democrats a seat on the sidelines for the last 12 years. Talk of healing and bi-partisanship is code for not having the guts to take decisive action and show the American people that a Democratic Congress can be strong and effective. In the era of Karl Rove, bi-partisanship is a conservative ploy to share blame where possible. It is not in any sense an invitation to do the right thing. When will the Democrats learn this simple fact? The actions of this Congress will play a large role in how the American public choose in the 2008 and 2010 elections, and rest assured that if the Republicans reclaim power in either of the next 2 elections, there won't be any talk of bi-partisanship. They will resume their strategy for one-party rule.
In a previous post, I stated my reasoning for impeachment and danced around the subject of accountability. In his acceptance speech for the 2006 Christopher Reeve First Amendment Award, Sean Penn is more effective in communicating his thoughts on the impeachment of the President based on accountability. Although Speaker Pelosi doesn't want to pursue impeachment of Bush, there are several organizations that are keeping the initiative in the public eye. That's exactly what liberal and progressive groups need to do in 2007 - keep working the issues in Washington as if nothing has changed, because in reality, not much has.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Democracy - Miracle Drug?
One of the shifting reasons for the Bush Administration's foray into Iraq was to spread democracy to the Middle East in order to liberate the people there and provide security for all, especially Americans. Clearly, the White House and other supporters of the war believe that democracy is some sort of cure-all for the world's ills and that spreading our enlightened form of government will facilitate the conversion of the planet into a Democratic utopia. If that sounds a bit simplistic it's because it is. The reality of this strategy is that it is flawed on various levels. First of all, is it valid to impose Western style democracy on non-Western cultures, and will it even work? Secondly, even if democracy were to take hold in a particular country, there is no evidence that it would guarantee security for anyone - see the reaction of various Western nations to the democratic election of Hamas in the Palestinian parliament. Stating that democracy in the Middle East would guarantee American security is a baseless claim.
Let's review the issues with regime change and imposing Western style democracy on non-Western cultures. There are a couple of facets to this:
The first question has no definitive answer as it is more rhetorical in nature, however if one views societies as evolutionary entities, one can begin to fathom the possible difficulties in imposing the traditions of one society on another. It's no secret that Western society and culture are very different than their Middle Eastern counterparts. Each society has evolved and continues to evolve based on unique experiences and changes. And of course, many members of each society believe that their culture and traditions are superior to all others, when in actuality, societies are not better than each other - they are simply different. Societies are analogous to people. Let's say that Person A and Person B represent two different societies. Person A and Person B are unique individuals with unique experiences and perhaps some shared ones. Each of them has self confidence and belief. If Person A and Person B were your children, would you blindly treat them the same or would you recognize that they were unique and special individuals? What might be good for Person A may not be good for Person B, and vice versa. Should Person A try to make Person B in his own image? I'm sure that most people would agree that individual identity is an important part of being human and that we as people don't want to lose that uniqueness.
The same thought process should be applied to societies. There are many world cultures that have evolved over the centuries and they should be respected as much as we respect our own. While democracy in various forms extends back several centuries in Western society, other world societies have no experience with it at all. In this respect, Western society could be viewed as a mature adult in terms of democratic traditions while Middle Eastern society would be a child in the same respect. Is imposing a Western style democracy on a Middle Eastern society equivalent to teaching Quantum Physics to a 5 year-old and expecting him to understand it right away? Might it not be more prudent to treat Middle Eastern society as an equal to our own, just different? Honestly, I'm not sure what that means in practical terms, however I think the pervasive point of view in America is that our society is far superior and more enlightened than other world cultures. That's a dangerous viewpoint when determining any foreign policy.
If we view societies as unique, evolutionary entities, should societies adhere to some non-interference directive (ala the Prime Directive in Star Trek) when interacting? In some respects this kind of non-interference already takes place with nuclear non-proliferation being an example. Yet, the United States has launched a preemptive war in Iraq in order to re-make that country's government more like our own. Is that really a good idea? Not only is it highly questionable that the United States has the right to interfere in Iraq's affairs in such a way, especially given that it did not represent a threat, but it is arrogant to assume that said interference would be welcome by the Iraqi people. In today's global society, some may feel that the United States has the right to preemptively act in the interests of its security. Yet, that very attitude exudes arrogance as it places the security needs of the United States above those of all other nations. Is that the message we are sending to the world? We are more important than the rest of the planet? It certainly seems so. Perhaps we should consider how we would feel if another country invaded us and began to alter our way of life. I have a feeling that a vast majority of Americans wouldn't react very favorably to that.
At this point in Iraq, the ability for the new democratic regime to succeed is questionable. The US invasion was undertaken with seemingly very little understanding of the cultural differences between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, and now the country seems embroiled in an all-out civil war. However, even if democracy somehow takes hold in Iraq, it won't necessarily be a government favorable to the United States (unless it's a puppet government). Wouldn't it be ironic to invade a country, affect regime change, set up a democratic government and then watch the country turn against us? If that's what ends up happening in Iraq, then we deserve it. Perhaps it will force our foreign policy experts to examine whether democracy really is a miracle drug for the world and whether the United States has the right to dispense it.
Let's review the issues with regime change and imposing Western style democracy on non-Western cultures. There are a couple of facets to this:
- Can Western style democracy be successful in a society/culture with no democratic tradition?
- Should Western societies even attempt to transform other societies in their own image?
The first question has no definitive answer as it is more rhetorical in nature, however if one views societies as evolutionary entities, one can begin to fathom the possible difficulties in imposing the traditions of one society on another. It's no secret that Western society and culture are very different than their Middle Eastern counterparts. Each society has evolved and continues to evolve based on unique experiences and changes. And of course, many members of each society believe that their culture and traditions are superior to all others, when in actuality, societies are not better than each other - they are simply different. Societies are analogous to people. Let's say that Person A and Person B represent two different societies. Person A and Person B are unique individuals with unique experiences and perhaps some shared ones. Each of them has self confidence and belief. If Person A and Person B were your children, would you blindly treat them the same or would you recognize that they were unique and special individuals? What might be good for Person A may not be good for Person B, and vice versa. Should Person A try to make Person B in his own image? I'm sure that most people would agree that individual identity is an important part of being human and that we as people don't want to lose that uniqueness.
The same thought process should be applied to societies. There are many world cultures that have evolved over the centuries and they should be respected as much as we respect our own. While democracy in various forms extends back several centuries in Western society, other world societies have no experience with it at all. In this respect, Western society could be viewed as a mature adult in terms of democratic traditions while Middle Eastern society would be a child in the same respect. Is imposing a Western style democracy on a Middle Eastern society equivalent to teaching Quantum Physics to a 5 year-old and expecting him to understand it right away? Might it not be more prudent to treat Middle Eastern society as an equal to our own, just different? Honestly, I'm not sure what that means in practical terms, however I think the pervasive point of view in America is that our society is far superior and more enlightened than other world cultures. That's a dangerous viewpoint when determining any foreign policy.
If we view societies as unique, evolutionary entities, should societies adhere to some non-interference directive (ala the Prime Directive in Star Trek) when interacting? In some respects this kind of non-interference already takes place with nuclear non-proliferation being an example. Yet, the United States has launched a preemptive war in Iraq in order to re-make that country's government more like our own. Is that really a good idea? Not only is it highly questionable that the United States has the right to interfere in Iraq's affairs in such a way, especially given that it did not represent a threat, but it is arrogant to assume that said interference would be welcome by the Iraqi people. In today's global society, some may feel that the United States has the right to preemptively act in the interests of its security. Yet, that very attitude exudes arrogance as it places the security needs of the United States above those of all other nations. Is that the message we are sending to the world? We are more important than the rest of the planet? It certainly seems so. Perhaps we should consider how we would feel if another country invaded us and began to alter our way of life. I have a feeling that a vast majority of Americans wouldn't react very favorably to that.
At this point in Iraq, the ability for the new democratic regime to succeed is questionable. The US invasion was undertaken with seemingly very little understanding of the cultural differences between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, and now the country seems embroiled in an all-out civil war. However, even if democracy somehow takes hold in Iraq, it won't necessarily be a government favorable to the United States (unless it's a puppet government). Wouldn't it be ironic to invade a country, affect regime change, set up a democratic government and then watch the country turn against us? If that's what ends up happening in Iraq, then we deserve it. Perhaps it will force our foreign policy experts to examine whether democracy really is a miracle drug for the world and whether the United States has the right to dispense it.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Week in Review
Pelosi backing Murtha
Was it a mistake for Rep. Nancy Pelosi to back Rep. Jack Murtha in his bid to become Majority Leader in the US House of Representatives? Before answering that question, let's acknowledge that this is a Republican talking point that everyone is falling for. Obviously, the answer is "No", it was not a mistake. Not backing anyone would have been a much greater mistake because that would have been symbolic of the inaction that the Democrats have practiced for the last twelve years. We should be applauding Pelosi for actually taking a stand on a candidate. She chose to back Murtha because of his stance on the Iraq War and she wanted an ally to help bring it to an end. If that is her priority in the upcoming session, as she recently wrote on The Huffington Post, then Murtha was the right choice and supporting him was not a mistake. Suggesting that it was an error in judgment simply plays into the hands of the Republicans and their media machine which will look to expose fractures in the Democrats at every opportunity.
To impeach or not to imeach? That is the question.
In my most recent post, a commenter raised a valid point about keeping Impeachment off the table, which is where Nancy Pelosi wants it, because of the potential cost to the American taxpayer. Also, I suspect that many Americans may be soured on the Impeachment process because of the way Republicans used it (or misused it) against President Clinton in 1998. While these concerns are understandable, I still believe that President Bush (and Vice President Cheney) should be impeached because of the gravity of the crimes committed as well as the ursurpation of powers not granted to the Executive Branch.
On Real Time with Bill Maher this past Friday, actor Richard Dreyfus put forth an excellent argument for impeachment based on the fundamental principles of our system of government. Dreyfus has been at Oxford for the last couple of years studying civics so his manner of addressing the argument was notably measured. Essentially, his argument was that President Bush has assumed powers that were never granted to the Executive Branch, and that one of the roles of the Legislative Branch is to check the power of the Executive. In this case, the Legislative Branch needs to act decisively to restore the balance in our system of government. If the Congress does not act on this and does not restore the balance of power, future Presidents cannot be relied on to simply give these powers back. Future Presidents will accept these powers as their own and will use them as they seem fit. The prospect of that should frighten all American citizens, regardless of ideology.
My argument for impeachment is that its necessary to show future generations of Americans that we as a people did not stand for the crimes of the Bush Administration and that we did something about it. To sweep it under the rug and hope that it goes away will not work. We need Congress to take action just as they did against President Nixon in 1974, which in my mind was one of the finest examples of our system of government at work. A President rum amok was dealt with effectively and the process of restoring confidence in government was begun. The actions of the Bush Administration appear to be far worse than that of Nixon's White House, yet there is hesitation to impeach this President. Why is that? Cost? Mistrust of the process? The fear of being accused of impeaching for political purposes only? All of the above? You can rest assured that Fox News Channel will use all of these as talking points, and more, if impeachment proceedings are begun. However, that shouldn't deter the process and in fact should embolden it. For the next two years, the Democratically controlled Congress must expose the GOP for what it truly is: the party that cares about power and wealth, not people, regardless of how it is obtained. See Paul Waldman's excellent essay on the topic of keeping the Republicans on the run for more.
Fox Propaganda Channel
If you actually believed that Fox News Channel was "Fair and Balanced", then your world must have been shattered when an internal Fox News memo was published this week describing Republican talking points to be used on broadcasts rather than reporting actual news following the recent mid-term election. For all the hype that "liberal media bias" gets, here is a pure, unadulterated version of the exact opposite - slanting of "news" in a way that can only be described as "anti-liberal". And while Fox News has the right to do whatever they want on their programs, their product should be understood by all as propaganda and the talking points used there shouldn't be employed by other organizations touting themselves as news organizations.
Bi-partisan Bush?
As expected, President Bush's claims of bi-partisanship were only words. This week's example: the renomination of several conservative judges. Jam 'em through says Cheney! Oh, and by the way, I think we're back to "stay the course" in Iraq with the possibility of sending more troops. How is Iraq not this generation's Vietnam? Apparently, the lessons of that folly need to be learned all over again.
Was it a mistake for Rep. Nancy Pelosi to back Rep. Jack Murtha in his bid to become Majority Leader in the US House of Representatives? Before answering that question, let's acknowledge that this is a Republican talking point that everyone is falling for. Obviously, the answer is "No", it was not a mistake. Not backing anyone would have been a much greater mistake because that would have been symbolic of the inaction that the Democrats have practiced for the last twelve years. We should be applauding Pelosi for actually taking a stand on a candidate. She chose to back Murtha because of his stance on the Iraq War and she wanted an ally to help bring it to an end. If that is her priority in the upcoming session, as she recently wrote on The Huffington Post, then Murtha was the right choice and supporting him was not a mistake. Suggesting that it was an error in judgment simply plays into the hands of the Republicans and their media machine which will look to expose fractures in the Democrats at every opportunity.
To impeach or not to imeach? That is the question.
In my most recent post, a commenter raised a valid point about keeping Impeachment off the table, which is where Nancy Pelosi wants it, because of the potential cost to the American taxpayer. Also, I suspect that many Americans may be soured on the Impeachment process because of the way Republicans used it (or misused it) against President Clinton in 1998. While these concerns are understandable, I still believe that President Bush (and Vice President Cheney) should be impeached because of the gravity of the crimes committed as well as the ursurpation of powers not granted to the Executive Branch.
On Real Time with Bill Maher this past Friday, actor Richard Dreyfus put forth an excellent argument for impeachment based on the fundamental principles of our system of government. Dreyfus has been at Oxford for the last couple of years studying civics so his manner of addressing the argument was notably measured. Essentially, his argument was that President Bush has assumed powers that were never granted to the Executive Branch, and that one of the roles of the Legislative Branch is to check the power of the Executive. In this case, the Legislative Branch needs to act decisively to restore the balance in our system of government. If the Congress does not act on this and does not restore the balance of power, future Presidents cannot be relied on to simply give these powers back. Future Presidents will accept these powers as their own and will use them as they seem fit. The prospect of that should frighten all American citizens, regardless of ideology.
My argument for impeachment is that its necessary to show future generations of Americans that we as a people did not stand for the crimes of the Bush Administration and that we did something about it. To sweep it under the rug and hope that it goes away will not work. We need Congress to take action just as they did against President Nixon in 1974, which in my mind was one of the finest examples of our system of government at work. A President rum amok was dealt with effectively and the process of restoring confidence in government was begun. The actions of the Bush Administration appear to be far worse than that of Nixon's White House, yet there is hesitation to impeach this President. Why is that? Cost? Mistrust of the process? The fear of being accused of impeaching for political purposes only? All of the above? You can rest assured that Fox News Channel will use all of these as talking points, and more, if impeachment proceedings are begun. However, that shouldn't deter the process and in fact should embolden it. For the next two years, the Democratically controlled Congress must expose the GOP for what it truly is: the party that cares about power and wealth, not people, regardless of how it is obtained. See Paul Waldman's excellent essay on the topic of keeping the Republicans on the run for more.
Fox Propaganda Channel
If you actually believed that Fox News Channel was "Fair and Balanced", then your world must have been shattered when an internal Fox News memo was published this week describing Republican talking points to be used on broadcasts rather than reporting actual news following the recent mid-term election. For all the hype that "liberal media bias" gets, here is a pure, unadulterated version of the exact opposite - slanting of "news" in a way that can only be described as "anti-liberal". And while Fox News has the right to do whatever they want on their programs, their product should be understood by all as propaganda and the talking points used there shouldn't be employed by other organizations touting themselves as news organizations.
Bi-partisan Bush?
As expected, President Bush's claims of bi-partisanship were only words. This week's example: the renomination of several conservative judges. Jam 'em through says Cheney! Oh, and by the way, I think we're back to "stay the course" in Iraq with the possibility of sending more troops. How is Iraq not this generation's Vietnam? Apparently, the lessons of that folly need to be learned all over again.
Saturday, November 11, 2006
Democratic Victory - What's Next?
Last Tuesday's mid-term elections catapulted the Democratic Party into power in both the House and the Senate, and the prevailing issues for voters' rejection of the Republican Party appeared to be the war in Iraq and corruption. For the Democrats, the operative question when they take power in January will be "what do we do now?". President Bush has stated in recent days that he is willing to work in a bi-partisan fashion, but can Democrats trust him? Well, if actions speak louder than words then the answer is a resounding "No" as Bush attempted to jam through his nomination of John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations this week.
In the face of a President who claims to be willing to work in a bi-partisan manner yet has no history of doing so, the Democratic leaders in Congress must stand firm and ensure that the concerns of the American electorate are addressed. Quite honestly, new House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi's stance on Impeachment is disappointing. She has stated that it is off the table for the coming session of Congress and that the American people have returned the Democrats to power in order to return civility and order to Washington. Is that true? I don't think so. It sounds like the kind of wishy -washy rhetoric that has mired the Democrats in the minority position for the last 12 years. We can only hope that it is not the prevailing sentiment among other Democratic leaders. The look forward approach will only work to a certain extent. The Republican administration must be exposed and investigated. Their crimes against this country must be in the minds of Americans when the 2008 presidential campaign is waged.
A strong indicator of action to come on the part of the Democrats will be the election of the House Majority Leader. Here's hoping that it will be Rep. Jack Murtha. Murtha has been one of the most outspoken critics against the war in Iraq and his previous military service gives him the credibility required to represent the thoughts of the military. With the Representative from Pennsylvania as the Majority Leader, the war in Iraq will surely be front and center during the 2007 Congressional Session, and that should mean that nothing is off the table, including Impeachment. The war must be addressed on two fronts - how to extricate ourselves and how did it come to pass. Representative Murtha is the best man for ensuring that the American people get the action they demand on these 2 facets.
Addressing how the war came to pass will require Congress to conduct thorough investigations of the Bush Administration's decision making process on invading Iraq and the lies behind it. One of the powers that the Democrats now inherit with control of the House is subpoena power. This power will allow them to investigate the Bush Administration on a number of issues including the events leading up to the war in Iraq. Will they use this power? I certainly hope so.
On Tuesday evening, I tuned in to MSNBC's election night coverage because I read that Keith Olbermann would be one of the hosts. In a discussion of subpoena power, both Chris Matthews and Tom Brokaw had some interesting views on how the Democrats should use that power. Both men discouraged the use of subpoenas to investigate the Iraq War, and Brokaw baselessly stated that the American people may not want that. A few minutes later, Brokaw said that investigating the war may send the wrong message to the troops.
Boy - so much for that liberal media! It's this kind of drivel from the mainstream media that keeps me from tuning in. Brokaw's comments are thoroughly ridiculous and do nothing except protect the President. The war should be investigated and if wrongdoing is found, those responsible should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. To spare the rod at this moment in time would be the wrong message to send to future generations. The transgressions of the Bush Administration against the US Constitution and the country cannot go unpunished, else it could be repeated in the near future. There must be consequences. As for Brokaw's assertion that an investigation of the war may send the wrong message to the troops, well that's a head-scratcher. Not investigating the war would mean that sending troops to die for a lie is acceptable and that the military should just do what its told. Is that the message we want to send to the troops? It's OK to die for nothing?
Also during MSNBC's coverage, it was interesting to hear the MSNBC commentators (Matthews and Scarborough) bring up the Downing Street Memos and other documents that point to fixed intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. None of these items was fully exposed by the mainstream media in this country, but clearly they are aware of them because they didn't hesitate to bring them up during the election coverage. Presumably since the Democrats have returned to power in Congress, these items are now newsworthy. Of course, they were newsworthy when they were first released, but the lap-dog media couldn't bother to investigate fully.
The War in Iraq is not the only hot button issue with progressives/liberals. There are many other concerns with the Bush Administration that also need to be addressed: Military Commissions Act, warrantless NSA spying, Patriot Act, Katrina, etc. In order to keep the wave of momentum going into the 2008 Presidential elections, the Democrats must continue to make progress on these issues, and keep the corruption and lies of the Bush White House in the forefront of American voters' minds.
Additional Note on MSNBC's election night coverage: As I stated earlier, I tuned in because of Keith Olbermann, and I was struck by the utter lack of chemistry between Olbermann and co-host Chris Matthews. The tension between the two was palpable. In the 45 minutes or so that I watched, Matthews must have stated at least 4 times that he had worked in Washington for years and he was giving us his resume. The sub-text of his declaration seemed to be a shot at Olbermann that he didn't have the same experience, and perhaps wasn't qualified to be there. However, Keith Olbermann has been a beacon for thoughtful Americans over the last year and his presence on Election Night was a welcome one.
In the face of a President who claims to be willing to work in a bi-partisan manner yet has no history of doing so, the Democratic leaders in Congress must stand firm and ensure that the concerns of the American electorate are addressed. Quite honestly, new House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi's stance on Impeachment is disappointing. She has stated that it is off the table for the coming session of Congress and that the American people have returned the Democrats to power in order to return civility and order to Washington. Is that true? I don't think so. It sounds like the kind of wishy -washy rhetoric that has mired the Democrats in the minority position for the last 12 years. We can only hope that it is not the prevailing sentiment among other Democratic leaders. The look forward approach will only work to a certain extent. The Republican administration must be exposed and investigated. Their crimes against this country must be in the minds of Americans when the 2008 presidential campaign is waged.
A strong indicator of action to come on the part of the Democrats will be the election of the House Majority Leader. Here's hoping that it will be Rep. Jack Murtha. Murtha has been one of the most outspoken critics against the war in Iraq and his previous military service gives him the credibility required to represent the thoughts of the military. With the Representative from Pennsylvania as the Majority Leader, the war in Iraq will surely be front and center during the 2007 Congressional Session, and that should mean that nothing is off the table, including Impeachment. The war must be addressed on two fronts - how to extricate ourselves and how did it come to pass. Representative Murtha is the best man for ensuring that the American people get the action they demand on these 2 facets.
Addressing how the war came to pass will require Congress to conduct thorough investigations of the Bush Administration's decision making process on invading Iraq and the lies behind it. One of the powers that the Democrats now inherit with control of the House is subpoena power. This power will allow them to investigate the Bush Administration on a number of issues including the events leading up to the war in Iraq. Will they use this power? I certainly hope so.
On Tuesday evening, I tuned in to MSNBC's election night coverage because I read that Keith Olbermann would be one of the hosts. In a discussion of subpoena power, both Chris Matthews and Tom Brokaw had some interesting views on how the Democrats should use that power. Both men discouraged the use of subpoenas to investigate the Iraq War, and Brokaw baselessly stated that the American people may not want that. A few minutes later, Brokaw said that investigating the war may send the wrong message to the troops.
Boy - so much for that liberal media! It's this kind of drivel from the mainstream media that keeps me from tuning in. Brokaw's comments are thoroughly ridiculous and do nothing except protect the President. The war should be investigated and if wrongdoing is found, those responsible should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. To spare the rod at this moment in time would be the wrong message to send to future generations. The transgressions of the Bush Administration against the US Constitution and the country cannot go unpunished, else it could be repeated in the near future. There must be consequences. As for Brokaw's assertion that an investigation of the war may send the wrong message to the troops, well that's a head-scratcher. Not investigating the war would mean that sending troops to die for a lie is acceptable and that the military should just do what its told. Is that the message we want to send to the troops? It's OK to die for nothing?
Also during MSNBC's coverage, it was interesting to hear the MSNBC commentators (Matthews and Scarborough) bring up the Downing Street Memos and other documents that point to fixed intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. None of these items was fully exposed by the mainstream media in this country, but clearly they are aware of them because they didn't hesitate to bring them up during the election coverage. Presumably since the Democrats have returned to power in Congress, these items are now newsworthy. Of course, they were newsworthy when they were first released, but the lap-dog media couldn't bother to investigate fully.
The War in Iraq is not the only hot button issue with progressives/liberals. There are many other concerns with the Bush Administration that also need to be addressed: Military Commissions Act, warrantless NSA spying, Patriot Act, Katrina, etc. In order to keep the wave of momentum going into the 2008 Presidential elections, the Democrats must continue to make progress on these issues, and keep the corruption and lies of the Bush White House in the forefront of American voters' minds.
Additional Note on MSNBC's election night coverage: As I stated earlier, I tuned in because of Keith Olbermann, and I was struck by the utter lack of chemistry between Olbermann and co-host Chris Matthews. The tension between the two was palpable. In the 45 minutes or so that I watched, Matthews must have stated at least 4 times that he had worked in Washington for years and he was giving us his resume. The sub-text of his declaration seemed to be a shot at Olbermann that he didn't have the same experience, and perhaps wasn't qualified to be there. However, Keith Olbermann has been a beacon for thoughtful Americans over the last year and his presence on Election Night was a welcome one.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Foley Scandal - Liberal Media Bias Myth, Part 473
While I find the Mark Foley scandal to be a distraction from the real issues facing this country, the media coverage of the lurid affair is in full GOP-spin mode and seems to be providing that side of the story, baseless as it is, without any reference to the known facts. Media Matters for America has a page dedicated to the scandal here, and at last count, there were 55 items listed. Jamison Foser’s weekly Media Matters column also has an excellent analysis of CNN’s performance covering the Foley affair.
Let’s look at a few salient facts in this scandal that seem to go unreported whenever any republican/conservative blowhard or politician is allowed to speak on this topic.
Fact: The original source of the e-mails was a former GOP aide who has been characterized as a “longtime republican” by both The Hill and ABC News.
Fact: The e-mails were first published on a website dedicated to stopping sexual predators.
Fact: GOP leadership has known about Foley’s behavior for some time, but never addressed it.
Even though these facts are well established, the media continues to allow conservatives like Dennis Hastert to push conspiracy theories stating that the scandal has been orchestrated by Democrats and possibly financed by George Soros. Hastert even invoked the name of Bill Clinton, the right’s favorite punching bag, and suggested that people associated with him might have had something to do with the disclosure of the e-mails. These claims are baseless and false, yet the average American might not know that if his source of news was CNN or Fox. Even this Reuters story is heavily slanted toward the GOP spin: Many conspirators seen behind Foley scandal.
Where’s that liberal media bias when you need it? Of course, it doesn’t exist, unless your definition of bias is the reporting of facts that are inconvenient to the Republican party line. So, in the liberal media bias world (like the one that the Media Research Center lives in), the simple reporting of the facts in the Foley story is evidence of said bias. However, notice how the “liberal” media have turned the story on its head by promoting the story line that Democrats have engineered the scandal during the election season for political gain. Other conservative and religious figures have gone on record blaming our permissive culture for allowing Gay and Lesbians to be accepted in society. Some people have even blamed the boys involved.
This perfectly highlights the difference between the perception of liberal media bias and conservative media bias. Liberal media bias is the reporting of facts that don’t align with the GOP view of the world; conservative media bias is misinformation and lies that are uncritically reported and allowed to stand as truth. You decide which is going on in the Foley scandal.
Last night while driving home, I was searching for traffic reports on AM radio when I came upon one of the least intelligent voices in our media today, Sean Hannity. What possessed me to listen to the man for a few minutes, I don’t know, but here is a recap of what I heard. Hannity’s diatribe was in the context of the Foley scandal and he was referring to a Gay Pride parade in San Francisco some years ago when a controversial leader in the Gay Community, whose name I didn’t quite get, was marching. Apparently, this particular man is an advocate of older men having sexual relationships with teenage boys, so presumably Mark Foley’s behavior wouldn’t be offensive to this person. Well, also marching in this particular Gay Pride parade in San Francisco, and apparently in relative proximity to the aforementioned controversial figure, was California Representative Nancy Pelosi.
At this point, Hannity stated something to the effect of “I wonder if the media are going to report this” with that tone of his indicating that he knows full well that they won’t. So, Nancy Pelosi was marching in a parade with a man who endorses sexual relations between older men and teenage boys. In Hannity World, this must mean that:
a) Nancy Pelosi endorses Mark Foley’s behavior.
b) Mark Foley is a Democrat (as mis-identified by both Fox and AP!).
c) Mark Foley is Nancy Pelosi in disguise.
d) All of the above
Is Hannity this much of a simpleton? Well, yeah, but that’s not my point. Just because one appears at an event with other people doesn’t mean that one assumes and endorses the views of everyone at that event. If David Duke appears at a Republican event, is every Republican at the event a racist who endorses the KKK? No, and Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have any culpability in the Foley scandal no matter how much the intellectually challenged Sean Hannity wants to try and suggest it.
The most glaring omission in media coverage in this affair is the questioning of Republicans over why they didn’t do anything about Foley when they have known about his behavior for years? The answer to that question is rather simple, yet repugnant. The Republican Party isn’t about doing the right thing – it’s about doing whatever it takes to stay in power. The Foley scandal is just the latest example of that mission in action. It’s too bad that the mission to stay in power is incongruent with doing the right thing.
Let’s look at a few salient facts in this scandal that seem to go unreported whenever any republican/conservative blowhard or politician is allowed to speak on this topic.
Fact: The original source of the e-mails was a former GOP aide who has been characterized as a “longtime republican” by both The Hill and ABC News.
Fact: The e-mails were first published on a website dedicated to stopping sexual predators.
Fact: GOP leadership has known about Foley’s behavior for some time, but never addressed it.
Even though these facts are well established, the media continues to allow conservatives like Dennis Hastert to push conspiracy theories stating that the scandal has been orchestrated by Democrats and possibly financed by George Soros. Hastert even invoked the name of Bill Clinton, the right’s favorite punching bag, and suggested that people associated with him might have had something to do with the disclosure of the e-mails. These claims are baseless and false, yet the average American might not know that if his source of news was CNN or Fox. Even this Reuters story is heavily slanted toward the GOP spin: Many conspirators seen behind Foley scandal.
Where’s that liberal media bias when you need it? Of course, it doesn’t exist, unless your definition of bias is the reporting of facts that are inconvenient to the Republican party line. So, in the liberal media bias world (like the one that the Media Research Center lives in), the simple reporting of the facts in the Foley story is evidence of said bias. However, notice how the “liberal” media have turned the story on its head by promoting the story line that Democrats have engineered the scandal during the election season for political gain. Other conservative and religious figures have gone on record blaming our permissive culture for allowing Gay and Lesbians to be accepted in society. Some people have even blamed the boys involved.
This perfectly highlights the difference between the perception of liberal media bias and conservative media bias. Liberal media bias is the reporting of facts that don’t align with the GOP view of the world; conservative media bias is misinformation and lies that are uncritically reported and allowed to stand as truth. You decide which is going on in the Foley scandal.
Last night while driving home, I was searching for traffic reports on AM radio when I came upon one of the least intelligent voices in our media today, Sean Hannity. What possessed me to listen to the man for a few minutes, I don’t know, but here is a recap of what I heard. Hannity’s diatribe was in the context of the Foley scandal and he was referring to a Gay Pride parade in San Francisco some years ago when a controversial leader in the Gay Community, whose name I didn’t quite get, was marching. Apparently, this particular man is an advocate of older men having sexual relationships with teenage boys, so presumably Mark Foley’s behavior wouldn’t be offensive to this person. Well, also marching in this particular Gay Pride parade in San Francisco, and apparently in relative proximity to the aforementioned controversial figure, was California Representative Nancy Pelosi.
At this point, Hannity stated something to the effect of “I wonder if the media are going to report this” with that tone of his indicating that he knows full well that they won’t. So, Nancy Pelosi was marching in a parade with a man who endorses sexual relations between older men and teenage boys. In Hannity World, this must mean that:
a) Nancy Pelosi endorses Mark Foley’s behavior.
b) Mark Foley is a Democrat (as mis-identified by both Fox and AP!).
c) Mark Foley is Nancy Pelosi in disguise.
d) All of the above
Is Hannity this much of a simpleton? Well, yeah, but that’s not my point. Just because one appears at an event with other people doesn’t mean that one assumes and endorses the views of everyone at that event. If David Duke appears at a Republican event, is every Republican at the event a racist who endorses the KKK? No, and Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have any culpability in the Foley scandal no matter how much the intellectually challenged Sean Hannity wants to try and suggest it.
The most glaring omission in media coverage in this affair is the questioning of Republicans over why they didn’t do anything about Foley when they have known about his behavior for years? The answer to that question is rather simple, yet repugnant. The Republican Party isn’t about doing the right thing – it’s about doing whatever it takes to stay in power. The Foley scandal is just the latest example of that mission in action. It’s too bad that the mission to stay in power is incongruent with doing the right thing.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
A Serious Blow to Freedom
In my most recent post, Rewriting History, I stated that there are some disturbing parallels between the Bush Regime’s approach to power and that of Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. The Military Commissions Act that the House and Senate passed this week for President Bush’s signature is a spectacular example of such a parallel.
In the 1930’s, the Nazis were able to imprison and detain enemies of the state indefinitely under the guise of “protective custody”. The idea was that these people would not be safe in public because of their views so the Nazis set up a legal apparatus, protective custody in concentration camps, to rid themselves of their enemies and any other undesirable elements. Anyone not fully invested in the goals of the Nazi Party was a candidate for such treatment.
The legislation passed last Thursday essentially gives the Bush Administration the same power except that the key designation is “enemy combatant”. The power to designate a person as an enemy combatant lies within the Executive branch and there is no oversight. Virtually anyone, including all American citizens, can be deemed an enemy combatant, and those who are, cease to have any rights or protection normally afforded by the United States Constitution. One of the most disturbing provisions of this bill is the denial of habeas corpus to enemy combatants, which means that such persons can be detained indefinitely without a hearing or trial. Although habeas corpus is not specifically provided for by the Constitution, it is certainly understood by that document and its authors as the right of all citizens in a free democracy. The Constitution’s only reference to habeas corpus states that it can only be suspended during a rebellion or invasion, neither of which is occurring today.
Another controversial piece of this legislation is its codification of “alternative” interrogation techniques and the retroactive protection of all individuals involved with the use of such techniques prior to the passing of this bill. In plain language, the United States of America can now use methods deemed as torture while interrogating terror suspects, and anyone who has used torture in the past is now safe from prosecution. Seriously, is this the brand of legislation that you could have ever imagined being passed in the United States? This is the kind of stuff you expect from Third World Military Juntas, not the alleged leader of the Free World, the good ‘ole USA.
When we question the wisdom of such legislation, the Bush Administration tells us that they are doing this to protect America and the American way of life. But here lies the great paradox. If one begins to dismantle the rights and protections recognized by the US Constitution in the name of security, then what is left to protect? For many, the American way of life is simply a given, but that way of life is defined and protected by the Constitution, a document that was drafted in reaction to a tyrannical monarchy. When the President begins to assume powers that have not been given to the Executive Branch by the Constitution, and when he begins to strip the rights and protections afforded to all Americans by the Constitution, then it is paradoxical to state that these measures are being taken to protect the American way of life. They are destroying it.
On September 11, 2001, 19 hijackers destroyed 4 planes and 2 buildings. Ever since that day, the Bush Administration has assaulted the Constitution and the rule of law, all in the name of security. In the process, they have done more damage to this country than any terrorist organization could ever do. They have destroyed what it means to be a free and just society. America can no longer lead by example in the cause of freedom and democracy because it is a country that has eschewed the rule of law in favor of unchecked Presidential power. Our credibility is busted.
Can we save our country? The prevailing wisdom is that we need the Democratic Party to win back the House and Senate from Republican control, but that’s no guarantee. While a Democratic controlled Congress is more likely to apply checks and balances to the President, the Democratic Party has not articulated a genuine vision for dealing with Iraq, Afghanistan, al Qaeda and a myriad of other problems facing this nation. Strong leadership within the Democratic Party must emerge within the next few months in order to begin the process of unraveling the mess created by the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, no such leader seems to be ready to step up and fill those shoes.
As long as the United States has its nuclear arsenal, it will remain a significant world power and will continue to be a player in global events. However, America’s stature in the world is decreasing. The War in Iraq is bleeding the economy of both financial and human resources. If America can survive this tumultuous period and eventually restore its lost freedoms, how will history judge this current cast of leaders and legislators? I’ve stated numerous time my thoughts on the President, but the Republican controlled Congress deserves more than its fair share of blame. In fact, I hope that history judges them as an embarrassment on the legacy of our nation. They have been nothing but complicit in the destruction of the foundation of our country; essentially standing idly by while their President usurps power and leads this nation on a path to destruction. History should judge them harshly for not representing the people and for not stopping our President from continuously breaking the law. They have not fulfilled their role in government and they have betrayed the people in their quest to remain in power. It’s time they lost control of Congress so that we can start writing some of that history.
In the 1930’s, the Nazis were able to imprison and detain enemies of the state indefinitely under the guise of “protective custody”. The idea was that these people would not be safe in public because of their views so the Nazis set up a legal apparatus, protective custody in concentration camps, to rid themselves of their enemies and any other undesirable elements. Anyone not fully invested in the goals of the Nazi Party was a candidate for such treatment.
The legislation passed last Thursday essentially gives the Bush Administration the same power except that the key designation is “enemy combatant”. The power to designate a person as an enemy combatant lies within the Executive branch and there is no oversight. Virtually anyone, including all American citizens, can be deemed an enemy combatant, and those who are, cease to have any rights or protection normally afforded by the United States Constitution. One of the most disturbing provisions of this bill is the denial of habeas corpus to enemy combatants, which means that such persons can be detained indefinitely without a hearing or trial. Although habeas corpus is not specifically provided for by the Constitution, it is certainly understood by that document and its authors as the right of all citizens in a free democracy. The Constitution’s only reference to habeas corpus states that it can only be suspended during a rebellion or invasion, neither of which is occurring today.
Another controversial piece of this legislation is its codification of “alternative” interrogation techniques and the retroactive protection of all individuals involved with the use of such techniques prior to the passing of this bill. In plain language, the United States of America can now use methods deemed as torture while interrogating terror suspects, and anyone who has used torture in the past is now safe from prosecution. Seriously, is this the brand of legislation that you could have ever imagined being passed in the United States? This is the kind of stuff you expect from Third World Military Juntas, not the alleged leader of the Free World, the good ‘ole USA.
When we question the wisdom of such legislation, the Bush Administration tells us that they are doing this to protect America and the American way of life. But here lies the great paradox. If one begins to dismantle the rights and protections recognized by the US Constitution in the name of security, then what is left to protect? For many, the American way of life is simply a given, but that way of life is defined and protected by the Constitution, a document that was drafted in reaction to a tyrannical monarchy. When the President begins to assume powers that have not been given to the Executive Branch by the Constitution, and when he begins to strip the rights and protections afforded to all Americans by the Constitution, then it is paradoxical to state that these measures are being taken to protect the American way of life. They are destroying it.
On September 11, 2001, 19 hijackers destroyed 4 planes and 2 buildings. Ever since that day, the Bush Administration has assaulted the Constitution and the rule of law, all in the name of security. In the process, they have done more damage to this country than any terrorist organization could ever do. They have destroyed what it means to be a free and just society. America can no longer lead by example in the cause of freedom and democracy because it is a country that has eschewed the rule of law in favor of unchecked Presidential power. Our credibility is busted.
Can we save our country? The prevailing wisdom is that we need the Democratic Party to win back the House and Senate from Republican control, but that’s no guarantee. While a Democratic controlled Congress is more likely to apply checks and balances to the President, the Democratic Party has not articulated a genuine vision for dealing with Iraq, Afghanistan, al Qaeda and a myriad of other problems facing this nation. Strong leadership within the Democratic Party must emerge within the next few months in order to begin the process of unraveling the mess created by the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, no such leader seems to be ready to step up and fill those shoes.
As long as the United States has its nuclear arsenal, it will remain a significant world power and will continue to be a player in global events. However, America’s stature in the world is decreasing. The War in Iraq is bleeding the economy of both financial and human resources. If America can survive this tumultuous period and eventually restore its lost freedoms, how will history judge this current cast of leaders and legislators? I’ve stated numerous time my thoughts on the President, but the Republican controlled Congress deserves more than its fair share of blame. In fact, I hope that history judges them as an embarrassment on the legacy of our nation. They have been nothing but complicit in the destruction of the foundation of our country; essentially standing idly by while their President usurps power and leads this nation on a path to destruction. History should judge them harshly for not representing the people and for not stopping our President from continuously breaking the law. They have not fulfilled their role in government and they have betrayed the people in their quest to remain in power. It’s time they lost control of Congress so that we can start writing some of that history.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Rewriting History
Over the last few weeks, the Bush Administration, through its proxies like Fox News and ABC, has begun a process that is typically associated with totalitarian regimes, and that is rewriting history. In so doing, conservatives have decided to go back to their favorite pastime of the 1990s – Clinton bashing.
Yes, believe it or not, President Bill Clinton is once again the focus of conservative critics as they tell us that the events of 9/11 are his fault because he didn’t do enough to deal with Osama bin Laden. In the process of rewriting history, the Bush Administration seeks to cleanse itself from its disastrous rule over this country by invoking the name of a politician that has been a polarizing and unifying force within GOP circles. Their hope is that their base’s rabid hatred of Clinton will help obscure the vision of all Americans when trying to put recent history into context.
The beginning of “Blame Clinton” as our new history was on display in the ABC docu-drama “Path to 9/11”. The nefarious roots of the script and intent of this production have been covered extensively in the blogosphere, however it’s important to note that the story presented was more akin to a neo-con’s wet dream rather than a truthful analysis of events during Clinton’s presidency. In typical conservative style, a simplistic version of “truth” was presented without any factual context. The new history tells us that Clinton was too distracted to deal with Osama bin Laden effectively and that he wasn’t focused enough to catch him. Our new history also states that Republicans would have supported retaliatory measures against bin Laden even amidst the Lewinsky affair.
Anyone with half a memory realizes that this is complete fiction. Let’s remember who created the alleged distraction – the Republicans. In their extreme hatred of Clinton, the Republicans searched high and low for something to burn the President with and what they found was Monica Lewinsky. And they heaped her upon this nation for the better part of two years. If Republicans really wanted our President focused on bin Laden, why were they distracting him with the Lewinsky scandal?
Of course, Clinton wasn’t distracted from the problem of terrorism and Osama bin Laden. When he tried to deal with it through rocket attacks against al Qaeda bases, Republicans criticized him for manufacturing an incident in order to distract the American public from his personal problems. In other words, conservatives didn’t want ordinary Americans to be distracted from the true distraction. That criticism of Clinton certainly doesn’t jibe with conservative commentators, like Fox News’ Brit Hume, who have stated that they would have supported strong measures by the President against al Qaeda in 1998, and that’s because its complete fiction. Or if you like, it’s revisionist history. During the Clinton Administration, there was never anything but partisanship from Republicans and to claim differently is simply a lie. Also, “The Path to 9/11” makes no mention of the conservative agenda to oust Clinton through any means possible regardless of its affects on the country.
In a continuation of the rewriting of history, Chris Wallace of Fox News questioned President Clinton on his effectiveness in dealing with bin Laden and thus perpetuated the new conservative theme that Clinton was to blame for 9/11. What perhaps was unexpected, was that Clinton was quite forceful in his response to the questions and he spoke the plain truth – a fact that conservative commentators are completely glossing over. But Clinton’s words were important because he stated in no uncertain terms that the current Administration did absolutely nothing with regards to Osama bin Laden in its first eight months in power even though a detailed anti-terror program had been turned over in late 2000. Those words clearly resonated with MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann as he ended his Monday evening program with a “Special Comment” regarding the same subject as this post – the rewriting of history. Olbermann’s voice has become a singular beacon of clarity, courage and reason among a mainstream media that is bloated with pseudo-journalists who have no concept of the ramifications of the events transpiring before their eyes.
In Mr. Olbermann’s “Special Comment”, he referred to the words of George Orwell from his work “1984” when referring to the rewriting and control of history. Instead of referring to a brilliant writer’s work of fiction (or perhaps vision of the future), I’ll refer to the work of Richard J. Evans and his thorough three-part analysis of the Third Reich. While Hitler’s Third Reich is best known in this country for World War II and the Holocaust, Evans takes us through every societal facet and detail during the rise of the Nazis and their time in power. The parallels between the Nazis’ system of government and style of rule, and what the Bush Administration is trying to do in this country is truly frightening. The casual reader may think that I’m exaggerating or that I’m showing myself to be an extremist. That person would be dead wrong. This administration is that scary, and it is destroying this country and everything it is supposed to stand for.
Silence in the face of such peril to our nation is no longer acceptable and Keith Olbermann realizes that. He delivered a very powerful “Special Comment” on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 that was highly pointed in its criticism of Mr. Bush and his politicization of 9/11. The rewriting of history must also not be met with silence, or else, the new history replaces the truth and pushes our nation further along the path to doom. We must not stand for it.
Yes, believe it or not, President Bill Clinton is once again the focus of conservative critics as they tell us that the events of 9/11 are his fault because he didn’t do enough to deal with Osama bin Laden. In the process of rewriting history, the Bush Administration seeks to cleanse itself from its disastrous rule over this country by invoking the name of a politician that has been a polarizing and unifying force within GOP circles. Their hope is that their base’s rabid hatred of Clinton will help obscure the vision of all Americans when trying to put recent history into context.
The beginning of “Blame Clinton” as our new history was on display in the ABC docu-drama “Path to 9/11”. The nefarious roots of the script and intent of this production have been covered extensively in the blogosphere, however it’s important to note that the story presented was more akin to a neo-con’s wet dream rather than a truthful analysis of events during Clinton’s presidency. In typical conservative style, a simplistic version of “truth” was presented without any factual context. The new history tells us that Clinton was too distracted to deal with Osama bin Laden effectively and that he wasn’t focused enough to catch him. Our new history also states that Republicans would have supported retaliatory measures against bin Laden even amidst the Lewinsky affair.
Anyone with half a memory realizes that this is complete fiction. Let’s remember who created the alleged distraction – the Republicans. In their extreme hatred of Clinton, the Republicans searched high and low for something to burn the President with and what they found was Monica Lewinsky. And they heaped her upon this nation for the better part of two years. If Republicans really wanted our President focused on bin Laden, why were they distracting him with the Lewinsky scandal?
Of course, Clinton wasn’t distracted from the problem of terrorism and Osama bin Laden. When he tried to deal with it through rocket attacks against al Qaeda bases, Republicans criticized him for manufacturing an incident in order to distract the American public from his personal problems. In other words, conservatives didn’t want ordinary Americans to be distracted from the true distraction. That criticism of Clinton certainly doesn’t jibe with conservative commentators, like Fox News’ Brit Hume, who have stated that they would have supported strong measures by the President against al Qaeda in 1998, and that’s because its complete fiction. Or if you like, it’s revisionist history. During the Clinton Administration, there was never anything but partisanship from Republicans and to claim differently is simply a lie. Also, “The Path to 9/11” makes no mention of the conservative agenda to oust Clinton through any means possible regardless of its affects on the country.
In a continuation of the rewriting of history, Chris Wallace of Fox News questioned President Clinton on his effectiveness in dealing with bin Laden and thus perpetuated the new conservative theme that Clinton was to blame for 9/11. What perhaps was unexpected, was that Clinton was quite forceful in his response to the questions and he spoke the plain truth – a fact that conservative commentators are completely glossing over. But Clinton’s words were important because he stated in no uncertain terms that the current Administration did absolutely nothing with regards to Osama bin Laden in its first eight months in power even though a detailed anti-terror program had been turned over in late 2000. Those words clearly resonated with MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann as he ended his Monday evening program with a “Special Comment” regarding the same subject as this post – the rewriting of history. Olbermann’s voice has become a singular beacon of clarity, courage and reason among a mainstream media that is bloated with pseudo-journalists who have no concept of the ramifications of the events transpiring before their eyes.
In Mr. Olbermann’s “Special Comment”, he referred to the words of George Orwell from his work “1984” when referring to the rewriting and control of history. Instead of referring to a brilliant writer’s work of fiction (or perhaps vision of the future), I’ll refer to the work of Richard J. Evans and his thorough three-part analysis of the Third Reich. While Hitler’s Third Reich is best known in this country for World War II and the Holocaust, Evans takes us through every societal facet and detail during the rise of the Nazis and their time in power. The parallels between the Nazis’ system of government and style of rule, and what the Bush Administration is trying to do in this country is truly frightening. The casual reader may think that I’m exaggerating or that I’m showing myself to be an extremist. That person would be dead wrong. This administration is that scary, and it is destroying this country and everything it is supposed to stand for.
Silence in the face of such peril to our nation is no longer acceptable and Keith Olbermann realizes that. He delivered a very powerful “Special Comment” on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 that was highly pointed in its criticism of Mr. Bush and his politicization of 9/11. The rewriting of history must also not be met with silence, or else, the new history replaces the truth and pushes our nation further along the path to doom. We must not stand for it.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Neo-Cons: Stand By Your Man
On Sunday, I happened to come across a column in the Washington Post entitled “Standing by Bush”. I have to admit that I was intrigued by the title and drawn to the column in the same way a passenger in a car can’t help looking at an accident scene on the side of a road. What twisted logic would be presented to back up the title? I had to know.
The column was written by Joshua Muravchik who is a self-proclaimed neo-conservative and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and I invite you to read the column for yourself. After reading it, I was disgusted. The views put forth in this column are directly responsible for making the world the hornet’s nest of violence that it is today.
Muravchik’s goal appears to be to rally conservatives to the side of Emperor Bush to help the President achieve his vision of world order. The fact that Muravchik associates vision with Bush’s policies is an odious thought. That he associates courage with Bush is absolutely repugnant.
The author notes that in the ‘80s, neo-conservatives were even critical of the foreign policies of the revered Ronald Reagan, so in that context, it’s not unexpected that Bush is being criticized by some of his staunchest supporters. Yet, he maintains that while Bush has made mistakes, he has shown the courage to deal with terrorists in a way that no other Administration has including Reagan’s.
One fact that Muravchik fails to tell the reader is that US foreign policy under Reagan was based on Realism, not neo-conservative idealism as it is today. Even in those heady days of conservatism, the neo-cons were shut out of foreign policy. The Realists view foreign policy as a struggle to maintain geo-political power and balance. They don’t subscribe to the vision of an American world order as promoted by neo-con idealists, nor are they terribly concerned with human rights as defended by liberal idealists. Realists will deal with anyone at anytime as long as the balance of power can be maintained. Reagan’s interactions with Iran in the late ‘80s clearly show this to be the case.
Today, neo-conservative ideals drive US foreign policy. Pro-active wars to affect regime change and spread American style democracy to an ignorant world are what must be done to maintain our security and our way of life. In the neo-con world, there is good and there is evil. America is good; those who don’t like America are evil. It’s that black and white. What is good for America is naturally good for the world. America is the beacon of enlightenment.
In reality, what neo-conservative idealism boils down to is American arrogance and stupidity. Bush was not courageous to start a war without end. He was a coward and took the easy way out by blaming the terrorists for all that was wrong in the world. Real courage would have been to force America to look in the mirror and see how our policies might be responsible for terrorism. Real courage would have been to create an energy policy that makes us independent of fossil fuels. Real courage would have been to not go to war and show the world that we are willing to work hard for peace. Real courage would have been to pressure some of our oppressive allies into reforms so that their countries would not be breeding grounds for radicalism. Real courage would have been to attempt dialogue with those who are our enemies. That’s what real courage would have been. Going to war based on lies wasn’t courageous. It was arrogant and stupid. To believe otherwise is foolish and naïve, and demonstrates a severe lack of global perspective. Oftentimes, naïveté is what unbridled idealism boils down to – even neo-conservative idealism as preached by Joshua Muravchik.
The column was written by Joshua Muravchik who is a self-proclaimed neo-conservative and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and I invite you to read the column for yourself. After reading it, I was disgusted. The views put forth in this column are directly responsible for making the world the hornet’s nest of violence that it is today.
Muravchik’s goal appears to be to rally conservatives to the side of Emperor Bush to help the President achieve his vision of world order. The fact that Muravchik associates vision with Bush’s policies is an odious thought. That he associates courage with Bush is absolutely repugnant.
The author notes that in the ‘80s, neo-conservatives were even critical of the foreign policies of the revered Ronald Reagan, so in that context, it’s not unexpected that Bush is being criticized by some of his staunchest supporters. Yet, he maintains that while Bush has made mistakes, he has shown the courage to deal with terrorists in a way that no other Administration has including Reagan’s.
One fact that Muravchik fails to tell the reader is that US foreign policy under Reagan was based on Realism, not neo-conservative idealism as it is today. Even in those heady days of conservatism, the neo-cons were shut out of foreign policy. The Realists view foreign policy as a struggle to maintain geo-political power and balance. They don’t subscribe to the vision of an American world order as promoted by neo-con idealists, nor are they terribly concerned with human rights as defended by liberal idealists. Realists will deal with anyone at anytime as long as the balance of power can be maintained. Reagan’s interactions with Iran in the late ‘80s clearly show this to be the case.
Today, neo-conservative ideals drive US foreign policy. Pro-active wars to affect regime change and spread American style democracy to an ignorant world are what must be done to maintain our security and our way of life. In the neo-con world, there is good and there is evil. America is good; those who don’t like America are evil. It’s that black and white. What is good for America is naturally good for the world. America is the beacon of enlightenment.
In reality, what neo-conservative idealism boils down to is American arrogance and stupidity. Bush was not courageous to start a war without end. He was a coward and took the easy way out by blaming the terrorists for all that was wrong in the world. Real courage would have been to force America to look in the mirror and see how our policies might be responsible for terrorism. Real courage would have been to create an energy policy that makes us independent of fossil fuels. Real courage would have been to not go to war and show the world that we are willing to work hard for peace. Real courage would have been to pressure some of our oppressive allies into reforms so that their countries would not be breeding grounds for radicalism. Real courage would have been to attempt dialogue with those who are our enemies. That’s what real courage would have been. Going to war based on lies wasn’t courageous. It was arrogant and stupid. To believe otherwise is foolish and naïve, and demonstrates a severe lack of global perspective. Oftentimes, naïveté is what unbridled idealism boils down to – even neo-conservative idealism as preached by Joshua Muravchik.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Terrorism and Revolution
I left this thought in a comment on Glenn Greenwald’s
Twentieth Century
In one of his Common Sense letters, Thomas Paine noted (and perhaps advocated) that it would be simple for the American Colonists to go to England and commit acts of sabotage because of the ease in which they could integrate into English society. In today’s vernacular, sabotage equals terrorism, yet we would never label the Colonists as terrorists. But perhaps Fox News would if the conflict were occurring today in some far-away land.
Terrorism is one of the most politically charged and over-used terms in our vocabulary today. To be associated with terrorism in any way can be a death knell for one’s career and/or credibility, yet the term is so broadly applied these days that the true meaning of the word has been obscured. Is it possible that acts of terrorism could also be defined as acts of revolution? Is one man’s terrorist another man’s revolutionary?
The current conflict in the
Criticizing Israel publicly in America is a difficult proposition as not only will you be lumped in with the terrorists, you’ll also be branded as an anti-Semite (just ask Alan Dershowitz). However, criticizing
The point of this post is to remind us to look beyond the simple labels, especially during times of conflict. Our own revolutionary past should teach us that not all oppressed peoples are terrorists and that sometimes change is a good thing.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Why No Ceasefire?
I have to admit that I’m baffled by the
By definition, a ceasefire is simply a suspension of hostilities. It is in no way connected to longer term peace deals, and nor should it be. However, ceasefires are generally a step in the right direction when it comes to negotiating such deals. The longer this conflict lasts, the greater the potential for it to expand beyond the borders of
With conservative and religious pundits, as well as tele-journalists (see Media Matters for America here, here and here), discussing the coming of World War III and Armageddon, the American public is being primed for the next military intervention. An immediate ceasefire would only stand in the way of a possible escalation in hostilities in the region and thus might remove any justification for further
In the meantime,
Monday, July 17, 2006
Do You Trust Robert Novak?
Columnist Robert Novak has been making the rounds on the news talk show circuit to discuss his role in the public disclosure of Valerie Plame’s name and her “connection” to her husband’s (Joe Wilson) fact-finding mission to
Novak strikes me as one of those columnists who not only enjoys analyzing news, but also participating in the news and being part of the story. It’s as if he’s not satisfied with being on the outside; he wants to be on the inside helping his powerful friends. In the last few months, we’ve learned that the White House deliberately attempted to discredit Joe Wilson and his findings regarding an Iraqi uranium deal in
Naturally, Novak claims to be innocent in the whole affair and says that he was simply reporting on a relevant connection between a clearly anti-Administration envoy (
Should we trust Novak when he says that the leak of Valerie Plame’s name was inadvertent? I think not. There appears to be something incongruous about Novak’s claims. He states that the release of the name was inadvertent, but at the same time insists that Plame was neither undercover nor a covert operative at the time of the leak. Why the two statements? If the leak was truly inadvertent and he was unaware of Plame’s status at the CIA, then there’s no reason to repeatedly insist that she wasn’t undercover. He simply could have plead ignorance to outing a CIA operative in his disclosure of how Wilson was sent to Niger and not even addressed what her status may or may not have been.
The fact that he has denied her status as an undercover operative tells me that he was fully aware of what he was doing when he used Plame’s name in his column and that he knew he was potentially breaking the law by revealing the name of a CIA operative. CIA spokesperson Bill Harlow told Novak not to use the name in his column, but he did not tell Novak what her role was at the CIA, only that her name should not be disclosed. Interestingly enough, Novak did not heed this warning even though he acknowledges that
Leaks are seldom inadvertent, and more typically, are done with intent to benefit oneself and/or one’s friends. In this case, the purported benefactors of the leak were to be the Bush Administration, with harm being done to the
Saturday, May 13, 2006
O'Reilly and Intelligence
A few nights ago, I was finishing my workout at the gym with some stretching when America’s favorite bully pundit, Bill O’Reilly, came on the television in the next room. Normally, all of the televisions are tuned in to sporting events, but for some reason Faux News was on. I guess someone needed his daily fill of propaganda masquerading as news.
Whatever the reason, I was now forced to listen to the opening of O’Reilly’s show and thus was thrust into the “Spin Right” zone. I never watch O’Reilly because I can’t stand the arrogance of the man and the lies he tells would just enrage me. Instead, I usually read about Billy Boy’s outrageous statements on the Media Matters for America website, or as O’Reilly likes to refer to it, a far left smear site. On this particular evening, I was a captive audience for about 10 minutes and was forced to listen to O’Reilly continue to perpetuate the myth of “intelligence failure” by the CIA.
Must we debunk the “intelligence failure” of the CIA, et al for the umpteenth time? The only intelligence failures that mattered prior to 9/11 and the Iraq war was the lack of intelligence that resides in the White House. However, let’s re-state the facts. On August 6, 2001, the CIA prepared a Presidential Daily Briefing that stated that Al Qaeda was planning a terrorist attack in the United States and that attack could take place very soon. The Bush Administration’s response? Nothing. They did nothing. The President who pledged to protect America did nothing. Condoleeza Rice later claimed that the Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6 was presented in an historical context, but that’s a blatant lie. Presidential Briefings aren’t meant to be history lessons.
Under President Clinton, a similar Presidential Daily Briefing was presented prior to 2000 warning of terrorist attacks to coincide with the Millenium. The Clinton Administration, an Administration that actually paid attention to terrorism, mobilized the FBI, CIA and other governmental agencies in an effort to prevent any terrorist attacks from taking place within the United States. Couldn’t the Bush Administration have undertaken a similar effort in August of 2001? Of course they could have, they just didn't.
The other alleged intelligence failure of the CIA was the “faulty” intelligence provided on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction program, but we now know from various sources that the intelligence provided to the Administration painted a very different picture of Iraq’s WMD capabilities than we were led to believe by the cherry-picking Bush Administration. Not only was the “intelligence fixed to fit the policy”, but also dissenting views presented in the infamous National Intelligence Estimate were suppressed and not publicly disclosed until much later.
It’s clear that the CIA is not at fault for Iraq nor 9/11. The CIA told President Bush that a terrorist attack on US soil was looming and he chose to ignore it. President Bush was presented with dissenting views on Iraq and its WMD program and chose to ignore them. In both situations, intelligence failure was not the problem. The problem was one of choice – the wrong choice. Our President – or should I say Emperor since he’s now above the law – made these choices, not the CIA. The responsibility for 9/11 and the Iraq War resides in the Oval Office.
Yet, we have the great patriot Bill O’Reilly blathering on national television about the failures of the CIA. How can this guy seriously think that his show is a “No Spin” zone? On this topic, it’s a “Bush Spin” zone. He claims to be a patriotic American, but he chooses to smear the hard working folks at the CIA by claiming that they hadn’t done their job when we know that they had. O’Reilly is giving his viewers the party line in an effort to perpetuate the lie so that it continues to be the de facto truth.
Bully Bill isn’t a great American; he’s a man who is allergic to the truth when it doesn’t fit his or Fox News’ agenda. Plain and simple, what he presents on a nightly basis is propaganda and nothing more. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again - America has become a land where lies are truth, and the truth is a smear. We can all thank Bill O’Reilly for that.
Whatever the reason, I was now forced to listen to the opening of O’Reilly’s show and thus was thrust into the “Spin Right” zone. I never watch O’Reilly because I can’t stand the arrogance of the man and the lies he tells would just enrage me. Instead, I usually read about Billy Boy’s outrageous statements on the Media Matters for America website, or as O’Reilly likes to refer to it, a far left smear site. On this particular evening, I was a captive audience for about 10 minutes and was forced to listen to O’Reilly continue to perpetuate the myth of “intelligence failure” by the CIA.
Must we debunk the “intelligence failure” of the CIA, et al for the umpteenth time? The only intelligence failures that mattered prior to 9/11 and the Iraq war was the lack of intelligence that resides in the White House. However, let’s re-state the facts. On August 6, 2001, the CIA prepared a Presidential Daily Briefing that stated that Al Qaeda was planning a terrorist attack in the United States and that attack could take place very soon. The Bush Administration’s response? Nothing. They did nothing. The President who pledged to protect America did nothing. Condoleeza Rice later claimed that the Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6 was presented in an historical context, but that’s a blatant lie. Presidential Briefings aren’t meant to be history lessons.
Under President Clinton, a similar Presidential Daily Briefing was presented prior to 2000 warning of terrorist attacks to coincide with the Millenium. The Clinton Administration, an Administration that actually paid attention to terrorism, mobilized the FBI, CIA and other governmental agencies in an effort to prevent any terrorist attacks from taking place within the United States. Couldn’t the Bush Administration have undertaken a similar effort in August of 2001? Of course they could have, they just didn't.
The other alleged intelligence failure of the CIA was the “faulty” intelligence provided on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction program, but we now know from various sources that the intelligence provided to the Administration painted a very different picture of Iraq’s WMD capabilities than we were led to believe by the cherry-picking Bush Administration. Not only was the “intelligence fixed to fit the policy”, but also dissenting views presented in the infamous National Intelligence Estimate were suppressed and not publicly disclosed until much later.
It’s clear that the CIA is not at fault for Iraq nor 9/11. The CIA told President Bush that a terrorist attack on US soil was looming and he chose to ignore it. President Bush was presented with dissenting views on Iraq and its WMD program and chose to ignore them. In both situations, intelligence failure was not the problem. The problem was one of choice – the wrong choice. Our President – or should I say Emperor since he’s now above the law – made these choices, not the CIA. The responsibility for 9/11 and the Iraq War resides in the Oval Office.
Yet, we have the great patriot Bill O’Reilly blathering on national television about the failures of the CIA. How can this guy seriously think that his show is a “No Spin” zone? On this topic, it’s a “Bush Spin” zone. He claims to be a patriotic American, but he chooses to smear the hard working folks at the CIA by claiming that they hadn’t done their job when we know that they had. O’Reilly is giving his viewers the party line in an effort to perpetuate the lie so that it continues to be the de facto truth.
Bully Bill isn’t a great American; he’s a man who is allergic to the truth when it doesn’t fit his or Fox News’ agenda. Plain and simple, what he presents on a nightly basis is propaganda and nothing more. We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again - America has become a land where lies are truth, and the truth is a smear. We can all thank Bill O’Reilly for that.
Monday, May 08, 2006
United 93 and Conspiracy Theories
With the recent release of the 9/11 docu-drama “United 93”, there have been some strong emotional reactions that have come to the surface. Some have felt that the film’s release has come too soon and that audiences aren’t ready to re-live the dramatic events of that day. Others that have seen the movie have come away from the film realizing how embarrassingly unprepared this country was for such an attack, from the FAA to the military to the Bush Administration. Hurricane Katrina showed that we aren’t much better off since 2001.
A third reaction has come from the 9/11 conspiracy theorists or as they like to think of themselves, 9/11 truth organizations. For these people, United 93 is simply the cover-up version of what occurred to that flight on September 11th. So what is the conspiracy / cover-up that these people believe in? Well, in brief, it is that the Bush Administration staged these attacks and / or had knowledge of them, and that United 93 and American 77 were shot down and did not reach their targets. Alternatively, others believe that a missile struck the outside of the Pentagon and not American 77.
While I’m usually all for conspiracy theories, this one seems especially implausible. Take the premise that the Bush Administration knew about or participated in the plot. I think the reason that some people find this plausible is because of the total breakdown in the response of air traffic control, the FAA, the military and the Administration. The only explanation for such a failure in response must be that they knew! Right? No one could be this incompetent.
Or could they? If there is one thing that the Bush Administration has proved over the last 4 plus years is that it can’t do anything right. There is no way that they could pull off a caper of this magnitude. This Administration can’t even tie its own metaphorical shoes. We’re supposed to believe that the Bushies staged this, let 2 of the planes hit their targets, for some reason shot down one or two planes, covered up the fact that they shot down planes, and then covered up their participation in the whole plot with a thoroughly embarrassing portrayal of their performance on that day? Wow, that’s a mouthful.
For a moment, let’s dismiss the theory that the Bush Administration somehow participated in the 9/11 plot (hard to do, I know), and examine the possibility that United 93 was shot down. My first question is, if the military did shoot the plane down, why cover it up? Shooting down the plane would have been the right thing to do, and on a day in which so much went so wrong, it doesn’t make any sense to hide that fact. Perhaps some of the families of passengers would have been upset, but personally, I would have been impressed that the military could have been mobilized so quickly and reacted successfully in a scenario that few people even recognized as a possibility on that day. Certainly that response would have been more impressive than what was presented in the 9/11 Commission Report, which was thoroughly embarrassing to all parties involved. From that account, military fighter jets were never close to being in position to down any of the planes. Confusion reigned that day and the fighter pilots were continuously misled as to where their targets were located (hmm, maybe that was intentional – a new theory?).
Now let’s say that the Bush Administration knew about or participated in the plot. Why even bother shooting the planes down? If you went through all of the trouble to get these attacks to happen, what’s the point in stopping any of them? It doesn’t really make any sense.
The other confusing thing for me about United 93 being shot down is the crash site. If the plane had been hit by a fighter jet, it most likely would have exploded in mid-air and debris from the explosion would have been spread over a wide area. Large chunks of the plane would have been discovered in several sites. However, the actual crash site is not consistent with this. It is a single, localized impact zone that is indicative of a plane crashing at high speed. There was virtually nothing left of the plane.
I did read one conspiracy theory account that said the military not only shot United 93 down, but also crashed one of its own planes into the field in Pennsylvania to make it look like United 93 had crashed there. Again, this just isn’t plausible and it would require a cover up so massive that it wouldn’t even fit on the X-Files.
To be sure, I’m approaching this topic with a different perspective than the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I operate under the premise that the Bush Administration is thoroughly incompetent and didn’t have the operational talent to conceive of nor execute such a plan. Conspiracy theorists see the utter negligence of duty exhibited that day and assume that the Administration must have known about the plot and let it happen. They can’t believe they were just “caught with their pants down.”
Unfortunately for all Americans, being “caught with their pants down” is the most plausible and most consistent with the facts explanation that we have. This administration’s performance since that day only reinforces that conclusion.
A third reaction has come from the 9/11 conspiracy theorists or as they like to think of themselves, 9/11 truth organizations. For these people, United 93 is simply the cover-up version of what occurred to that flight on September 11th. So what is the conspiracy / cover-up that these people believe in? Well, in brief, it is that the Bush Administration staged these attacks and / or had knowledge of them, and that United 93 and American 77 were shot down and did not reach their targets. Alternatively, others believe that a missile struck the outside of the Pentagon and not American 77.
While I’m usually all for conspiracy theories, this one seems especially implausible. Take the premise that the Bush Administration knew about or participated in the plot. I think the reason that some people find this plausible is because of the total breakdown in the response of air traffic control, the FAA, the military and the Administration. The only explanation for such a failure in response must be that they knew! Right? No one could be this incompetent.
Or could they? If there is one thing that the Bush Administration has proved over the last 4 plus years is that it can’t do anything right. There is no way that they could pull off a caper of this magnitude. This Administration can’t even tie its own metaphorical shoes. We’re supposed to believe that the Bushies staged this, let 2 of the planes hit their targets, for some reason shot down one or two planes, covered up the fact that they shot down planes, and then covered up their participation in the whole plot with a thoroughly embarrassing portrayal of their performance on that day? Wow, that’s a mouthful.
For a moment, let’s dismiss the theory that the Bush Administration somehow participated in the 9/11 plot (hard to do, I know), and examine the possibility that United 93 was shot down. My first question is, if the military did shoot the plane down, why cover it up? Shooting down the plane would have been the right thing to do, and on a day in which so much went so wrong, it doesn’t make any sense to hide that fact. Perhaps some of the families of passengers would have been upset, but personally, I would have been impressed that the military could have been mobilized so quickly and reacted successfully in a scenario that few people even recognized as a possibility on that day. Certainly that response would have been more impressive than what was presented in the 9/11 Commission Report, which was thoroughly embarrassing to all parties involved. From that account, military fighter jets were never close to being in position to down any of the planes. Confusion reigned that day and the fighter pilots were continuously misled as to where their targets were located (hmm, maybe that was intentional – a new theory?).
Now let’s say that the Bush Administration knew about or participated in the plot. Why even bother shooting the planes down? If you went through all of the trouble to get these attacks to happen, what’s the point in stopping any of them? It doesn’t really make any sense.
The other confusing thing for me about United 93 being shot down is the crash site. If the plane had been hit by a fighter jet, it most likely would have exploded in mid-air and debris from the explosion would have been spread over a wide area. Large chunks of the plane would have been discovered in several sites. However, the actual crash site is not consistent with this. It is a single, localized impact zone that is indicative of a plane crashing at high speed. There was virtually nothing left of the plane.
I did read one conspiracy theory account that said the military not only shot United 93 down, but also crashed one of its own planes into the field in Pennsylvania to make it look like United 93 had crashed there. Again, this just isn’t plausible and it would require a cover up so massive that it wouldn’t even fit on the X-Files.
To be sure, I’m approaching this topic with a different perspective than the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I operate under the premise that the Bush Administration is thoroughly incompetent and didn’t have the operational talent to conceive of nor execute such a plan. Conspiracy theorists see the utter negligence of duty exhibited that day and assume that the Administration must have known about the plot and let it happen. They can’t believe they were just “caught with their pants down.”
Unfortunately for all Americans, being “caught with their pants down” is the most plausible and most consistent with the facts explanation that we have. This administration’s performance since that day only reinforces that conclusion.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Catholics and Teachers
It’s been awhile since I posted anything, so I thought I would throw out a couple of quick thoughts.
Catholic Charities
This week, Catholic Charities, the social arm of the Boston Archdiocese, announced that it would no longer provide adoption programs because of state law requiring them not to exclude same-sex couples from their services. Many in Massachusetts were shocked by the announcement, but few people realize what the real issue is. Money, and more specifically state funding, is the crux of the problem for Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities receives state funding and by accepting such money, agrees to comply with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Now, Catholic Charities has decided it cannot comply with anti-discrimination laws with respect to its adoption programs.
State and/or Federal funding of religious organizations seemingly violates the notion of Separation of Church and State. Separation of Church and State is supposed to be a two way street – it protects the individual from state sponsored religion and it protects religious organizations from government influence. In this case, the Boston Archdiocese took the money so in its view it was forced to either comply with state law and subsequently violate a moral tenet of the Catholic faith, or to discontinue the child adoption program. It chose to discontinue the program, however that seems like a drastic move and possibly politically motivated.
By making such a surprise announcement, it’s possible that the Boston Archdiocese believed that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney would come to its aid and assist it with state anti-discrimination laws, and it seems to have worked. Romney plans on filing a bill that would allow Catholic Charities and other religious organizations to exclude same-sex couples from child adoption services if it violates religious tenets. By filing such a bill, Romney is providing state sponsorship of discrimination against gays and lesbians. It’s a potentially slippery slope for the state on this issue. What other groups could be discriminated against in the future because serving them violates religious tenets?
If Catholic Charities doesn’t want to serve same-sex couples for their adoption services, the answer is simple. Don’t take the money! Then Catholic Charities can discriminate to its hearts content. Of course, that won’t happen and since the state has already made the critical mistake of providing funding to a religious organization, state sponsored discrimination is another step in the downfall of Separation of Church and State.
Students and Taping
On his radio show yesterday, Fox News’ Sean Hannity told Colorado high school student, Sean Allen, that he was proud of him for taping teacher Jay Bennish’s comments regarding President Bush’s State of the Union Address, and then turning the tape over to a local conservative radio host. Should we really be proud of this kid? This is the type of activity that Stalin encouraged among the youth of the Soviet Union. Totalitarian regimes bar dissent, not democracies. Perhaps Sean Hannity has forgotten that dissent is not against the law, and in fact it is an American tradition.
What’s been lost in this trumped up story is what Bennish actually said in its full context. He told his students that he didn’t expect them all to agree with his viewpoint, but he was trying to promote critical thinking. Perhaps that’s what Hannity really wants to discourage – teaching kids how to think critically as opposed to being spoon fed ideas from the neo-cons and Fox News. Notice how Bennish’s statement doesn’t discourage anyone from saying what they believe.
Catholic Charities
This week, Catholic Charities, the social arm of the Boston Archdiocese, announced that it would no longer provide adoption programs because of state law requiring them not to exclude same-sex couples from their services. Many in Massachusetts were shocked by the announcement, but few people realize what the real issue is. Money, and more specifically state funding, is the crux of the problem for Catholic Charities. Catholic Charities receives state funding and by accepting such money, agrees to comply with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Now, Catholic Charities has decided it cannot comply with anti-discrimination laws with respect to its adoption programs.
State and/or Federal funding of religious organizations seemingly violates the notion of Separation of Church and State. Separation of Church and State is supposed to be a two way street – it protects the individual from state sponsored religion and it protects religious organizations from government influence. In this case, the Boston Archdiocese took the money so in its view it was forced to either comply with state law and subsequently violate a moral tenet of the Catholic faith, or to discontinue the child adoption program. It chose to discontinue the program, however that seems like a drastic move and possibly politically motivated.
By making such a surprise announcement, it’s possible that the Boston Archdiocese believed that Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney would come to its aid and assist it with state anti-discrimination laws, and it seems to have worked. Romney plans on filing a bill that would allow Catholic Charities and other religious organizations to exclude same-sex couples from child adoption services if it violates religious tenets. By filing such a bill, Romney is providing state sponsorship of discrimination against gays and lesbians. It’s a potentially slippery slope for the state on this issue. What other groups could be discriminated against in the future because serving them violates religious tenets?
If Catholic Charities doesn’t want to serve same-sex couples for their adoption services, the answer is simple. Don’t take the money! Then Catholic Charities can discriminate to its hearts content. Of course, that won’t happen and since the state has already made the critical mistake of providing funding to a religious organization, state sponsored discrimination is another step in the downfall of Separation of Church and State.
Students and Taping
On his radio show yesterday, Fox News’ Sean Hannity told Colorado high school student, Sean Allen, that he was proud of him for taping teacher Jay Bennish’s comments regarding President Bush’s State of the Union Address, and then turning the tape over to a local conservative radio host. Should we really be proud of this kid? This is the type of activity that Stalin encouraged among the youth of the Soviet Union. Totalitarian regimes bar dissent, not democracies. Perhaps Sean Hannity has forgotten that dissent is not against the law, and in fact it is an American tradition.
What’s been lost in this trumped up story is what Bennish actually said in its full context. He told his students that he didn’t expect them all to agree with his viewpoint, but he was trying to promote critical thinking. Perhaps that’s what Hannity really wants to discourage – teaching kids how to think critically as opposed to being spoon fed ideas from the neo-cons and Fox News. Notice how Bennish’s statement doesn’t discourage anyone from saying what they believe.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Making History
Well, it’s almost official. The nation once known as Iraq has just about been completely destroyed by George Bush and Dick Cheney. All out civil war is in the offing as Iraq descends to become Afghanistan 2, the latest hotbed for Islamic terrorists. Now the Bush apologists have nothing left to justify the foray into Iraq.
We’ve heard about the weapons of mass destruction, how the world would be better without Saddam Hussein, how the Iraqi people would be better without Saddam, how Iraq worked with al Qaeda, how freedom and democracy would flourish in the Middle East and make us more secure. A lot of people bought into one or more of those explanations, but they were all lies. War in Iraq was never about any of those things – it was about arrogance. This administration looks upon itself as history-makers rather than observers of historic events. Better to be bold and decisive they tell themselves regardless of whether they are right or wrong.
The arrogance of such a thought process is mind-boggling. Bush’s little jaunt into history has destroyed the lives of thousands of people. Over 25,000 American soldiers have been wounded or killed in the war, but Bush doesn’t care. He’s making history and that’s what matters. The lives of ordinary American citizens mean nothing to this man.
Now Iraq is on the brink of civil war and it’s not like this possibility was never presented to the White House. It was presented several times before the war and during the occupation. Yet our history-making president eschewed these warnings, for he was decisive and he was going to show the world that he would act boldly. He would take Saddam down and damn the consequences. Ordinary Iraqis were of no concern and neither were the lives of American soldiers.
The destruction of the Iraqi nation is blood on the hands of the American people and we, as a people, need to deal with that reality. For those who voted for George Bush in 2000 and especially in 2004, I have a simple message for you: it’s your fault. You succumbed to the fear and you enabled this most moronic of all US presidents to continue his reign over the destruction of the American way of life. Will you ever wake up and realize what you’ve done?
Unfortunately, America seems oblivious to Bush’s transgressions and is far too concerned with who is on American Idol this week or what new song should we download to our iPod. Yet, while America remains in a coma, Bush continues to destroy the way of life he twice pledged to protect. How will history remember our bold and fearless leader?
The answer to that question of course is unknown, but here is how I’ll remember him. In my book, he will go down as the worst president in the history of the United States and the man who brought America as close to fascism as it has ever been. An inarticulate man who continually refused the counsel of experts in favor of the advice of an uninformed few. He presided over the rise of neo-conservatism in America and he put the religious right into the White House. On his watch, civil liberties have become a nuisance in the name of security.
This president must go, but that’s not likely to happen. Congress continues to capitulate to the White House with the latest example being their decision not to investigate the NSA Domestic Spying program, but to amend the law instead. For those of you paying attention, that means they know he broke the law, but they don’t care.
Is there anyone out there who cares? Of course, there are several groups that do like the ACLU, but the challenge is mobilizing enough people to actually get something done. Unfortunately, I’m not optimistic about the chances.
We’ve heard about the weapons of mass destruction, how the world would be better without Saddam Hussein, how the Iraqi people would be better without Saddam, how Iraq worked with al Qaeda, how freedom and democracy would flourish in the Middle East and make us more secure. A lot of people bought into one or more of those explanations, but they were all lies. War in Iraq was never about any of those things – it was about arrogance. This administration looks upon itself as history-makers rather than observers of historic events. Better to be bold and decisive they tell themselves regardless of whether they are right or wrong.
The arrogance of such a thought process is mind-boggling. Bush’s little jaunt into history has destroyed the lives of thousands of people. Over 25,000 American soldiers have been wounded or killed in the war, but Bush doesn’t care. He’s making history and that’s what matters. The lives of ordinary American citizens mean nothing to this man.
Now Iraq is on the brink of civil war and it’s not like this possibility was never presented to the White House. It was presented several times before the war and during the occupation. Yet our history-making president eschewed these warnings, for he was decisive and he was going to show the world that he would act boldly. He would take Saddam down and damn the consequences. Ordinary Iraqis were of no concern and neither were the lives of American soldiers.
The destruction of the Iraqi nation is blood on the hands of the American people and we, as a people, need to deal with that reality. For those who voted for George Bush in 2000 and especially in 2004, I have a simple message for you: it’s your fault. You succumbed to the fear and you enabled this most moronic of all US presidents to continue his reign over the destruction of the American way of life. Will you ever wake up and realize what you’ve done?
Unfortunately, America seems oblivious to Bush’s transgressions and is far too concerned with who is on American Idol this week or what new song should we download to our iPod. Yet, while America remains in a coma, Bush continues to destroy the way of life he twice pledged to protect. How will history remember our bold and fearless leader?
The answer to that question of course is unknown, but here is how I’ll remember him. In my book, he will go down as the worst president in the history of the United States and the man who brought America as close to fascism as it has ever been. An inarticulate man who continually refused the counsel of experts in favor of the advice of an uninformed few. He presided over the rise of neo-conservatism in America and he put the religious right into the White House. On his watch, civil liberties have become a nuisance in the name of security.
This president must go, but that’s not likely to happen. Congress continues to capitulate to the White House with the latest example being their decision not to investigate the NSA Domestic Spying program, but to amend the law instead. For those of you paying attention, that means they know he broke the law, but they don’t care.
Is there anyone out there who cares? Of course, there are several groups that do like the ACLU, but the challenge is mobilizing enough people to actually get something done. Unfortunately, I’m not optimistic about the chances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)