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.

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.

Terrorism and Revolution

I left this thought in a comment on Glenn Greenwald’s Unclaimed Territory and I thought I would expand on it further here. If the equivalent of the American Revolution were taking place today, say in some other country outside of the United States, what would the perception of it be in the US? If the US had good diplomatic relations with the imperial power, would the Colonists be framed as terrorists?

America is a country that was born from revolution, yet as we have matured as a nation, we tend to forget our revolutionary roots, especially when viewing other conflicts in the world. Perhaps that’s natural as revolution by definition is a strike at the status quo and that thought can be terrifying to many because of the unknown change that revolution could bring. But has our maturity as a nation-state clouded our ability to view conflicts in the world fairly? Or does it come down to our perception of the nation-state in conflict and whether that state is an ally or not?

Twentieth Century US history tells us that the latter is certainly true, while the former is more a function of man’s inability to view a conflict from all perspectives rather than his own. However, the further in time we move away from our own Revolution, the harder it becomes for us to identify with its ideals. Note how the Contras in Nicaragua were lauded as Freedom Fighters, while the Palestinians in the Middle East are branded as terrorists. The labeling of both of these groups is clearly tied to the US’s diplomatic relationship with the nation-state involved and has nothing to do with the merits of either side’s position.

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 Middle East between Israel and Hezbollah provides and interesting context for this discussion. The coverage of the conflict by American media has been exceedingly pro-Israeli and based on the above that’s understandable. But there are always two sides to a conflict and to not understand both of them is a disservice to peace. Of course the conflict between Israel and its neighbors is heavily nuanced and thoroughly complicated by centuries of problems between Jews, Christians and Muslims. There is probably no one alive who can fully articulate all of the dynamics involved in the region, which highlights the comedy of boiling down this conflict to Israel versus the terrorists. There’s much more to it than that, yet a large segment of the American public won’t hear of it.

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 Israel is not equivalent to anti-Semitism. Israel is a nation-state; it is not Judaism. Criticizing the acts of a nation-state is not the same as denigrating a race or creed of people. Equating the two is as ridiculous as those that say since I’m against the Bush Administration, I must hate America. For the record, I don’t hate America, but I also recognize that America and the Bush Administration are not the same thing.

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.

Why No Ceasefire?

I have to admit that I’m baffled by the US policy against the establishment of an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah in the latest Middle East conflict, especially given the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon. The twisted rationale for this stance seems to be that an immediate ceasefire won’t contribute to a lasting peace. In other words, let the killing continue.

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 Israel and Lebanon. And that makes me wonder if that is exactly what the Bush Administration wants to happen.

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 US military involvement in the Mid-East. I do hope that I’m wrong about this, however al-Qaeda’s declaration of a holy war against Israel is surely a step in the wrong direction.

In the meantime, Israel has been given a virtual license to kill in Lebanon even though US diplomats claim that isn’t the message being sent. However, the Israelis know how to read between the lines and they’ll continue the violence until the international community forces them to stop.

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 Africa in regards to an alleged Iraqi uranium deal. Yesterday’s stop was “Meet The Press” with Tim Russert – you can read a transcript of the interview here.

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 Niger. Although only Scooter Libby has been indicted thus far by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, references have been made to both Vice President Cheney and President Bush in the leaking of Plame’s name to the press. Was Robert Novak part of this concerted effort to discredit Wilson and in turn, destroy the career of a CIA operative?

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 (Wilson) and how he was selected to go to Africa to research the Iraqi uranium claims. Plame’s role in getting her husband the assignment to go to Africa has been debated vigorously with conclusions being drawn along party lines. Whether there was a connection or not, it appears that Wilson was qualified to go on the mission, regardless of what Republicans have stated.

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 Harlow did request that he not disclose the name. Novak has also made contradictory statements over how he learned of Plame’s name. In one instance, he claims to have been given the name by his primary source. In another instance, he claims to have found it in Joe Wilson’s “Who’s Who” entry. The latter explanation is Novak’s current stance and he claims that he misspoke in previous statements. It’s all very fishy.

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 Wilson’s and other critics of the evidence used to justify the war in Iraq. What tends to get lost in this whole discussion is that Joe Wilson was right! The documents purported to support an Iraqi uranium deal in Niger have been proved to be forgeries, and the Administration already had intelligence in its hands that was skeptical of the “evidence” of an Iraqi WMD program. The Administration was simply very selective in what it revealed in its case for war. Joe Wilson exposed them, and he and his wife paid for it. To my mind, Robert Novak was a willing part of the scheme and his statements to the contrary ring hollow. His continued credibility will most likely be split along party lines.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cartoons and Globalization

Finally, it appears that the violence in response to the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed has begun to die down. This is just another example of so much violence over something so trivial and stupid. Of course, that’s the opinion of an avowed atheist and not of a devout muslim. To a muslim, perhaps this was the appropriate response. Or was it? Is this what the Koran states that muslims should do when confronted with blasphemy? Honestly, I don’t know if that is what it says and maybe that’s part of the problem.

Should people like me be more knowledgeable of Islam and its customs? Sure, from the perspective of being more worldly, I should know more about Islam as well as other world cultures. But should I be expected to adhere to Islam’s code of conduct? In my opinion, that is debatable.

At the core of the issue is religion. While religion represents many things to many people, at its most basic level is a code of conduct for mankind to live by – created by man, for man. Because there are numerous religions around the world, there are also various codes of conduct. What is tolerable and what is permissible can vary greatly between these codes, and sometimes these codes may be in direct conflict.

With globalization today, people of different cultures and religions interact more than ever. This can create further conflicts between the various codes of conduct, and it may mean that a single country which was previously homogeneous is now multi-cultural. The first generation of people living under this new umbrella of multi-culturalism will surely have the hardest time adjusting to the change in their country. I think this is what we are seeing in certain European countries. The dominant culture reacts negatively to the newcomers who don’t appear to be integrating into society. Of course, in America we’ve seen this countless times and it still happens today. America is a country built on immigration, and while the first generation of a new group of settlers may struggle with the dominant culture, the second generation tends to integrate and at the same time redefines the dominant society. Each generation of Americans born here seems to forget that fact as newcomers arrive.

In the struggle of the dominant culture and the new culture, the cartoon controversy is not a surprise. Ignorance of the customs of each society abounds on both sides. To a muslim, a cartoon depiction of the Prophet Mohammed is offensive, yet to many in the West, the prohibition of depicting the Prophet Mohammed in a cartoon is equally offensive. Many people are chiding Europeans for publishing these cartoons and provoking muslim society, yet I don’t hear anyone criticizing the muslim reaction as ignorant of Western customs. Should the people of Denmark begin to riot in reaction to muslims disregard for their fervent belief in freedom of speech? Maybe they should. Perhaps that would point out the flaw in reacting with violence to such offenses.

The point here is that both societies need to be more tolerant of each other. Muslims cannot expect the rest of the world to abide by their customs, and vice versa. State sponsored riots don’t accomplish anything except further alienation, which is exactly what those states want.

Leak Authorization

In the wake of recent reports that Vice President Dick Cheney authorized the leak of Valerie Plame's name to the media, CPLA has obtained the following transcipt from an upcoming made for television movie that has yet to be titled.


Scene: Scooter Libby is sitting at his desk in his White House office. He is simultaneously reading a briefing paper and looking at pictures of Kristy Swanson on Maxim magazine’s website.

Libby’s secretary enters the room.

Secretary: Mr. Libby, the Vice President would like to see you.

Libby: Oh … right now? I’m kind of busy with some research. (Libby is working the mouse frantically to close all of the Kristy Swanson pictures) Did he say what it was about?

Secretary: No, but I think it’s serious. He’s in his Darth Vader outfit again.

Libby: Ugh! … I heard he wants to be buried in that thing. Well, I better not keep Lord Vader waiting.


Scene: Vice President Dick Cheney is standing and looking out his office window. He is dressed in his Darth Vader outfit complete with breathing apparatus. Scooter Libby knocks on the door and enters the room.

Cheney (in the voice of James Earl Jones, turns to face Libby): SCOOTER! … Destroy them!

Libby: OK … uh, who???

Cheney: You know … that Joe Wilson and his wife. They must pay for betraying the Empire.

Libby: Ah …yes… I see. Did you have any thoughts on how to do this, my lord?

Cheney: Leak the wife’s name to our agents in the media. Tell them that she works for the CIA. Work with The Troll (Karl Rove) on this. He’s experienced in these matters. He is awaiting your instructions.

Libby: Excellent, my lord. The Troll and I will do as you say.

As Libby leaves the room, Cheney doubles over into a coughing fit.

America: Where Lies Are Truth And The Truth Is A Smear

I didn’t watch the State of The Union the other night. I thought about blogging it, but I decided that I didn’t want to be enraged for the balance of the evening, so my plan was to read about it the next day to get a fix of second-hand rage. I thought that would be easier to deal with and I think I was right. Reading about it was a lot easier than watching it; I’m convinced.

Nevertheless, the reviews have left me in a state of rage, as well as bafflement. Here are some items from President Bush’s speech that piqued my interest.

“And second guessing is not a strategy” – perhaps that’s true, but it’s better than the current strategy, which appears to be non-existent. Bush says that our strategy is clear, but why is it that no one can figure it out? Let alone that the reasons for being there continue to be discredited as we learned this week that the CIA informed Vice President Dick Cheney that the Niger uranium claims were not credible in July 2003. With information like that, how can any responsible citizen not second-guess this government?

“Stand behind the American military in its vital mission” – translation: stand behind me while I wield my increasingly unchecked power as the Executive. Of course, Bush invokes the name of the military instead because he knows that politicians in opposition are hesitant to say anything that could be interpreted as not supporting the troops. That makes it dangerous to say you are not on board with the mission, but it’s not really the military’s mission, is it? It’s the President’s mission. And let me be perfectly clear, I don’t stand behind this mission and I don’t stand behind you, President Bush.

“Isolationism would not only tie our hands in fighting enemies; it would keep us from helping our friends in desperate need.” – I’m not an isolationist, and in today’s global society, it’s not realistic to be an isolationist. However, the President’s vision of international involvement is one of unilateral intervention, not of international cooperation. That is what is objectionable about this administration’s approach to world affairs. Imagine living in a neighborhood where the rich guy with the biggest house decided to pave over your lawn and paint your house black. Wouldn’t that bother you? That rich guy in your neighborhood is the equivalent of the United States in the world today. “Don’t tell us what to do; we’ll do whatever we want and if you don’t like it, tough luck.”

“Terrorist surveillance program” - this is a beauty; you have to love how spying on anti-war groups has morphed into terrorist surveillance program. This part of the President’s speech was particularly misleading. He implied that if the domestic surveillance had been in place prior to September 11, two of the terrorists would have been stopped. The 9/11 Commission’s Report disputes this claim.

The President claims that his authority to institute such a program is Constitutional and by statute, however, this is hotly debated and by no means a certainty. This is also an attempt to obscure the real issue with the NSA surveillance, which of course has to do with obtaining warrants, not the actual spying. The President also stated that previous Presidents had used the same authority to order this type of surveillance, but again, this is false. In fact, during President Clinton’s tenure, the FISA law did not cover electronic surveillance and that is why Clinton didn’t get a warrant to obtain the authority. The Clinton administration had the law changed because it was concerned that evidence obtained under this surveillance may not be admissible in court.

The President also stated that appropriate members of Congress were kept informed about the program. Anyone who can read a newspaper knows this isn’t true.

As I write this and read the President’s speech at the same time, I realize I could go on for quite a while, however, I want to address the Democratic response to the speech. Calling it a response might be somewhat generous as it was the kind of weak-kneed speech that Democrats didn’t need. Governor Kaine of Virginia decided to go the soft route in his speech and talk about a “better way” to do things. Ugh! Bush’s speech was full of rhetoric and needed to be blasted. Instead, we got more rhetoric, just from the other side, that demonstrated that the Democratic Party has no idea what it’s doing.

A couple of weeks ago, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton made strong speeches against the President and the war in Iraq, as well as domestic spying. These are the kinds of speeches that need to be made every day by leaders of the Democratic Party. The airwaves must be saturated with the message that the very foundation of this country is under attack from within. Americans must constantly be reminded that this President has lied us in to war, threatened civil liberties and quite possibly broken the law. The mainstream media cannot be counted on to provide a balanced message any longer. Its views are becoming more and more pro-administration. Therefore, liberals need to get out there and bring the message to the people. Blogging can only get through to so many.

The lies of the Bush Administration must be constantly combated and discredited, else they become the de facto truth. America has become a land where lies are truth, and the truth is a smear. We need to change that for the sake of our country.

Rep. John Murtha is the man who should have been asked to give the Democratic response to the State of the Union. The fact that he wasn’t shows that the Democrats are lost in how to deal with the Bush Administration and quite possibly, are not the party for Progressives to support.

The Myth of Liberal Bias in the Media

When you watch CNN or a major network news program, do you detect a liberal bias, a conservative bias or is the coverage “fair and balanced”(courtesy Fox News Channel)? If you listen to conservative commentators, a liberal bias exists in our mainstream media today and it’s ruining our country. But is there really a liberal bias in mainstream media coverage today or are the claims of such bias actually a clever ploy to marginalize liberal opinion? A close examination of the topic will not only reveal that the latter is true, it’s working brilliantly.

What constitutes “liberal bias” in the eyes of conservatives? Basically, any story that contains some criticism of the Bush Administration or of a noted conservative figure is deemed to be an example of liberal bias in the media. There are also occasions in which a story that is purely objective is flagged as “biased” because it doesn’t cheerlead enough for the Bush Administration.

Let’s look at a few specific examples and debunk the idea of liberal bias. Each year, the Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby writes a year-end column on hate speech from the left, and contends that the lack of coverage of this is because of a liberal bias in the media. In this year’s installment, Jacoby cites examples of hate speech from Harry Belafonte and syndicated columnist, Pat Oliphant as particularly egregious, yet these men were not criticized to the same degree as Pat Robertson for his comments regarding Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez. While I will agree that such speech from both sides is inappropriate, there’s a reason that Robertson is more widely criticized, and that is because he commands a far larger audience than Belafonte or Oliphant. He has a daily show with approximately 1 million viewers. Belafonte and Oliphant don’t have that broad of an appeal. Jacoby is desperate when he implies that Belafonte is on par with Robertson in terms of national scope. Interestingly enough, a couple of weeks after Jacoby’s column was published, Belafonte was roundly criticized in the media for controversial statements he made in Venezuela. So much for that liberal bias.

The plain fact is that conservative hate speech is more roundly criticized because it is uttered by conservatives with audiences that number in the millions. When Bill O’Reilly says that Al Qaeda can blow up San Francisco and the rest of the country won’t help, that deserves to be criticized because so many Americans listen to him and believe him to be credible. Can you name a liberal commentator with as large an audience as O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh that makes the same types of outrageous and hateful comments? If there were a liberal bias in the media, don’t you think such a person would exist?

Another example of “liberal bias” comes from the conservative media watchdog site, Media Research Center (MRC). Recently (I read this about a month ago, but I couldn’t find it in their archives, so I don’t have a link), MRC performed a “study” on the news programs of the major networks and CNN, and graded the presentation of stories. If a story on the Iraq war was shown and it said anything negative about the topic (like soldiers dying), the story was deemed to be negative and therefore contained a liberal bias. Other stories were judged in the same way. The basic conclusion of the study was that these news programs were negative in their overall coverage due to bias. Since when is “if it bleeds, it leads” part of the liberal agenda? News programs are all about bad news because that’s what drives ratings, not because of ideology. Anyone who watches local news knows that all of the stories are about murders, fires, crime, storms, and other tragedies.

Websites like Media Research Center and its liberal counterpart, Media Matters for America (MMFA), have a mission of exposing bias in the media. However, to fully debunk the myth of a liberal bias in the media, we have to discuss what is NOT on the air, rather than what is on the air. For example, the story of the Downing Street Memos and their significance was completely downplayed in this country by the mainstream media. The liberal position on this story was that this was the “smoking gun” in the assertion that the Bush administration fabricated the case for the War in Iraq. Yet the so-called “liberal” mainstream media barely discussed the story let alone its significance. With such a liberal media, how was this possible?

Another topic that isn’t getting any airtime in the mainstream media, but is being discussed actively in the actual progressive/liberal media, is Impeachment of President Bush. Many liberals feel that between the fabrication of the case for War in Iraq and the Domestic Spying scandal, there is more than enough evidence to pursue Impeachment of the President. Again, if the mainstream media is so liberal, why isn’t it doing its best to bring down this President? If these scandals had occurred under President Clinton, I guarantee you that Impeachment would be a daily topic in our newspapers and televisions.

The fact is that there is no liberal media bias. The left doesn’t have anyone who has the audience reach of a Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Pat Robertson, nor does it have its own major news network promoting its agenda like Fox News does for the conservative cause. Claims of liberal media bias are comparable to claims of discrimination against Christians. It doesn’t exist. These claims are part of a strategy to help cement conservative opinion on various topics while marginalizing the liberal position, and the strategy is working. In fact, it’s working so well that the once mighty bastion of liberalism, the New York Times, has been remarkably cooperative with the Bush Administration on the War in Iraq and Domestic Spying. Now, liberals can’t trust the newspaper that has served them so well in the past. Cries of liberal media bias have disguised the actual shift of the media to the right, and real liberals are left with progressive websites and blogs as their refuge.


Note: If you choose to read Jeff Jacoby’s piece from 12/28/2005, please note that he has chosen to present as fact an unsubstantiated story of a racist attack on Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele. For more details, read this from Media Matters for America.

Strict Constructionist vs. Judicial Activist

The Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings for Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito are fast approaching, and the process could be contentious as forces from the left and right appear to be polarized on this nominee. Conservative supporters of Judge Alito will saturate the airwaves with the terms “Strict Constructionist” and “Judicial Activist”, and will assert that Alito is the former – and presumably, that’s good for the American people.

What do these impressive sounding terms mean? And, what do these terms REALLY mean in the context of their usage and why do conservatives want you to accept these terms blindly?

Strict Constructionist
Term Definition: Someone who interprets the Constitution literally. (As an aside, do we really want someone who interprets the Constitution literally? Doesn’t all law have to be interpreted with the perspective of modern society? The Founding Fathers of this country could never have foreseen the rigors of modern society, so how could we expect them to design a framework to legislate it completely?)
Conservative Usage of the term: Someone who agrees with the conservative viewpoint on political and social issues (e.g., abortion).

Judicial Activist
Term Definition: A judge who legislates from the bench.
Conservative Usage of the term: Someone who disagrees with the conservative viewpoint on political and social issues (e.g., Terry Schiavo).

Looking at the above definitions, it’s no surprise that Samuel Alito is being cast as a Strict Constructionist. Of course, the definitions of these terms are sufficiently vague enough to make it nearly impossible to determine whether anyone belongs in one camp versus the other. Is there a prescribed method for reviewing a judge’s record and determining whether he is a Strict Constructionist or Judicial Activist? In my opinion, the answer to that question is “No” and that’s deliberate.

Conservative supporters of Judge Alito are not using these terms for their definitions, but as labels. The more Samuel Alito is referred to as a Strict Constructionist, the more he will become the symbol of conservatism on Constitutional issues, regardless of his record. Republicans want the label to stick because labels are stronger than facts in American society today. Already, the mainstream media is parroting the view that Alito is a Strict Constructionist so the process is beginning to take hold. Once the label is established, the average American won’t bother to research Judge Alito’s record on the issues and that’s exactly what conservatives want to happen. In today’s fast food styled world, a quick label from the mainstream media is all the average American citizen needs to make a decision, and that is sad.

Liberals have been slow to realize this and still attempt to fight labels with facts with the belief that rational discourse will prevail. Unfortunately, it often takes years for the rational perspective to supplant the label. With that reality in mind, perhaps Democrats should turn the tables and label this nominee as a Judicial Activist. Media Matters for America compiled the Top Alito Myths and Falsehoods, and in item #3, put forth a reasonable argument for branding Samuel Alito as a Judicial Activist. I doubt we’ll see the Democrats adopting this strategy, but wouldn’t it be fun to see TV pundits from each side yelling “Strict Constructionist”, “NO, Judicial Activist”, “NO, Strict Constructionist”, “NO, Judicial Activist” …

Of course, the best way to determine your level of support for Judge Alito is to research his published opinions and views on the topics that are important to you. There’s a famous adage in sports and I think it applies here: Don’t believe the hype!

Domestic Spying and Common Sense

Now that the issue of legality/illegality of the National Security Agency (NSA) Domestic Surveillance program authorized by President Bush has been bandied about for a few weeks, it’s time to apply some common sense and deductive reasoning to the whole affair so that we can get beyond the minutiae.

There are some undisputed facts in this case that are pertinent to the discussion:

· President Bush authorized the NSA to conduct domestic surveillance without the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court (a.k.a, FISA Court). The scope of this surveillance is unknown.

· In the Resolution authorizing force against Al Qaeda, the Bush Administration sought a last minute change to the wording so that “in the United States” would specifically be referenced in the law. This last minute change was rejected. See Tom Daschle’s Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post for a full description of what transpired.

· The FISA Court has an approval rate of approximately 99.97% for requests brought before it.

Let’s look at these facts and draw some conclusions. First, the approval rate of the FISA Court suggests that this court is virtually a rubber stamp for warrant requests. At the very least, due to the number of requests submitted in the past (approximately 19,000), the standard required for evidence and probable cause by the Court was well known. If it was not well known, you would probably see a lower approval rate. The idea that the standard was well known is something to keep in mind as you read this.

Secondly, the broad language in the Resolution authorizing force against Al Qaeda has been pointed to by many conservatives to be all that was required to justify the NSA’s domestic surveillance. However, on September 14, 2001, the Bush Administration itself was uncertain whether that language was sufficient enough to authorize activities on the domestic front. The attempt to insert more specific language into the law to include authorization for activities within the United States shows that the White House wanted explicit authority to conduct such activities and didn’t necessarily want to rely on the broad language of the negotiated resolution as cover. It is reasonable to assume that these domestic activities would have included surveillance. If this language had been inserted, the need for going to the FISA Court for domestic surveillance approval would have been nullified in the eyes of White House lawyers.

At this point, it’s time for a little common sense. It’s clear that the Bush Administration sought legal cover in the Resolution of force versus Al Qaeda, yet when that insertion was rejected, it did not seek authorization from the appropriate court with jurisdiction in this area that had a well known standard for evidence and probable cause. The conclusion that I am left with is that portions of the surveillance program could not meet the court’s standard for approval, so the President chose to bypass it altogether and secretly authorized the spying.

I’m not making a judgment as to whether this surveillance campaign is legal or illegal. That is for a court and/or Congress to decide, however it is clear to me that the Bush Administration knew in 2001 that this activity was on the edge of the law. It is highly suspicious that the Administration explicitly chose not to seek approval from a court with such a high approval rate of warrant requests. What were they afraid of?

For a conservative spin on the Domestic Spying Scandal, read this Op-Ed piece in the New York Times (registration required) by David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey, former Justice Department attorneys in the Reagan and GWH Bush administrations.

For an authoritative debunking of myths surrounding the scandal, read this excellent post from Media Matters for America. Almost all of the arguments put forth by Rivkin and Casey are summarily dismissed here.

Bin Laden's Greatest Ally

Does anyone remember Osama Bin Laden? He’s that guy hanging out somewhere in the Afghanistan – Pakistan border area who doesn’t particularly like the United States and its policies. With the daily doses of what is going right/wrong in Iraq, what is legal/illegal surveillance and who is wrecking Christmas, I’m wondering if anyone is mindful of the big picture in the War on Terror.

In order to examine the big picture, we need to understand the goals of each side in this war and then evaluate performance versus those goals. In my estimation, here are the goals of the Bush Administration in the War on Terror and an evaluation of progress on each:

Goal: Destroy terrorist training camps and reduce territorial strongholds of Al Qaeda.
Progress: US military action in Afghanistan was successful in deposing the Taliban and forcing Al Qaeda to move operations, but the job has yet to be completed. Bin Laden is still at large and the War in Iraq has provided additional strongholds for terrorism.

Goal: Bring Freedom and Democracy to the Middle East in an effort to create regimes friendly to America
Progress: This goal is the dubious link between the War on Terror and the War in Iraq. At best, it is unclear as to how the democratic process is taking hold in Iraq. If a theocratic government aligned with Iran comes to power, then the Iraqi democracy experiment will have to be considered a failure, especially considering that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Iran.

Goal: Deal with rogue states sponsoring terrorism.
Progress: This was another alleged link of Iraq to the War on Terror, but this has been summarily debunked. Other states that fell into this category were Iran and North Korea, both potentially more dangerous than Iraq, but not much has been achieved on this goal.

I did my best to put forth these goals based on Bush Administration statements and other newspaper accounts about the War on Terror. In looking at this, albeit brief, list, I find it disappointing that none of these goals attempt to address the root causes of Al Qaeda’s terrorism versus the West. While it is true that Bin Laden doesn’t approve of Western Society in general (Freedom, Democracy, Separation of Church and State, etc.), he isn’t, as he said in his letter to America in October 2004, advocating attacks on Sweden. There is more to his motivation to attack the United States than simply hating Freedom and Democracy, which is the simplistic right-wing explanation for terrorism.

If you read the texts of Bin Laden’s statements over the last 10 years, you will see some common threads:

1. America’s role in the Palestinian – Israeli conflict.
2. America’s support for oppressive regimes in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia.
3. The plundering of the Middle East’s resources (oil) by the West.

I haven’t listed these items to show support for Bin Laden or to suggest that the US simply accede to his demands, but to provide a means of understanding the motivation of the enemy. It will be difficult for the United States to make progress in the War on Terror if it operates blindly with respect to the above grievances.

Let’s turn to Al Qaeda’s goals in its war with the West. In Bin Laden’s Letter to America from October 2004, he stated that America will have security when it stops playing with the security of the Middle East, which really means stop interfering in the politics of the region. In lieu of that, Al Qaeda’s goal is to continue the policy of “bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.” In this effort, Bin Laden feels that the Bush Administration has been extremely accommodating.

All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this
administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest
point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to
make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and
political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some
benefits for their private companies.

Has Al Qaeda made progress in its policy to drive America to bankruptcy? Yes, I think it has and the Bush Administration has been its unwitting ally. By engaging in the folly in Iraq, the Administration has committed billions to the effort, and few in Washington seem to be paying any attention to the cost of the war and the surging Federal Deficit. Iraq and the War on Terror are also bleeding this country in other ways such as the loss of fine young soldiers, the loss of civil liberties and the decline of the rule of law.

I bring this up because I find it disturbing that the goals of the enemy are being achieved through the actions of the Bush Administration. It’s like a football team that scores touchdowns for its opponent and then its head coach says he wants to stick with the game plan. Isn’t it time to re-evaluate the goals of the War on Terror so that we can stop achieving the ends of the enemy? Unfortunately, everyone in the country seems to be engaged in partisan discussions rather than finding a global solution to the problem of terrorism. Perhaps I expect too much of our elected leaders, but if terrorism policy continues on its present course, we could be looking at the beginning of the demise of the American Empire.

Patriot Act and Christmas

Patriot Act Renewal

The renewal of the Patriot Act has been in the news recently, and at the moment, it’s stalled in Congress. That’s good news for Americans that care about civil liberties and that understand the principles on which this country was founded.

Let’s dispel a myth promulgated by neo-conservatives regarding the Patriot Act: “The Patriot Act is a necessary tool in the war on terrorism.” President Bush reiterated this sentiment in his radio address to the nation yesterday. Excrement. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with anti-terrorism. In fact, the provisions within the Patriot Act were part of a neo-con, law enforcement wish list that existed prior to 9/11. The terrorist attacks of September 11th provided an opportunistic moment for passing such sweeping legislation and thus endangering the civil liberties of all Americans.

I find it difficult to understand why the Bush Administration pushes so forcefully on Patriot Act renewal yet does virtually nothing when it comes to enacting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Remember them? A bi-partisan commission that investigated the root causes and failures that led to 9/11? Well, the Commission had a series of recommendations that were designed to fix the failures in intelligence and communication that allowed the terrorists to operate in this country, and thus by implementing the fixes would presumably make America safer. To my knowledge, the powers granted via the Patriot Act were not deemed to be impediments in catching terrorists pre-9/11. If those powers had been in place before September 11, the attacks would not have been foiled. Yet President Bush contends that the Patriot Act makes us safer. The question is “how?”, but there is no answer because the contention is purely rhetoric, and it is rhetoric that fewer and fewer people are swallowing every day. That’s why the Patriot Act is stalled in Congress.

Is Christmas here yet?

Honestly, I can’t wait until Christmas is over this year. After that, we won’t have to hear about the faux “War on Christmas” being fought by the brave soldiers at Fox News, at least not until next year. However, a lot of people have bought into this trumped up controversy designed to boost ratings and sell books (see Bill O’Reilly and John Gibson). Now you can count Congress among the fools. This past week, House Resolution (579) calling for the support of “the symbols and traditions of Christmas” was passed by a vote of 401 to 22. What a joke! I cannot believe we are paying these people to spend time on such a meaningless issue. Considering the issues before this country, it’s embarrassing that our elected representatives chose to devote time and energy to this. Bill O’Reilly has truly won the war! Fortunately, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), brought a measure of sanity to the discussion by composing a poem about the alleged controversy of Christmas and reading it on the House floor. The text of the poem appears below:

'Twas a week before Christmas and all through the House,
no bills were passed 'bout which Fox News could grouse.
Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
so vacations in St. Barts soon should be near.

Katrina kids were all nestled snug in motel beds,
while visions of school and home danced in their heads.
In Iraq, our soldiers need supplies and a plan,
and nuclear weapons are being built in Iran.

Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell.
Americans feared we were in a fast track to ... well.
Wait, we need a distraction, something divisive and wily,
a fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly.

We will pretend Christmas is under attack,
hold a vote to save it, then pat ourselves on the back.
Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger,
Wake up Congress, they're in no danger.

This time of year, we see Christmas everywhere we go,
From churches to homes to schools and, yes, even Costco.
What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy
when this is the season to unite us with joy.

At Christmastime, we're taught to unite.
We don't need a make-up reason to fight.
So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter and those right-wing blogs.

You should sit back and relax, have a few egg nogs.

'Tis the holiday season; enjoy it a pinch.
With all our real problems, do we really need another Grinch?
So to my friends and my colleagues, I say with delight,a Merry Christmas to all, and to Bill O'Reilly, Happy Holidays.

Ho, ho, ho. Merry Christmas.

Setting the Record Straight

Last Friday evening, I watched National Geographic’s Inside 9/11 program, and for me, it provoked a lot of thoughts on the current state of affairs. Mostly, I was disgusted with where the Bush Administration has taken this country since 9/11/01, but that’s probably not a surprise to anyone who has read this space before.

If you haven’t seen Inside 9/11, I recommend watching it. It’s a two part program and it’s a fact based look at what happened prior to that fateful day, the events of September 11th and the response of the US in the wake of the attacks. At the end of the second part, the program reviews the US response in Afghanistan and the failure to capture Osama Bin Laden. Directly after that, the invasion of Iraq is mentioned. While watching that, the invasion of Iraq seemed like a giant non sequitur to the military action in Afghanistan. What did Iraq have to do with 9/11 or terrorism in general? Why is Iraq a new front in the war on terrorism?

The reason it didn’t make sense to me is that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq played no role in the 9/11 attacks. I can’t explain why the US is in Iraq (you’ll have to ask Cheney), but I can state one thing unequivocally. It has NOTHING to do with the war on terrorism. Well, that is unless the plan was to create more terrorists. That’s working brilliantly.

Let’s look at this war on terror connection to Iraq a little more closely. How could it possibly be related?

· There were no connections between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime, and that’s understandable since Saddam Hussein’s government was secular in nature and not Islamic.
· Both Iraq and Al Qaeda were enemies of the United States, but that doesn’t make them unique or link them in any way.
· Would Iraq become a supplier of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists? That’s a logical thought, but is also the reason that UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq doing their job to make sure that wouldn’t happen, prior to the US invasion.
· Spread freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East in an effort to provide security to America – this seems to be a “popular” connection, but it’s the most ill conceived of them all. In other words, the strategy is “convert them to our way of thinking so that they won’t hurt us again.”

If you buy into the spread freedom and democracy angle, then Iraq was probably the right choice. It was a secular government in a region that is increasingly trending toward more Islamic regimes and it was a government without any friends. Who would miss Saddam? Probably no one would care, right?

Here’s where this strategy breaks down. The Middle East is a region that has deep mistrust of the West, and that goes back to the Crusades. Arabs have always had a very long term view of the world and they remember the past. Put that into contrast with our society where everything is about the short term, from the stock market to what is on TV tonight, and you have a culture mismatch. If you look at the situation with absolutely no historical perspective, the idea of invading Iraq and having a happy ending seems almost plausible. However, if you examine the history of the region with the West, the very thought of invading a sovereign country in the Middle East with an eye toward converting it to a Western style democracy is foolhardy. There is way too much distrust between the societies, and much of it is deserved. The idea that freedom and democracy will flourish in the Middle East by force feeding it to an occupied country seems naïve, especially when the occupier’s President unintentionally uses the word ‘crusade’ to describe the effort. If you’re an Arab, wouldn’t it be reasonable to think that this war is an extension of Christianity versus Islam when the aggressor uses the language of the Crusades? That’s not a public relations idea that’s going to take hold in the Middle East.

Also, since when does America start wars preemptively? A look at our history shows that we’ve never done that before. Supporters of the war will respond to that thoughtlessly with “this is a different kind of war” or “the rules are different in the war on terror.” Baloney! If you want to provide security for Americans, don’t go and stir up a hornets nest. If we really want to spread freedom and democracy to the region, we should have the courage NOT to invade. Change is often a long term process, and that’s probably even truer when talking about culture change. That’s not the kind of change that can be forced overnight; it has to be an evolutionary process and a partnership with the West is the way to do it.

The US likes to think of itself as the standard bearer for the rest of the world. Unfortunately, the War in Iraq has revealed that today’s United States no longer deserves that lofty title. The latest blow to this is the continuing saga of torture. Torture has been proven to be ultimately self-defeating, yet we have an Administration that has used and wants to continue to use torture as an interrogation technique. What happened to the sentiment of overthrowing Saddam because he tortures his own people? It’s OK for us to torture them, but not him? Isn’t this a classic double standard? And I haven’t even brought up the fact that the new regime seems to have set up its own torture structure. Are we replacing one set of torturers with another? Surely, that wasn’t the point of the invasion. What a truly shining example we are setting for the rest of the world by defending our use of torture.

As I said earlier, I can’t tell you the real reasons the United States invaded Iraq, but I do know that it has nothing to do with the War on Terror, and it doesn’t have anything to do with the security of this country. If we don’t know why we are there, how can we possibly figure out how to extricate ourselves from this mess? So far, no one in Washington has an answer to that question.

A Question of Faith

Recently, I read an essay by Penn Jillette (of Penn and Teller) entitled “There Is No God”, and while I’m in agreement with the spirit of the title, I was disturbed by some of the author’s claims about belief and Atheism. Mr. Jillette contends that declaring oneself an Atheist is easy because not believing in something is simple. He turns that around by saying that he believes there is no God. Essentially, he is saying “I don’t believe in God/Higher Power/etc.” is substantively different than “I believe there is no God”, and by declaring a belief, rather than a non-belief, he has more clearly defined himself.

I don’t believe that the two statements above vary at all in meaning, and I strongly disagree with Mr. Jillette’s assertion that Atheism is about non-belief. The statement “I believe there is no God” is absolutely a tenet of Atheism and to suggest otherwise is an attempt to mislead the reader about what Atheism actually means. Why would Mr. Jillette do this? I suspect that he is uncomfortable with the label of Atheist and that he is trying to define himself in a more positive and palatable way that distances himself from the general public’s understanding of Atheism. Let’s face it, the word atheist has a very negative connotation in our society today and contrary to Mr. Jillette’s words, publicly declaring yourself an atheist isn’t easy. In fact, it’s courageous. Most people have been brainwashed to think that Atheists believe in nothing, are morally bankrupt and are generally dangerous to society. Admitting to all of that isn’t easy.

However, it isn’t unreasonable not to believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. Do you believe in the Easter Bunny? Do you believe in Santa Claus? I can say with equal conviction that there is no God as I can say there is no Easter Bunny. When discussing the evidence of God with a religious person, the person will invariably put forth the illogical and circular arguments that he has been armed with through the brainwashing he has received since childhood. In the end though, after you’ve exhausted all of the arguments, the person will say something to the effect of “you just have to have faith.” And you know what? I couldn’t agree more.

The pertinent question is: “what should I have faith in?” This is where Mr. Jillette missed the point of his “I believe” essay, which was surprising given his celebrity status. First, I have faith in myself and my ability to control my own destiny. My life is what I make of it; there is nothing supernatural involved in it. Secondly, I have faith in humanity. I believe that humans can create just societies and governments, can explore truth and the nature of the universe through science, and can lead ethical lives that aspire to a common good. Some may recognize these as characteristics of Humanism, and perhaps Humanism is the next evolutionary step for Atheism. It shows a distinct belief and faith in something (as opposed to nothing) and is where I think Mr. Jillette was heading. He just hasn’t arrived there yet.

For more information on Humanism, visit the American Humanist Association.

O'Reilly and the War on Christmas

November 21, 2005 - CPLA Exclusive

BOSTON - Today, in one of the most brazen attacks in the War on Christmas, Secularist para-troopers stormed the Prudential Mall in downtown Boston in an all-out attack on retailers promoting the Christian holiday. The pagan troops went store to store and dismantled any display that referred to Christmas while holding store employees at bay with automatic weapons.

The assault lasted about 45 minutes and when it was over, the Secularist troops forced retail employees to carry their destroyed Christmas displays outside to Boylston Street where they were piled together and set alight to form a bonfire that could be seen for miles. The atheistic horde even had the audacity to throw Bibles into the flames. The leader of the Secularist mission, General Robert Ingersoll, stated “attacks like this are needed to make a strong statement about the dangers of Christmas in American society today. Don’t be surprised if you see more of these attacks in the coming days elsewhere in America.”

The question now becomes, how should America react to the upsurge in violence in the War on Christmas?

***

Obviously, the above “story” is a bit far-fetched ... or is it? For the second year in a row, Bill O’Reilly has been talking up the “War on Christmas” on his nightly television show, The O’Reilly Factor. This year, O’Reilly is focusing on retailers and their use of the dreaded “Christmas” word in their marketing and advertising. According to O'Reilly, retailers who don’t use Christmas in store displays, etc. are deemed to be exclusionary and hostile toward Christians, and can expect to lose millions of shoppers this holiday season.

Isn’t O’Reilly being a little paranoid here? A sales and marketing executive who was a guest on “The Factor” told the pundit that the point of the "Happy Holidays" marketing theme wasn’t to exclude Christians, but to include everyone, regardless of faith. That didn’t fly with O’Reilly and he told his guest that he thought he was crazy.

On his November 18th show, O’Reilly brought up the subject again with a far friendlier guest, fellow Fox News host John Gibson. Gibson actually has a book on this very topic and based on the transcript of the interview, is even more on the fringe of this subject than O’Reilly is. What this really boils down to is two old guys who aren’t comfortable with how America has changed and is continuing to change. They want everything in America to be just as it was when they were kids. Don’t we all feel that way sometimes? I know that I’m nostalgic about sports from my childhood. However, their paranoia drives them to the belief that their “way of life” is being marginalized. Claims of hostility towards Christianity sounds a lot like the people who organized Justice Sunday and said that “people of faith” were being discriminated against. Clearly, the accusation of discrimination is a powerful tool in mobilizing one’s base and O’Reilly isn’t bashful about calling out to his listeners to enlist them in his battles.

I suppose that this resistance to change is simply an indication as to why Bill O’Reilly is a conservative television host for Fox News. However, his resistance to change has manifested itself into a vision of sub-plots against his core beliefs that actually doesn't exist. I almost feel sorry for the man.