Step back for a second, away from the neocon vision of American invincibility and unilateralism, and recognize for a second, why Russia can ignore Bush, Rice, Cheney and any other neocon stooge. Let's compare the situations. Russia invades Georgia over actual and verifiable aggression against South Ossessia. The U.S. invades Iraq over, ahem, what Iraq might implausibly do the United States at some future time.
So on what grounds should Putin think he is losing face by invading Georgia? The United States has already lost the moral high ground, is over-committed militarily, and now is a "super-power" in name only. The neocon vision is now complete. Unfortunately, Russia has it's own neocon, and his name is Putin. So neocons, fire away with all your rhetoric at Russia for it's invasion of Georgia. But know this, they learned all this from you. Aren't you proud?
Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War on Terror. Show all posts
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Open Season on Dems and Liberals I Suppose
After a right-wing lunatic went on a rampage at a Unitarian church, I was hopeful that would be the last of the senseless violence. However, sad news today, as the Arkansas Democratic Chair has been shot and killed. I know people's passions can get pretty worked up over politics, but come on people. I'm sure it is too early to know why this lunatic did what he did, but it wouldn't surprise me if he felt he was doing his patriotic duty. Sigh....
Friday, August 1, 2008
ABC News and the Drumbeats for War
Glenn Greenwald has a priceless post today at Salon.com outlining the culpability of ABC News in providing false information that helped along the drumbeats of war against Iraq. The story deals with the suicide of the lead suspect in the anthrax case, an individual who worked for the federal government at Ft. Detrick in Maryland where he had access to anthrax. Going back to the time of the anthrax attacks, ABC News Brian Ross had as his big news story, that the anthrax had traces of bentonite in it which was consistent with anthrax used in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. This was one of the first linkages of Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 series of attacks. This information turned out to be false. The only persons who would have known whether bentonite had been found in the anthrax, would have been the very same set of experts who worked at Ft. Detrick, the source of the anthrax.
Brian Ross said he heard it from 3-4 sources and it was a big scoop at the time. However, in the interests of hindsight, Brian Ross of ABC News either manufactured the bentonite idea, or he was duped by one or more individuals who wanted to create a link between the anthrax attacks and Saddam Hussein. I can't think of a third plausible explanation. So Greenwald, to his credit begs the question, "why protect your sources now?" They clearly lied to Brian Ross and since the anthrax attack was a criminal violation, doesn't Brian Ross have a responsibility to release what information he knows. If the individual(s) responsible used him as a member of the press to acheive political objectives out of this criminal act, is not Brian Ross an accessory?
I asked that question of Brian Ross from ABC News's website and am not anticipating a response. This is a unique case, The very individual who through a terrorist attack on the United States, and tried to implicate islamic extremists in the attack, may have also contacted the press in order to implicate Iraq itself. That a federal government employee could foment war through a terrorist attack on the United States with the goal of implicating a country that had nothing to do with it, is hard to fathom, but it appears to be the most plausible explanation to what happened. And ABC News and Brian Ross need to come clean on this thing fast, or they should not be trusted as a reliable news source.
Brian Ross said he heard it from 3-4 sources and it was a big scoop at the time. However, in the interests of hindsight, Brian Ross of ABC News either manufactured the bentonite idea, or he was duped by one or more individuals who wanted to create a link between the anthrax attacks and Saddam Hussein. I can't think of a third plausible explanation. So Greenwald, to his credit begs the question, "why protect your sources now?" They clearly lied to Brian Ross and since the anthrax attack was a criminal violation, doesn't Brian Ross have a responsibility to release what information he knows. If the individual(s) responsible used him as a member of the press to acheive political objectives out of this criminal act, is not Brian Ross an accessory?
I asked that question of Brian Ross from ABC News's website and am not anticipating a response. This is a unique case, The very individual who through a terrorist attack on the United States, and tried to implicate islamic extremists in the attack, may have also contacted the press in order to implicate Iraq itself. That a federal government employee could foment war through a terrorist attack on the United States with the goal of implicating a country that had nothing to do with it, is hard to fathom, but it appears to be the most plausible explanation to what happened. And ABC News and Brian Ross need to come clean on this thing fast, or they should not be trusted as a reliable news source.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Thoughts on Obama's Trip
The last couple of days, I had the misfortune of lying in a hospital dealing with a recurring staph infection I seem to get about every other year. Unfortunately, the only news cable network available was the "Fair and Balanced" one. Not being able to get my fix of liberal slanted news, I went ahead and listened to the propaganda coming in from nutjob land regarding Obama's trip. It was interesting to me that so many of John McCain's talking points seem to be the same talking points emphasized on Faux, but I'm sure that was just a coincidence.
Here's a few of my oservations regarding that trip:
1- The Iraqi people and their leader Maliki, would not only be able to work with an Obama administration, they might actually prefer one.
2- The war in Afganistan is going much worse than the Bush Administration has led on, and that more effort may be needed in that country.
3- The claim by the McCain campaign that an Obama presidency would potentially cripple Israel is unfounded, and in fact, counter-intuitive to everyone except the most radical right-wing jewish factions.
4- Obama'a reception in Europe shows that Europeans are still hopeful and desireful for effective American leadership, but the kind of leadership that that brought them the Marshall Plan and Nato, not the unilateralism of George W. Bush,
The spin from the McCain camp was that this sort of trip was premature. I disagree. This kind of trip was essential. It is important to let the other countries of the world know, that the nightmare that was the Bush administration was an abberation, and not representative of what they can expect from our government.
WHether we like it or not, we are still the world's only superpower. Though much of that power has been dissipated and misused, the U.S. is still the major player internationally. How we play our cards influences the well-being of other countries. Our stands and our practices on human rights affects the parameters that other regimes, rogue or otherwise, may limit themselves by.
Each nation of the world values their sovereignty, but also recognizes that effective leadership, which can provide stability and prosperity, is in their sovereign self-interest. That leadership was lacking during the Bush administration. Leadership is about convincing others to come along. Part of convincing people to come along is employing intelligent and moral policies. Bush took the role, "if you won't come along, I'll do it myself." And the result was an illegal war, illegal torture, illegal detainments, illegal spying on American citizens, as well as the citizens of these sovereign countries without oversight and without justification.
One thing to consider as well, is which Presidential candidate can work with other nations the best to resolve the many challenges we have as a planet? Obama, making his trip to meet with foreign countries signified the importance he perceives of these relationships. We as a nation benefit by having a President who can not only appropriately perceive and promote America's best interests, but work with others to acheive those interests and find common ground. McCain's criticism of Obama for this trip seems like a "whaaaa, I wish I thought of this" and a "whaaaa, I why doesn't the world want a continuation of John W. McBush?"
Obama's trip sought to spread hope to the world, that the United States has not abandoned it's core values permanently, that a change of course is on the way, dependent upon the wishes of the American public. In this regard, this election isn't a mandate on the Bush administration. It is a mandate on whether the American people can be trusted, to be true to the values they preach, and to their own political system they market to the world. That we are a nation of laws and values, and not just a rogue nation willing to use it's power as it sees fit.
American people, the world is watching. They want to know "who are you, and can you be trusted." In November, we'll find out if they can.
Here's a few of my oservations regarding that trip:
1- The Iraqi people and their leader Maliki, would not only be able to work with an Obama administration, they might actually prefer one.
2- The war in Afganistan is going much worse than the Bush Administration has led on, and that more effort may be needed in that country.
3- The claim by the McCain campaign that an Obama presidency would potentially cripple Israel is unfounded, and in fact, counter-intuitive to everyone except the most radical right-wing jewish factions.
4- Obama'a reception in Europe shows that Europeans are still hopeful and desireful for effective American leadership, but the kind of leadership that that brought them the Marshall Plan and Nato, not the unilateralism of George W. Bush,
The spin from the McCain camp was that this sort of trip was premature. I disagree. This kind of trip was essential. It is important to let the other countries of the world know, that the nightmare that was the Bush administration was an abberation, and not representative of what they can expect from our government.
WHether we like it or not, we are still the world's only superpower. Though much of that power has been dissipated and misused, the U.S. is still the major player internationally. How we play our cards influences the well-being of other countries. Our stands and our practices on human rights affects the parameters that other regimes, rogue or otherwise, may limit themselves by.
Each nation of the world values their sovereignty, but also recognizes that effective leadership, which can provide stability and prosperity, is in their sovereign self-interest. That leadership was lacking during the Bush administration. Leadership is about convincing others to come along. Part of convincing people to come along is employing intelligent and moral policies. Bush took the role, "if you won't come along, I'll do it myself." And the result was an illegal war, illegal torture, illegal detainments, illegal spying on American citizens, as well as the citizens of these sovereign countries without oversight and without justification.
One thing to consider as well, is which Presidential candidate can work with other nations the best to resolve the many challenges we have as a planet? Obama, making his trip to meet with foreign countries signified the importance he perceives of these relationships. We as a nation benefit by having a President who can not only appropriately perceive and promote America's best interests, but work with others to acheive those interests and find common ground. McCain's criticism of Obama for this trip seems like a "whaaaa, I wish I thought of this" and a "whaaaa, I why doesn't the world want a continuation of John W. McBush?"
Obama's trip sought to spread hope to the world, that the United States has not abandoned it's core values permanently, that a change of course is on the way, dependent upon the wishes of the American public. In this regard, this election isn't a mandate on the Bush administration. It is a mandate on whether the American people can be trusted, to be true to the values they preach, and to their own political system they market to the world. That we are a nation of laws and values, and not just a rogue nation willing to use it's power as it sees fit.
American people, the world is watching. They want to know "who are you, and can you be trusted." In November, we'll find out if they can.
Monday, June 30, 2008
General Richard Meyers- War Criminal
An investigation into the systematic use of torture as an interrogation technique has found that Gen. Richard Meyers, while acting as Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, quashed legal review of the approved techniques. From an article by Mark Benjamin of Salon,
"In late 2002, documents show, officials from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps all complained that harsh interrogation tactics under consideration for use at the prison in Guantánamo Bay might be against the law. Those military officials called for further legal scrutiny of the tactics. The chief of the Army's international law division, for example, said in a memo that some of the tactics, such as stress positions and sensory deprivation, "cross the line of 'humane treatment'" and "may violate the torture statute."
However, General Myers put an end to the legal debate. When all four branches of the military have reservations, I would think, that maybe the commanding General would as well.
I remember watching the series Battlefied: Stalingrad, Prelude to Battle. The narrator said something to effect, "that German soldiers would descend to a level of barbarism, that soldiers of previous generation would have considered unthinkable." And so it is with our Secretary of Defense, and top military officer, that they would authorize actions that would descend to a level of barbarism, that the previous generation would have considered "unthinkable." And it seems that only a bunch of left-wing liberal bloggers could actually care less. That is very worrisome.
"In late 2002, documents show, officials from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps all complained that harsh interrogation tactics under consideration for use at the prison in Guantánamo Bay might be against the law. Those military officials called for further legal scrutiny of the tactics. The chief of the Army's international law division, for example, said in a memo that some of the tactics, such as stress positions and sensory deprivation, "cross the line of 'humane treatment'" and "may violate the torture statute."
However, General Myers put an end to the legal debate. When all four branches of the military have reservations, I would think, that maybe the commanding General would as well.
I remember watching the series Battlefied: Stalingrad, Prelude to Battle. The narrator said something to effect, "that German soldiers would descend to a level of barbarism, that soldiers of previous generation would have considered unthinkable." And so it is with our Secretary of Defense, and top military officer, that they would authorize actions that would descend to a level of barbarism, that the previous generation would have considered "unthinkable." And it seems that only a bunch of left-wing liberal bloggers could actually care less. That is very worrisome.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Frontline- Bush's War I, II- Some Thoughts
First of all, I find it embarrassing that it takes public television to really look at what has happened in Iraq and Afganistan. Even so, the wonderful documentary they put together has it's flaws. I would suggest that anyone who watches it also go to PBS.org and read the extended interviews to get the whole picture because PBS kind of picks and chooses among the quotes to use in the documentary, to generally support certain theses regarding what went wrong in Iraq and who was responsible.
Clearly, L. Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and arguably the most incompetent nincompoop who ever had a high position in government, Douglas Feith, look pretty bad in this documentary. The lack of a strong President to reel in and focus the strong countervailing personalities of Cheney/Rumsfeld and Powell/Tenet shows Bush to be clearly over his head as an executive. Never having the intellect to ask the right questions, he was easily led, and made one bad decision after another. There are many people who really think Bush is a good person, who means well. That may be, but I'm not convinced. At best you can say he has been incompetent. At worst, you can argue that he is a war criminal. But it surprises me to this day, how few Utahns see it. I think some of it is, a refusal to admit a mistake. People who buy bad cars, often stick by them, even though they empty their wallets paying for repairs. Just as Bush would never admit that he was easily led, Utahns seem incapable of admitting the same.
But for those who have not watched the documentary, I suggest they do. It is still available to be viewed online. It interviews people who were close to the action, who were major players. It dissects both the decision to go to war, as well as the lack of a coherent strategy for reconstruction and dealing with the insurgencies in Iraq. To some extent, it extolls the virtues of the surge, a surge I actually supported. Though I opposed going into Iraq, once there, I have always argued that we need to succeed or the consequences would be dire. Past posts regarding Iraq out me in that regard. My biggest concern has been that the surge may be too little and too late, and without a significant increase in the size of our military, that we are overextending the military we have. I've also argued that we need to reinstitute the draft so that if we are truly committed to this war, the burden should be shared. I have also argued, that we should increase taxes to pay for the additional divisions and to increase the pay and benefits of our men and women who serve in harms way. Going into debt to fight a war just doesn't make sense. If we as citizens of this country truly support this thing, we need to pay for it.
I also have argued for more counter-insurgency training in U.S. troops. Obviously, the Rumsfeldian military view of going in small, mobile and with great air support, though good at overthrowing a government, is insufficient for maintaining or re-establishing order. The PBS documentary provides a much better analysis of military strategy, than seems to have occured in the back rooms of the Bush Administration.
Who looks good in the documentary? General Thomas Keane, retired, Colonel H.R. McMaster (who begs the question of how in the hell did General Sanchez make general and McMaster remains a Colonel) also looks good as he does in Thomas Rick's book "Fiasco". The CIA looks like victims of Cheney's strong-armed tactics to market a case for war in Iraq. Richard Armitage covers his arse rather well in the Frontline documentary and makes a plug for his old boss Colin Powell.
In the end, I find it a remarkable documentary. But what I find even more remarkable, is that none of the major news networks put together anything as informative as this documentary. We as a democratic society are dependent upon our press, and it takes public broadcasting to even let us glimpse what went on in our government at the highest levels in the most important issue of our nation at war. The press in our country has failed us. There is no other conclusion that I can come to. However, a few courageous journalists such as Thomas Ricks, Ron Suskind and others did provide us some valuable information. But we all had to search for it. Hannity and Colmes never really touched the subject, nor did Anderson 360.
My thanks to PBS for their Frontline documentary on Bush's War I and II. I recommend everyone watch it online, and just as important, read the extended interviews of the important players.
Clearly, L. Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and arguably the most incompetent nincompoop who ever had a high position in government, Douglas Feith, look pretty bad in this documentary. The lack of a strong President to reel in and focus the strong countervailing personalities of Cheney/Rumsfeld and Powell/Tenet shows Bush to be clearly over his head as an executive. Never having the intellect to ask the right questions, he was easily led, and made one bad decision after another. There are many people who really think Bush is a good person, who means well. That may be, but I'm not convinced. At best you can say he has been incompetent. At worst, you can argue that he is a war criminal. But it surprises me to this day, how few Utahns see it. I think some of it is, a refusal to admit a mistake. People who buy bad cars, often stick by them, even though they empty their wallets paying for repairs. Just as Bush would never admit that he was easily led, Utahns seem incapable of admitting the same.
But for those who have not watched the documentary, I suggest they do. It is still available to be viewed online. It interviews people who were close to the action, who were major players. It dissects both the decision to go to war, as well as the lack of a coherent strategy for reconstruction and dealing with the insurgencies in Iraq. To some extent, it extolls the virtues of the surge, a surge I actually supported. Though I opposed going into Iraq, once there, I have always argued that we need to succeed or the consequences would be dire. Past posts regarding Iraq out me in that regard. My biggest concern has been that the surge may be too little and too late, and without a significant increase in the size of our military, that we are overextending the military we have. I've also argued that we need to reinstitute the draft so that if we are truly committed to this war, the burden should be shared. I have also argued, that we should increase taxes to pay for the additional divisions and to increase the pay and benefits of our men and women who serve in harms way. Going into debt to fight a war just doesn't make sense. If we as citizens of this country truly support this thing, we need to pay for it.
I also have argued for more counter-insurgency training in U.S. troops. Obviously, the Rumsfeldian military view of going in small, mobile and with great air support, though good at overthrowing a government, is insufficient for maintaining or re-establishing order. The PBS documentary provides a much better analysis of military strategy, than seems to have occured in the back rooms of the Bush Administration.
Who looks good in the documentary? General Thomas Keane, retired, Colonel H.R. McMaster (who begs the question of how in the hell did General Sanchez make general and McMaster remains a Colonel) also looks good as he does in Thomas Rick's book "Fiasco". The CIA looks like victims of Cheney's strong-armed tactics to market a case for war in Iraq. Richard Armitage covers his arse rather well in the Frontline documentary and makes a plug for his old boss Colin Powell.
In the end, I find it a remarkable documentary. But what I find even more remarkable, is that none of the major news networks put together anything as informative as this documentary. We as a democratic society are dependent upon our press, and it takes public broadcasting to even let us glimpse what went on in our government at the highest levels in the most important issue of our nation at war. The press in our country has failed us. There is no other conclusion that I can come to. However, a few courageous journalists such as Thomas Ricks, Ron Suskind and others did provide us some valuable information. But we all had to search for it. Hannity and Colmes never really touched the subject, nor did Anderson 360.
My thanks to PBS for their Frontline documentary on Bush's War I and II. I recommend everyone watch it online, and just as important, read the extended interviews of the important players.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The Assault on Reason- A Book Review
This book by Al Gore is a masterpiece. Gore begins to put together a case for what went wrong and why in our Republic. He starts with the decline in discourse and reason within our nation. The evolution of television and radio as news mediums are discussed at length in Gore’s book, in that those mediums are one-way and non-interactive. He attributes much of the troubles we face in our Republic to the relative decline of the print media, which requires more of the reader than just to be entertained.
At that point, Gore gets out a scalpel and dissects the many missteps of the Bush Administration. And thankfully, he does a thorough and persuasive job of it. He contrasts the role the Republic’s founders had for the Presidency with the unilateral, unaccountable, and highly secretive administration of George W. Bush. He pulls no punches and articulates the degree to which this administration has violated the law , dismembered the U.S. Constitution, pursued aggressive pre-emptive war, engaged in the promotion of torture and illegal detainment of people without recourse, sought world domination rather than cooperation, etc.
Gore doesn’t pull any punches on a complicit Republican Congress, and on Democrats who have also bathed in the same sewage infested waters. Gore also goes into just how the pervasive use of fear was used to encourage Americans to give up more and more of their personal liberties in the name of national security. Replacing reason with fear rarely results in good policies and Gore contrasts rightly how America’s great leaders have in the past sought to help America’s citizens overcome their fears with resolve, not to magnify them in a callous and corrupt way to grasp additional powers.
Gore goes on to articulate the conservative assault on an independent judiciary and its implications for our Republic. Reading the book at the same time as watching a 5-4 vote on habeaus corpus underscored Gore’s point, and how fragile and at risk our Constitution is currently. You can tell that Gore has a deep affection for the judiciary and the role they play in preventing abuse of power. He also has a deep appreciation for the brave members of the judiciary and legislative branch that stepped in during Watergate to reign in an imperial President, and laments the lack of current will to do the same in our current Congress.
Gore does touch on one of his most favorite topics, climate change, and likens the role played by Exxon/Mobil with the Tobacco Company propagandists who so successfully argued the lack of link between tobacco smoke and cancer despite the overwhelming evidence.
Surprisingly, much about Gore’s book is hopeful. What Gore ultimately argues for is not agreement with Al Gore, but open and free discussion and careful reasoning. Gore’s solution isn’t more politics, but more discussion between leaders and the public. He sees the internet, blogs, and other modern communication means as positive developments which have the potential to help us undo the damage the Bush Administration has done to our Republic. He also plugs his own current project "CurrentTV."
Gore’s optimism in the face of the rise of American conservative authoritarianism is the kind of hopeful thing you expect from our leaders. Gore showed that he still is a force to be reckoned in our national debate about the future of our country. The fact that a former Vice President and a man who nearly ascended to the Presidency has so articulately addressed our most pressing national crises is refreshing and overdue.
At that point, Gore gets out a scalpel and dissects the many missteps of the Bush Administration. And thankfully, he does a thorough and persuasive job of it. He contrasts the role the Republic’s founders had for the Presidency with the unilateral, unaccountable, and highly secretive administration of George W. Bush. He pulls no punches and articulates the degree to which this administration has violated the law , dismembered the U.S. Constitution, pursued aggressive pre-emptive war, engaged in the promotion of torture and illegal detainment of people without recourse, sought world domination rather than cooperation, etc.
Gore doesn’t pull any punches on a complicit Republican Congress, and on Democrats who have also bathed in the same sewage infested waters. Gore also goes into just how the pervasive use of fear was used to encourage Americans to give up more and more of their personal liberties in the name of national security. Replacing reason with fear rarely results in good policies and Gore contrasts rightly how America’s great leaders have in the past sought to help America’s citizens overcome their fears with resolve, not to magnify them in a callous and corrupt way to grasp additional powers.
Gore goes on to articulate the conservative assault on an independent judiciary and its implications for our Republic. Reading the book at the same time as watching a 5-4 vote on habeaus corpus underscored Gore’s point, and how fragile and at risk our Constitution is currently. You can tell that Gore has a deep affection for the judiciary and the role they play in preventing abuse of power. He also has a deep appreciation for the brave members of the judiciary and legislative branch that stepped in during Watergate to reign in an imperial President, and laments the lack of current will to do the same in our current Congress.
Gore does touch on one of his most favorite topics, climate change, and likens the role played by Exxon/Mobil with the Tobacco Company propagandists who so successfully argued the lack of link between tobacco smoke and cancer despite the overwhelming evidence.
Surprisingly, much about Gore’s book is hopeful. What Gore ultimately argues for is not agreement with Al Gore, but open and free discussion and careful reasoning. Gore’s solution isn’t more politics, but more discussion between leaders and the public. He sees the internet, blogs, and other modern communication means as positive developments which have the potential to help us undo the damage the Bush Administration has done to our Republic. He also plugs his own current project "CurrentTV."
Gore’s optimism in the face of the rise of American conservative authoritarianism is the kind of hopeful thing you expect from our leaders. Gore showed that he still is a force to be reckoned in our national debate about the future of our country. The fact that a former Vice President and a man who nearly ascended to the Presidency has so articulately addressed our most pressing national crises is refreshing and overdue.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
What Scott McClellan's Book Means
More than anything else, McClellan called out our weak and easily manipulated press. Though conservative nutjobs still try to portray our propaganda networks as the "liberal media", the reality is, that they have been weak enablers of the worst executive behavior our Republic has endured. Glenn Greenwald has been a lone voice in the wilderness exposing their vapid adherence and support for authoritarian conservatism. And then McClellan comes along and makes Greenwald's point for him.
When a former Presidential Press Secretary basically says to the press, you were what used car salesmen call, "laydowns", you know our Republic has failed at many levels. That MSNBC terminated their most highest rated show, because it was liberal and anti-war (say Phil Donahue), is revealing and highly disturbing. Watching the enablers such as Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, Tim Russert and others try to wring their hands over their complicity in enabling the Bush administration is both entertaining and disturbing. I knew I couldn't trust Fox (Pravda) News, but now I have reasons to doubt NBC as well.
It is also interesting to see how conservatives have reacted to McClellan's revelations. You see them saying, "why haven't you said anything before", or "he's just trying to make money out of his book", but what I haven't seen yet is anyone refuting what he has to say. Neocons feel they've been betrayed. But not because he was incorrect, but because he undermined them and their objectives. Ultimately, that is the indictment of the Bush legacy. That when someone tells all, they can't refute the truth, but they will attack the messenger. Very enlightening.
When a former Presidential Press Secretary basically says to the press, you were what used car salesmen call, "laydowns", you know our Republic has failed at many levels. That MSNBC terminated their most highest rated show, because it was liberal and anti-war (say Phil Donahue), is revealing and highly disturbing. Watching the enablers such as Brian Williams, Tom Brokaw, Tim Russert and others try to wring their hands over their complicity in enabling the Bush administration is both entertaining and disturbing. I knew I couldn't trust Fox (Pravda) News, but now I have reasons to doubt NBC as well.
It is also interesting to see how conservatives have reacted to McClellan's revelations. You see them saying, "why haven't you said anything before", or "he's just trying to make money out of his book", but what I haven't seen yet is anyone refuting what he has to say. Neocons feel they've been betrayed. But not because he was incorrect, but because he undermined them and their objectives. Ultimately, that is the indictment of the Bush legacy. That when someone tells all, they can't refute the truth, but they will attack the messenger. Very enlightening.
Friday, April 11, 2008
War Criminals Among Us
Remembering the Nuremberg trials that occurred at the end of World War II, I find it illustrative to look at the main charges.
1.Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
2.Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3.War crimes
4.Crimes against humanity
On one and two, looking at the efforts of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith to not only look for the justification to go to war with Iraq, but to sell evidence they knew to be highly suspect to the general public and the legislative branch, suggests conspiracy, planning, initiating and ultimately waging an unprovoked war of aggression. George W. Bush’s complicity in this crime is quite well documented as well. When George Tenet presented the evidence linking Iraq with Al Qaeda and with weapons of mass destruction, his response was “is this all there is?” Tenet then put the noose around his own neck when he said, “slam dunk.”
On the first two counts under Nuremberg, I would have to say that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and possibly Condi Rice and Colin Powell would be subject to indictment with a high probability of successful prosecution under Nuremberg.
As for the latter two counts, the rejection of the Geneva Accords (treaties signed by the United States), would constitute a crime against humanity, as would the use of torture, extraordinary rendition and detainment without recourse. In my opinion many in the Bush Administration are indictable under the third and fourth counts at Nuremberg. Accessories to these counts would be the legal advisors who provided the legal justification for violation of the Geneva Accords as well as torture. As a result, John Yoo and David Addington would also be indicted under under Nuremberg three and four.
Because the United States has the most powerful military in the world, these charges will never be made. But in a theoretical world where we are the loser of the war, under the rules of Nuremberg, would Bush and much of his administration be convicted as war criminals? Would an independent Robert Jackson willingly prosecute Bush and his cronies? That is an interesting question. In my opinion, he would.
The administration of George W. Bush has so soiled what our country should be about, that previous generations of Americans would be ashamed if they lived to see it. Those who have enabled and supported this behavior are also culpable. To the flag waving enablers of war criminals, I say repent. Admit what you did, confess your sin, and promise that you will never support the lawless war-mongering neocon world view again. We have descended to a level of barbarism that leaves our rhetoric regarding human rights and liberty impotent in the world. American exceptionalism and hypocrisy has seriously undermined not only who we are, but who others see us as.
Is the Bush Administration as bad as Nazi Germany? Certainly not. But the fact that plausible comparisons can be made between Bush Administration actions and the Nuremberg charges, should atleast give us pause.
1.Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
2.Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3.War crimes
4.Crimes against humanity
On one and two, looking at the efforts of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith to not only look for the justification to go to war with Iraq, but to sell evidence they knew to be highly suspect to the general public and the legislative branch, suggests conspiracy, planning, initiating and ultimately waging an unprovoked war of aggression. George W. Bush’s complicity in this crime is quite well documented as well. When George Tenet presented the evidence linking Iraq with Al Qaeda and with weapons of mass destruction, his response was “is this all there is?” Tenet then put the noose around his own neck when he said, “slam dunk.”
On the first two counts under Nuremberg, I would have to say that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and possibly Condi Rice and Colin Powell would be subject to indictment with a high probability of successful prosecution under Nuremberg.
As for the latter two counts, the rejection of the Geneva Accords (treaties signed by the United States), would constitute a crime against humanity, as would the use of torture, extraordinary rendition and detainment without recourse. In my opinion many in the Bush Administration are indictable under the third and fourth counts at Nuremberg. Accessories to these counts would be the legal advisors who provided the legal justification for violation of the Geneva Accords as well as torture. As a result, John Yoo and David Addington would also be indicted under under Nuremberg three and four.
Because the United States has the most powerful military in the world, these charges will never be made. But in a theoretical world where we are the loser of the war, under the rules of Nuremberg, would Bush and much of his administration be convicted as war criminals? Would an independent Robert Jackson willingly prosecute Bush and his cronies? That is an interesting question. In my opinion, he would.
The administration of George W. Bush has so soiled what our country should be about, that previous generations of Americans would be ashamed if they lived to see it. Those who have enabled and supported this behavior are also culpable. To the flag waving enablers of war criminals, I say repent. Admit what you did, confess your sin, and promise that you will never support the lawless war-mongering neocon world view again. We have descended to a level of barbarism that leaves our rhetoric regarding human rights and liberty impotent in the world. American exceptionalism and hypocrisy has seriously undermined not only who we are, but who others see us as.
Is the Bush Administration as bad as Nazi Germany? Certainly not. But the fact that plausible comparisons can be made between Bush Administration actions and the Nuremberg charges, should atleast give us pause.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Misreading Cheney and Bush
I was going through my files last night when I stumbled upon an essay I wrote back in January of 2001. This was before I even knew what a blog was, but I wrote personal essays at the time. As someone with an "addiction to rightness", this essay really struck me. Check out this quote
“On the bright side, Bush atleast has an experienced and capable Vice President. Though I’ve been very concerned about a general lack of sophistication coming from our new President, Cheney has always impressed me as someone who is pretty level-headed. He’s certainly more conservative than I am, but I think a simpleton like Bush will need someone with his experience and knowledge.”
What I didn’t know, was that Cheney secretly was a war-monger who would exercise complete control over the Presidency. I correctly anticipated that Bush was weak and had a lot of flaws, but in retrospect, I confused experience for wisdom when it came to Dick Cheney.
I also misread Bush on a few things as well. Here’s another quote from that January essay.
“This has been a very divisive election. I’m encouraged that Bush seems to want to help heal the divisions that pervade our nation. Though I’m concerned about Bush’s intelligence, I do sense that he is basically a good person, and as an American first, I feel it is important to give the new President a certain benefit of the doubt and hope that his Presidency will be successful.”
I cannot think of a more divisive President our nation has had than George W. Bush. I did not see that Bush was an immature, easily-led, and deceitful individual. Though concerned about his lack of sophistication, I didn’t see just how that failing would make him overly sure of himself, and therefore closed-minded. I didn’t see that his response to crisis would be to over-react, and over-extend the reach of the executive branch of government.
By 2004, I had figured Bush out much better when I wrote,
“As for a General, I find President Bush to be very decisive, but not particularly thoughtful, lacking the tactical subtlety that great military leaders generally possess. As a General, he reminds me of the Civil War Confederate John Bell Hood who recklessly attacked regardless of the strength of the opposing force and the disposition of their troops. Just as Gen. Hood wrecked his army in critical battles in Georgia and Tennessee, I fear Gen. Bush has our military over-extended, misplaced, and vulnerable. As a Commander and Chief, I expect the President to react flexibly to situations that arise and General Bush isn’t that type of leader.
Since George W. Bush was elected President, our credibility has declined internationally, our military has become over-extended, our economy has sagged and our war on terrorism has been so misplaced that it has created more enemies then allies. The war on terrorism has also caused a decline in our fundamental civil rights. These will be the legacies of the Bush Administration. Let’s be decisive in November and end this “reign of error”.”
So how did Bush put it, “fool me once”?
“On the bright side, Bush atleast has an experienced and capable Vice President. Though I’ve been very concerned about a general lack of sophistication coming from our new President, Cheney has always impressed me as someone who is pretty level-headed. He’s certainly more conservative than I am, but I think a simpleton like Bush will need someone with his experience and knowledge.”
What I didn’t know, was that Cheney secretly was a war-monger who would exercise complete control over the Presidency. I correctly anticipated that Bush was weak and had a lot of flaws, but in retrospect, I confused experience for wisdom when it came to Dick Cheney.
I also misread Bush on a few things as well. Here’s another quote from that January essay.
“This has been a very divisive election. I’m encouraged that Bush seems to want to help heal the divisions that pervade our nation. Though I’m concerned about Bush’s intelligence, I do sense that he is basically a good person, and as an American first, I feel it is important to give the new President a certain benefit of the doubt and hope that his Presidency will be successful.”
I cannot think of a more divisive President our nation has had than George W. Bush. I did not see that Bush was an immature, easily-led, and deceitful individual. Though concerned about his lack of sophistication, I didn’t see just how that failing would make him overly sure of himself, and therefore closed-minded. I didn’t see that his response to crisis would be to over-react, and over-extend the reach of the executive branch of government.
By 2004, I had figured Bush out much better when I wrote,
“As for a General, I find President Bush to be very decisive, but not particularly thoughtful, lacking the tactical subtlety that great military leaders generally possess. As a General, he reminds me of the Civil War Confederate John Bell Hood who recklessly attacked regardless of the strength of the opposing force and the disposition of their troops. Just as Gen. Hood wrecked his army in critical battles in Georgia and Tennessee, I fear Gen. Bush has our military over-extended, misplaced, and vulnerable. As a Commander and Chief, I expect the President to react flexibly to situations that arise and General Bush isn’t that type of leader.
Since George W. Bush was elected President, our credibility has declined internationally, our military has become over-extended, our economy has sagged and our war on terrorism has been so misplaced that it has created more enemies then allies. The war on terrorism has also caused a decline in our fundamental civil rights. These will be the legacies of the Bush Administration. Let’s be decisive in November and end this “reign of error”.”
So how did Bush put it, “fool me once”?
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Football and the Disaster Called the Press
As I watched the situation disintegrate in Iraq, it was interesting that I found that information, not from CNN, MSNBC or FOX(Pravda)News, but from the BBC. The mainstream media in this country focused on the Presidential race like it was a football game. Clinton gains a first down but is called for off-sides. Obama gets called for a late hit. Ew, that'll cost him. Oh no, Hillary fumbles the ball and turns the ball over to Obama.
That kind of thinking and effort seems to be par for the course for our so-called liberal media, which more resemble a propaganda network for the regime in power. I hate to say it, but I can only find reliable information about the war in Iraq and Afganistan by watching the BBC, listening to NPR and watching Frontline on PBS. And that reality is truly embarrassing and alarming.
Kudos, BTW, for the PBS Frontline documentary "Bush At War I,II." The fact that such deep analysis didn't occur on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN or FOX, is an indictment to the degree of complicity our press has in the disasters that Cheney/Bush has imposed upon us. Our press has let us down in the past, and continues to do so. We have a press that is nationalistic in it's focus and seeks to gain ratings by telling Americans what they want to hear. We have commercialized the press to the point that their reporting is gauged for viewership rather than accuracy and relevancy. This truly alarms me. The American people continue to be misled, misinformed and given the party line, not a true assessment of what is going on in the world.
That kind of thinking and effort seems to be par for the course for our so-called liberal media, which more resemble a propaganda network for the regime in power. I hate to say it, but I can only find reliable information about the war in Iraq and Afganistan by watching the BBC, listening to NPR and watching Frontline on PBS. And that reality is truly embarrassing and alarming.
Kudos, BTW, for the PBS Frontline documentary "Bush At War I,II." The fact that such deep analysis didn't occur on CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN or FOX, is an indictment to the degree of complicity our press has in the disasters that Cheney/Bush has imposed upon us. Our press has let us down in the past, and continues to do so. We have a press that is nationalistic in it's focus and seeks to gain ratings by telling Americans what they want to hear. We have commercialized the press to the point that their reporting is gauged for viewership rather than accuracy and relevancy. This truly alarms me. The American people continue to be misled, misinformed and given the party line, not a true assessment of what is going on in the world.
Friday, February 15, 2008
The Blue dogs and the decline of democracy
After watching the actions of the Senate and the House regarding "The Protect America Act", I've been rapidly losing respect for the blue dogs. Bi-partisanship is not the same as surrendering. The act of making illegal actions retro-actively legal is repugnant to the rule of law, and by granting telecom amnesty that is what Republicans (voting en block) and blue dogs are accomplishing.
During the Clinton impeachment, I don't know how many times Republicans used the term "rule of law". However, they seem to be silent when the actions of a Republican administration engages in illegal behavior and elicits telecoms to participate. They now seek to justify illegal action as a means of protecting us.
A long-standing American principle has been a presumption of innocense. We the people have restricted the government from unlawful intrusion into our lives unless the government can prove their case that the intrusion is necessary. The Bush Administration violated that fundamental paradigm, and the fact that the mainstream press can't understand the significance of the vote on the "Protect America Act". And making retro-actively legal, illegal actions has so subverted our legal paradigms, that I don't know where to begin.
Blue-dog enablement of authoritarian policies has helped undermine our Republic and the basic underlying principles our government has stood for. There was a time when I used to respect and value the blue dogs. That respect is vanishing quickly.
During the Clinton impeachment, I don't know how many times Republicans used the term "rule of law". However, they seem to be silent when the actions of a Republican administration engages in illegal behavior and elicits telecoms to participate. They now seek to justify illegal action as a means of protecting us.
A long-standing American principle has been a presumption of innocense. We the people have restricted the government from unlawful intrusion into our lives unless the government can prove their case that the intrusion is necessary. The Bush Administration violated that fundamental paradigm, and the fact that the mainstream press can't understand the significance of the vote on the "Protect America Act". And making retro-actively legal, illegal actions has so subverted our legal paradigms, that I don't know where to begin.
Blue-dog enablement of authoritarian policies has helped undermine our Republic and the basic underlying principles our government has stood for. There was a time when I used to respect and value the blue dogs. That respect is vanishing quickly.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Chris Cannon’s Disconnect Between Beliefs and Actions
One of the more entertaining conservative blogs in Utah belongs to congressman Chris Cannon. At the link below, you can observe what Chris Cannon believes, or atleast perceives he believes. In the spirit of “civility in public discourse”, I will address each of his stated beliefs with why there is a disconnect between those stated beliefs and the actions of Rep. Cannon.
http://chriscannon.house.gov/Believe/
I believe...
- The government that governs least, governs best
I don’t know about anyone else, but I am unaware of Congressman Cannon’s efforts to reduce the size of government and roll back laws on the books. I also have seen a total lack of effort on Chris Cannon’s part to inhibit the Bush Administration from eroding the freedoms American’s have traditionally enjoyed. If anything, I would suggest that Chris Cannon believes in “loyalty” to his party and his President. Though not stated in his beliefs, I perceive based upon observing Chris Cannon for over a decade, that belief in loyalty to party is what drives this man.
- That open government, transparency, and reducing the size of government are the only true cures for corruption
Nice words but exactly what has Chris Cannon done to reduce the size of government? Though elected in 1994, Chris Cannon really found himself in a position of influence after the 2000 election, a point where he had some seniority and represents a time which ushered in a Republican President. Since that time, the scope of governmental intrusion in one’s life has increased, the size of government has increased and so has the deficit.
- The Congress should never spend more than it takes in
Let’s talk statistics Rep. Cannon. In 2000, when seniority and a Republican executive came into power, the U.S. had three years of budget surpluses. Since that time, we have had deficits $158 Billion to a whopping $413 Billion. What proposals have we heard from Chris Cannon to address these deficits? Am I the only one hearing crickets chirp?
- Taking the fight to terrorists is the only way to keep America safe
That is all well and good, but what does supporting an unprovoked war in Iraq have to do with taking the fight to terrorists? It certainly was a nice recruitment tool for Al Qaeda. President Bush and enablers like Chris Cannon have done more for Al Qaeda than Osama bin Ladin has. They have turned virtually an entire region and religion against our government and has made the U.S. less safe now than ever before.
- Technology, innovation, and the market are always preferable to government intervention
I can’t really contest that Chris Cannon doesn’t believe this. But I would contend that “always” is an awfully absolute phrase to use. What if the government intervention uses innovation or new technology? The Center for Disease Control uses both of those things. Does that mean we should rely on the private sector to evaluate our nation’s health risks from infectious diseases? Where is the profit motive? This is one example. A blanket statement like Chris Cannon’s sounds more like a sound-bite than a, ahem, prescription.
- Amnesty means being allowed to stay in America without a penalty - I will NEVER support amnesty
It all depends on your definition of amnesty now doesn’t it. I’m allowed to stay in America without a penalty. Does this mean he wants me to leave? Why the need to state such a strong position here? Is it possible because past positions and votes bring into question Cannon’s opposition to “amnesty”? Would this have been on his blog three years ago? I’m guessing not. Just for the record, I’m not opposed to some sort of amnesty provision. I’m just pointing to the peculiarities of Cannon’s statement.
- Civility in our public discourse is a good lesson for our kids and a lost component of our dialogue
Nice to hear that civility is important to such a partisan Congressman. I’ll just let his record speak for itself on this one. On the other hand, perhaps being in the minority has caused Chris to turn over a new leaf (snicker).
- Federalism sometimes requires the federal government NOT to act, no matter how painful
Federalism is usually in the eye of the beholder. Would Chris Cannon support federal legislation that bans gay marriage? How about banning abortion? How about stem cell research? And to take exception to this notion, I would suggest that hiding behind “federalism” may be a shield for the failure of Congress to take some necessary actions. “Oh, we’d like to help, but federalism is so divinely inspired (atleast when We play that card) that it would be inappropriate to take action.”
So what does Chris Cannon believe? I’ve seen the sound-bites, but I’ve also seen him in action for over a decade. All of us fall short of our beliefs at times. Though some of these beliefs I disagree with, the bigger issue is whether we as citizens can rely upon his statements as being genuine and accurate. Let’s just say, I’m not convinced.
http://chriscannon.house.gov/Believe/
I believe...
- The government that governs least, governs best
I don’t know about anyone else, but I am unaware of Congressman Cannon’s efforts to reduce the size of government and roll back laws on the books. I also have seen a total lack of effort on Chris Cannon’s part to inhibit the Bush Administration from eroding the freedoms American’s have traditionally enjoyed. If anything, I would suggest that Chris Cannon believes in “loyalty” to his party and his President. Though not stated in his beliefs, I perceive based upon observing Chris Cannon for over a decade, that belief in loyalty to party is what drives this man.
- That open government, transparency, and reducing the size of government are the only true cures for corruption
Nice words but exactly what has Chris Cannon done to reduce the size of government? Though elected in 1994, Chris Cannon really found himself in a position of influence after the 2000 election, a point where he had some seniority and represents a time which ushered in a Republican President. Since that time, the scope of governmental intrusion in one’s life has increased, the size of government has increased and so has the deficit.
- The Congress should never spend more than it takes in
Let’s talk statistics Rep. Cannon. In 2000, when seniority and a Republican executive came into power, the U.S. had three years of budget surpluses. Since that time, we have had deficits $158 Billion to a whopping $413 Billion. What proposals have we heard from Chris Cannon to address these deficits? Am I the only one hearing crickets chirp?
- Taking the fight to terrorists is the only way to keep America safe
That is all well and good, but what does supporting an unprovoked war in Iraq have to do with taking the fight to terrorists? It certainly was a nice recruitment tool for Al Qaeda. President Bush and enablers like Chris Cannon have done more for Al Qaeda than Osama bin Ladin has. They have turned virtually an entire region and religion against our government and has made the U.S. less safe now than ever before.
- Technology, innovation, and the market are always preferable to government intervention
I can’t really contest that Chris Cannon doesn’t believe this. But I would contend that “always” is an awfully absolute phrase to use. What if the government intervention uses innovation or new technology? The Center for Disease Control uses both of those things. Does that mean we should rely on the private sector to evaluate our nation’s health risks from infectious diseases? Where is the profit motive? This is one example. A blanket statement like Chris Cannon’s sounds more like a sound-bite than a, ahem, prescription.
- Amnesty means being allowed to stay in America without a penalty - I will NEVER support amnesty
It all depends on your definition of amnesty now doesn’t it. I’m allowed to stay in America without a penalty. Does this mean he wants me to leave? Why the need to state such a strong position here? Is it possible because past positions and votes bring into question Cannon’s opposition to “amnesty”? Would this have been on his blog three years ago? I’m guessing not. Just for the record, I’m not opposed to some sort of amnesty provision. I’m just pointing to the peculiarities of Cannon’s statement.
- Civility in our public discourse is a good lesson for our kids and a lost component of our dialogue
Nice to hear that civility is important to such a partisan Congressman. I’ll just let his record speak for itself on this one. On the other hand, perhaps being in the minority has caused Chris to turn over a new leaf (snicker).
- Federalism sometimes requires the federal government NOT to act, no matter how painful
Federalism is usually in the eye of the beholder. Would Chris Cannon support federal legislation that bans gay marriage? How about banning abortion? How about stem cell research? And to take exception to this notion, I would suggest that hiding behind “federalism” may be a shield for the failure of Congress to take some necessary actions. “Oh, we’d like to help, but federalism is so divinely inspired (atleast when We play that card) that it would be inappropriate to take action.”
So what does Chris Cannon believe? I’ve seen the sound-bites, but I’ve also seen him in action for over a decade. All of us fall short of our beliefs at times. Though some of these beliefs I disagree with, the bigger issue is whether we as citizens can rely upon his statements as being genuine and accurate. Let’s just say, I’m not convinced.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Col. Boylan Proving Glenn Greenwald Right
I don’t think I’ve ever seen such an inept public relations snafu as what transpired courtesy of Colonel Steven Boylan, a top aide to General Petraeus. Gleen Greenwald on his blog wrote an article discussing the politicization of the U.S. Military under the Bush administration. To prove Greenwald’s point, Glenn gets a sharply worded e-mail from Colonel Steven Boylan. I’ll reprint that below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Boylan, Steven COL MNF-I CMD GRP CG PAO"
To: ggreenwald@salon.com
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 8:15 AM
Subject: The growing link between the U.S. military and right-wing media and blogs
Glenn,
I had hoped to post this in response to your article, but apparently it is closed already.
I am not sending this as anyone's spokesperson, just a straight military Public Affairs Officer, with about 27 months overall time in Iraq who is concerned with accuracy, context and characterization of information and has worked with media of all types since joining the career field in 1991. The issues of accuracy, context, and proper characterization is something that perhaps you could do a little research and would assume you are aware of as a trained lawyer.
I do enjoy reading your diatribes as they provide comic relief here in Iraq. The amount of pure fiction is incredible. Since a great deal of this post is just opinion and everyone is entitled to their opinions, I will not address those even though they are shall we say -- based on few if any facts. That does surprise me with your training as a lawyer, but we will leave those jokes to another day.
You do have one fact in your post -- then Brigadier General Bergner did work at the National Security Council on matters concerning Iraq. Not surprising as he had returned from a year plus deployment to Iraq as the Multi-National Division - North Assistant Division Commander. It would seem reasonable that someone with Iraq experience would work issues at the NSC that was familiar with and had experience in Iraq. All else after that portion in your post about Major General Bergner is just your wishful thinking to support your flawed theory.
The claims about Steve Schmidt being out here on the staff in Iraq are just flat wrong. Pray tell, where do you think he is and how long have you fantasized that he has been here? Based on our records of who is in Iraq, I am really sorry to disappoint you, but he just isn't here. You are either too lazy to do the research on the topics to gain the facts, or you are providing purposeful misinformation -- much like a propagandist.
Schmidt was here, but at the time for the vote on the Iraqi Constitution, October 2005 for 30 days. He was never on the MNF-I staff and for that short period was actually detailed to the Department of State. He hasn't been back since. Sorry to burst your bubble, but a little actual research on your part would have shown that he is actually not here, but that would contradict your conspiracy theory. I am curious as to when you think the media relations or operations changed here in Iraq. I in fact do know exactly the day and time thatit changed and want to see if you are even in the same ballpark as reality.
For the third matter concerning the Beauchamp investigation and the documents that were leaked - it is very unfortunate that they were - but the documents are not secret or classified. So, there is your third major error in fact. Good thing you are not a journalist. The information that was released and it appears that has since been taken off the net is more of a matter concerning the Privacy Act. Since we don't know who released them, we are not able to take the appropriate actions and the media tends not to give up their sources -- good, bad or indifferent...I will not judge. That is our system and we must work with it.
As for working in secret with only certain media is laughable. The wide swatch of media engagements is by far the most diverse it could be. But you might not think it that way since we chose not to do an interview with you. You are not a journalist nor do you have any journalistic ethical standards as we found out from the last time I engaged with you. As we quickly found out, you published our email conversation without asking, without permission -- just another case in point to illustrate your lack of standards and ethics. You may recall that a 30-minute interview was conducted with the program that you claim to be a contributor. So instead of doing the interview with you, we went with the real talent, Alan Colmes.
I also noticed that you fail to mention the amount of material that is leaked to those other publications that I dare you to call right-wing like the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc. I do not condone or wish them to happen, but it happens. If you believe they are right-wing, then again, it is nice to live in a fantasy world.
I invite you to come see for yourself and go anywhere in Iraq you want, go see what our forces are doing, go see what the other coalition forces are doing, go hang out with the reporters outside the International Zone since that is where they live and work and see for yourself what ground truth is so that you can be better informed. But that would take something you probably don't have.
Steve
Steven A. Boylan
Colonel, US Army
Public Affairs Officer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reading this, my first reaction was “WOW”. Greenwald to his credit went to great lengths to verify that the e-mail was in fact from Col. Boylan, General Petraeus’s Public Affairs Officer. The e-mail address was the same as the one used in a previous e-mail encounter and Greenwald asked for any experts on IP addresses to verify that the address in question was Col. Boylan’s.
Well enter the denial stage. Col. Boylan, though refusing to engage in dialogue with Greenwald, is responding to e-mails in the published e-mail address from some of Greenwald’s readers who are castigating his behavior. On top of that, he is denying sending the original e-mail. Yep, someone else sent it, despite the fact that the language style used in e-mails to Greenwald’s readers is spot on to the one in the original e-mail. Also, wouldn’t it be a bit troubling that someone other than Col. Boylan, Gen. Petraeus’s public affairs officer could in fact speak for the commanding General of our war in Iraq?
Clearly, Col. Boylan has been caught in a lie, and trying to cover it up is making him look even more stupid and irresponsible. And on top of that, Col. Boylan’s e-mail proved Greenwald’s point about the politicization of the military under George W. Bush. That the public affairs officer for the Commanding General would be sending curt, patronizing e-mails to liberal bloggers is the very thing Greenwald was addressing.
Gen. Petraeus must be thoroughly ticked to have a subordinate behaving in such a way. Totally amazing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Boylan, Steven COL MNF-I CMD GRP CG PAO"
To: ggreenwald@salon.com
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 8:15 AM
Subject: The growing link between the U.S. military and right-wing media and blogs
Glenn,
I had hoped to post this in response to your article, but apparently it is closed already.
I am not sending this as anyone's spokesperson, just a straight military Public Affairs Officer, with about 27 months overall time in Iraq who is concerned with accuracy, context and characterization of information and has worked with media of all types since joining the career field in 1991. The issues of accuracy, context, and proper characterization is something that perhaps you could do a little research and would assume you are aware of as a trained lawyer.
I do enjoy reading your diatribes as they provide comic relief here in Iraq. The amount of pure fiction is incredible. Since a great deal of this post is just opinion and everyone is entitled to their opinions, I will not address those even though they are shall we say -- based on few if any facts. That does surprise me with your training as a lawyer, but we will leave those jokes to another day.
You do have one fact in your post -- then Brigadier General Bergner did work at the National Security Council on matters concerning Iraq. Not surprising as he had returned from a year plus deployment to Iraq as the Multi-National Division - North Assistant Division Commander. It would seem reasonable that someone with Iraq experience would work issues at the NSC that was familiar with and had experience in Iraq. All else after that portion in your post about Major General Bergner is just your wishful thinking to support your flawed theory.
The claims about Steve Schmidt being out here on the staff in Iraq are just flat wrong. Pray tell, where do you think he is and how long have you fantasized that he has been here? Based on our records of who is in Iraq, I am really sorry to disappoint you, but he just isn't here. You are either too lazy to do the research on the topics to gain the facts, or you are providing purposeful misinformation -- much like a propagandist.
Schmidt was here, but at the time for the vote on the Iraqi Constitution, October 2005 for 30 days. He was never on the MNF-I staff and for that short period was actually detailed to the Department of State. He hasn't been back since. Sorry to burst your bubble, but a little actual research on your part would have shown that he is actually not here, but that would contradict your conspiracy theory. I am curious as to when you think the media relations or operations changed here in Iraq. I in fact do know exactly the day and time thatit changed and want to see if you are even in the same ballpark as reality.
For the third matter concerning the Beauchamp investigation and the documents that were leaked - it is very unfortunate that they were - but the documents are not secret or classified. So, there is your third major error in fact. Good thing you are not a journalist. The information that was released and it appears that has since been taken off the net is more of a matter concerning the Privacy Act. Since we don't know who released them, we are not able to take the appropriate actions and the media tends not to give up their sources -- good, bad or indifferent...I will not judge. That is our system and we must work with it.
As for working in secret with only certain media is laughable. The wide swatch of media engagements is by far the most diverse it could be. But you might not think it that way since we chose not to do an interview with you. You are not a journalist nor do you have any journalistic ethical standards as we found out from the last time I engaged with you. As we quickly found out, you published our email conversation without asking, without permission -- just another case in point to illustrate your lack of standards and ethics. You may recall that a 30-minute interview was conducted with the program that you claim to be a contributor. So instead of doing the interview with you, we went with the real talent, Alan Colmes.
I also noticed that you fail to mention the amount of material that is leaked to those other publications that I dare you to call right-wing like the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc. I do not condone or wish them to happen, but it happens. If you believe they are right-wing, then again, it is nice to live in a fantasy world.
I invite you to come see for yourself and go anywhere in Iraq you want, go see what our forces are doing, go see what the other coalition forces are doing, go hang out with the reporters outside the International Zone since that is where they live and work and see for yourself what ground truth is so that you can be better informed. But that would take something you probably don't have.
Steve
Steven A. Boylan
Colonel, US Army
Public Affairs Officer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reading this, my first reaction was “WOW”. Greenwald to his credit went to great lengths to verify that the e-mail was in fact from Col. Boylan, General Petraeus’s Public Affairs Officer. The e-mail address was the same as the one used in a previous e-mail encounter and Greenwald asked for any experts on IP addresses to verify that the address in question was Col. Boylan’s.
Well enter the denial stage. Col. Boylan, though refusing to engage in dialogue with Greenwald, is responding to e-mails in the published e-mail address from some of Greenwald’s readers who are castigating his behavior. On top of that, he is denying sending the original e-mail. Yep, someone else sent it, despite the fact that the language style used in e-mails to Greenwald’s readers is spot on to the one in the original e-mail. Also, wouldn’t it be a bit troubling that someone other than Col. Boylan, Gen. Petraeus’s public affairs officer could in fact speak for the commanding General of our war in Iraq?
Clearly, Col. Boylan has been caught in a lie, and trying to cover it up is making him look even more stupid and irresponsible. And on top of that, Col. Boylan’s e-mail proved Greenwald’s point about the politicization of the military under George W. Bush. That the public affairs officer for the Commanding General would be sending curt, patronizing e-mails to liberal bloggers is the very thing Greenwald was addressing.
Gen. Petraeus must be thoroughly ticked to have a subordinate behaving in such a way. Totally amazing.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Blackwater- The Neo-con Private Army
Welcome to Blackwater. Here is a security contractor under contract with the State Department to provide security. Since the early stages of this conflict, contractors have had a more significant role in the military situation in Iraq than the total “coalition of the willing” minus Great Britain. No one knows for sure how many private contractors are in Iraq, but one thing is for sure, they are making an impact. The first battle of Falluja was fought due to some contractors making a wrong turn and ending up in hostile territory, ultimately getting killed and hung from a bridge. Estimates of the numbers of these contract employees is hard to gauge, but most estimates conclude that there are at least 100,000 of them. Blackwater just happens to be the biggest.
And who is Blackwater? Salon.com had a story on providing some good background on the company, it’s founder and it’s contacts. From the Salon article:
"Erik Prince, founder and CEO: How did Blackwater go from a small corporation training local SWAT teams to a seemingly inseparable part of U.S. operations in Iraq? Good timing, and the connections of its CEO, may be the answer Prince, who founded Blackwater in 1996 but reportedly took a behind-the-scenes role in the company until after 9/11, has connections to the Republican Party in his blood. His late father, auto-parts magnate Edgar Prince, was instrumental in the creation of the Family Research Council, one of the right-wing Christian groups most influential with the George W. Bush administration. At his funeral in 1995, he was eulogized by two stalwarts of the Christian conservative movement, James Dobson and Gary Bauer. Edgar Prince's widow, Elsa, who remarried after her husband's death, has served on the boards of the FRC and another influential Christian-right organization, Dobson's Focus on the Family. She currently runs the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, where, according to IRS filings, her son Erik is a vice president. The foundation has given lavishly to some of the marquee names of the Christian right. Between July 2003 and July 2006, the foundation gave at least $670,000 to the FRC and $531,000 to Focus on the Family."
"Both Edgar and Elsa have been affiliated with the Council for National Policy, the ecretive Christian conservative organization whose meeting have been attended by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Bremer, and whose membership is rumored to include Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Dobson. The Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation gave the CNP $80,000 between July 2003 and July 2006."
"The former Betsy Prince -- Edgar and Elsa's daughter, Erik's sister -- married into the DeVos family, one of the country's biggest donors to Republican and conservative causes. ("I know a little something about soft money, as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican Party," Betsy DeVos wrote in a 1997 Op-Ed in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call.) She chaired the Michigan Republican Party from 1996 to 2000 and again from 2003 to 2005, and her husband, Dick, ran as the Republican candidate for Michigan governor in 2006."
"Erik Prince himself is no slouch when it comes to giving to Republicans and cultivating relationships with important conservatives. He and his first and second wives have donated roughly $300,000 to Republican candidates and political action committees. Through his Freiheit Foundation, he also gave $500,000 to Prison Fellowship Ministries, run by former Nixon official Charles Colson, in 2000. In the same year, he contributed $30,000 to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. During college, he interned in George H.W. Bush's White House, and also interned for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Rohrabacher and fellow California Republican Rep. John Doolittle have visited Blackwater's Moyock, N.C., compound, on a trip arranged by the Alexander Strategy Group, a lobbying firm founded by former aides of then House Majority Leader Tom Delay. ASG partner Paul Behrends is a longtime associate of Prince's."
So they are well-connected and making a lot of money in Iraq, something that seems to happen to a lot of well-connected Republicans. And isn’t it reassuring to know that Republicans have their own private army to call upon.
Blackwater got some bad press recently when they allegedly killed 11 unarmed Iraqis on September 16. They also had a situation where one of their employees, while drunk, shot one of the bodyguards of the Iraqi Vice President. As it turns out, contractors have been a great cause of concern for our military in Iraq. These amateur soldiers, not sworn in like the regular military, have more or less operated under their own guidelines, and have often taken a shoot first policy and have been notorious for driving civilians off of Iraqi roads. Just as General Petraeus has tried to reconfigure our strategy in Iraq to a counter-insurgency, working on winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis, time and again, contractors have undermined their efforts.
One of the most significant aspects of this use of contractors, is that the true costs of the war only show up in the bottom line, not in the numbers of actual casualties. Deaths of contract employees affects the insurance claims of the contractor, but are not counted as casualties in the Iraqi war effort. Another issue with contractors, is that they pay more money for their employees than does our military.
And what drives the contractors? Is it to accomplish a peaceful exit out of Iraq? What is their incentive? The war has made millionaires out of contractors in Iraq. Perpetual war is what will gain them future profits. And certainly, among there will be a supply of retired military personnel who will seek to make a fortune playing in this war for profit, rather than democracy.
We as a nation need to be very careful before we start privatizing the functions that have been served by our military. Our military personnel swear an oath to our country to protect us. Contractors sign a “contract” with specifications that may be vague or hard to enforce. And in the end, are we really happy to have a security company with it’s own para-military force that is committed to the Neo-con wing of the Republican party? If the war ever ends, what will be the role of these companies and their employees? I see many scenarios that should send a shiver down your spine if you believe in our Republic.
And who is Blackwater? Salon.com had a story on providing some good background on the company, it’s founder and it’s contacts. From the Salon article:
"Erik Prince, founder and CEO: How did Blackwater go from a small corporation training local SWAT teams to a seemingly inseparable part of U.S. operations in Iraq? Good timing, and the connections of its CEO, may be the answer Prince, who founded Blackwater in 1996 but reportedly took a behind-the-scenes role in the company until after 9/11, has connections to the Republican Party in his blood. His late father, auto-parts magnate Edgar Prince, was instrumental in the creation of the Family Research Council, one of the right-wing Christian groups most influential with the George W. Bush administration. At his funeral in 1995, he was eulogized by two stalwarts of the Christian conservative movement, James Dobson and Gary Bauer. Edgar Prince's widow, Elsa, who remarried after her husband's death, has served on the boards of the FRC and another influential Christian-right organization, Dobson's Focus on the Family. She currently runs the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, where, according to IRS filings, her son Erik is a vice president. The foundation has given lavishly to some of the marquee names of the Christian right. Between July 2003 and July 2006, the foundation gave at least $670,000 to the FRC and $531,000 to Focus on the Family."
"Both Edgar and Elsa have been affiliated with the Council for National Policy, the ecretive Christian conservative organization whose meeting have been attended by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Bremer, and whose membership is rumored to include Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Dobson. The Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation gave the CNP $80,000 between July 2003 and July 2006."
"The former Betsy Prince -- Edgar and Elsa's daughter, Erik's sister -- married into the DeVos family, one of the country's biggest donors to Republican and conservative causes. ("I know a little something about soft money, as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican Party," Betsy DeVos wrote in a 1997 Op-Ed in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call.) She chaired the Michigan Republican Party from 1996 to 2000 and again from 2003 to 2005, and her husband, Dick, ran as the Republican candidate for Michigan governor in 2006."
"Erik Prince himself is no slouch when it comes to giving to Republicans and cultivating relationships with important conservatives. He and his first and second wives have donated roughly $300,000 to Republican candidates and political action committees. Through his Freiheit Foundation, he also gave $500,000 to Prison Fellowship Ministries, run by former Nixon official Charles Colson, in 2000. In the same year, he contributed $30,000 to the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. During college, he interned in George H.W. Bush's White House, and also interned for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. Rohrabacher and fellow California Republican Rep. John Doolittle have visited Blackwater's Moyock, N.C., compound, on a trip arranged by the Alexander Strategy Group, a lobbying firm founded by former aides of then House Majority Leader Tom Delay. ASG partner Paul Behrends is a longtime associate of Prince's."
So they are well-connected and making a lot of money in Iraq, something that seems to happen to a lot of well-connected Republicans. And isn’t it reassuring to know that Republicans have their own private army to call upon.
Blackwater got some bad press recently when they allegedly killed 11 unarmed Iraqis on September 16. They also had a situation where one of their employees, while drunk, shot one of the bodyguards of the Iraqi Vice President. As it turns out, contractors have been a great cause of concern for our military in Iraq. These amateur soldiers, not sworn in like the regular military, have more or less operated under their own guidelines, and have often taken a shoot first policy and have been notorious for driving civilians off of Iraqi roads. Just as General Petraeus has tried to reconfigure our strategy in Iraq to a counter-insurgency, working on winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis, time and again, contractors have undermined their efforts.
One of the most significant aspects of this use of contractors, is that the true costs of the war only show up in the bottom line, not in the numbers of actual casualties. Deaths of contract employees affects the insurance claims of the contractor, but are not counted as casualties in the Iraqi war effort. Another issue with contractors, is that they pay more money for their employees than does our military.
And what drives the contractors? Is it to accomplish a peaceful exit out of Iraq? What is their incentive? The war has made millionaires out of contractors in Iraq. Perpetual war is what will gain them future profits. And certainly, among there will be a supply of retired military personnel who will seek to make a fortune playing in this war for profit, rather than democracy.
We as a nation need to be very careful before we start privatizing the functions that have been served by our military. Our military personnel swear an oath to our country to protect us. Contractors sign a “contract” with specifications that may be vague or hard to enforce. And in the end, are we really happy to have a security company with it’s own para-military force that is committed to the Neo-con wing of the Republican party? If the war ever ends, what will be the role of these companies and their employees? I see many scenarios that should send a shiver down your spine if you believe in our Republic.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
And the Winner Is?
Iran. The ill-conceived invasion of Iraq has certainly benefitted Iran. The United States not only toppled Iran's most hated enemy, but replaced it with a government friendly to Iran. It has befuddled me for some time why Bush has been so involved in saber-rattling at Iran, when the current government of Iraq is really Iran's best regional ally. Then an article comes out from Salon.com from Peter Galbraith that really put the pieces together for me and confirmed my befuddlement.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/09/24/Iran/index.html
Bush prides himself on being a decider who bases his decisions on instinct. I've had it up to my eyeballs with Bush's instinct. I wish he'd pick up a book or talk to someone in the know instead of basing his policies on ignorance based hubris.
Ok, I feel much better now.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/09/24/Iran/index.html
Bush prides himself on being a decider who bases his decisions on instinct. I've had it up to my eyeballs with Bush's instinct. I wish he'd pick up a book or talk to someone in the know instead of basing his policies on ignorance based hubris.
Ok, I feel much better now.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
The Troubling Question of Fundamentalist Islam
Admittedly, I am a critic of all religious thinking. The more I’ve learned, the less plausible all religious belief systems appear to me. Maybe my brain is hard-wired for skepticism or perhaps there is some evil satanic force that keeps me from hearing that still small voice, but I don’t think so. However, as I’ve read about religious traditions and practices, I will say that some religions are not as bad as others. This isn’t meant to sound bigoted. I still may regard good people who belong to an especially bad religion with as much respect and love as someone from a more benign one.
However, I’ve come to be very concerned about the worldwide impact of fundamentalist Islam. I’ve always had this concern, but the events of the last decade or so has left me shaking my head wondering how on earth can a civilized world survive the onslaught of this religion. Let me give you a pertinent example. I Obi wan liberali, having been born of Mormon parents and having been born into the covenant, have never the less become an apostate. How do Mormons treat apostates? Generally, ostracism is the norm, sometimes rumors are spread regarding the reasons for the apostasy, usually discussion of possible moral failings of the apostate in question that caused them to “lose the spirit.” Some experience a loss of business, loss of social contacts, loss of friends, associates, even family members may disown them. Life can be hard on an apostate. I think that is why many doubters in Mormonism keep those doubts to themselves, because of the consequences of openly stating your disbelief.
As harsh as that may seem, contrast that with apostasy from Islam. The Koran is very clear what is to happen to apostates. They are to be killed immediately. Not only are they to be killed, but whom-ever might be accused of leading them astray is to be executed as well. Islam has been better to Christians and Jews than it has been to perceived apostates. Jews for example lived in lands controlled by Islamic empires, first under the Arabs and then the Turks. Christian populations also managed to live in Muslim dominated lands, notwithstanding that they faced an apartheid that could be rather severe. Because Christians and Jews believe in some of the same scriptures as Moslems, they were treated better than those who followed idolatrous religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism.
Now, I don’t just view a religion on the basis of how they treat apostates, I also want to see if there are those whom are persecuted or marginalized and how discipline is meted out against those who don’t follow the letter of the law. Islam in this regard tends to be extremely harsh in it’s treatment of women, homosexuals, and common every day criminals. There is a primitive ruthlessness that makes me wonder how Islam can make it in a civilized society.
Ultimately, that is the question. Can fundamentalist Islam survive in a civilized society, or can a civilized society survive fundamentalist Islam? I’m still looking for answers to this question. Seeking those answers has led me to read books on middle eastern and Islamic history that I never would have read before, and I’m still reading. Can Islam shake off fundamentalism and embrace any sort of compromise with modernity and the values of the European Enlightenment?
We entered into war in Iraq under the assumption that our values have a universal appeal and that Iraqis, once liberated from tyranny, would embrace those values. I have had my doubts all along about those prospects in addition to questioning the wisdom of invading a country on the basis of what they might do to us in the future. But as we sit here in 2007, quickly approaching 2008, the fate of our enterprise is less in our hands as Americans, than it is in the hands of Iraqis. Will Iraqis be able to live together in peaceful coexistence or even as reasonably amicable neighbors? My search for answers has led me to believe that anyone very sure of themselves on this issue must know somethings I've apparently missed, or they are in serious denial.
However, I’ve come to be very concerned about the worldwide impact of fundamentalist Islam. I’ve always had this concern, but the events of the last decade or so has left me shaking my head wondering how on earth can a civilized world survive the onslaught of this religion. Let me give you a pertinent example. I Obi wan liberali, having been born of Mormon parents and having been born into the covenant, have never the less become an apostate. How do Mormons treat apostates? Generally, ostracism is the norm, sometimes rumors are spread regarding the reasons for the apostasy, usually discussion of possible moral failings of the apostate in question that caused them to “lose the spirit.” Some experience a loss of business, loss of social contacts, loss of friends, associates, even family members may disown them. Life can be hard on an apostate. I think that is why many doubters in Mormonism keep those doubts to themselves, because of the consequences of openly stating your disbelief.
As harsh as that may seem, contrast that with apostasy from Islam. The Koran is very clear what is to happen to apostates. They are to be killed immediately. Not only are they to be killed, but whom-ever might be accused of leading them astray is to be executed as well. Islam has been better to Christians and Jews than it has been to perceived apostates. Jews for example lived in lands controlled by Islamic empires, first under the Arabs and then the Turks. Christian populations also managed to live in Muslim dominated lands, notwithstanding that they faced an apartheid that could be rather severe. Because Christians and Jews believe in some of the same scriptures as Moslems, they were treated better than those who followed idolatrous religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism.
Now, I don’t just view a religion on the basis of how they treat apostates, I also want to see if there are those whom are persecuted or marginalized and how discipline is meted out against those who don’t follow the letter of the law. Islam in this regard tends to be extremely harsh in it’s treatment of women, homosexuals, and common every day criminals. There is a primitive ruthlessness that makes me wonder how Islam can make it in a civilized society.
Ultimately, that is the question. Can fundamentalist Islam survive in a civilized society, or can a civilized society survive fundamentalist Islam? I’m still looking for answers to this question. Seeking those answers has led me to read books on middle eastern and Islamic history that I never would have read before, and I’m still reading. Can Islam shake off fundamentalism and embrace any sort of compromise with modernity and the values of the European Enlightenment?
We entered into war in Iraq under the assumption that our values have a universal appeal and that Iraqis, once liberated from tyranny, would embrace those values. I have had my doubts all along about those prospects in addition to questioning the wisdom of invading a country on the basis of what they might do to us in the future. But as we sit here in 2007, quickly approaching 2008, the fate of our enterprise is less in our hands as Americans, than it is in the hands of Iraqis. Will Iraqis be able to live together in peaceful coexistence or even as reasonably amicable neighbors? My search for answers has led me to believe that anyone very sure of themselves on this issue must know somethings I've apparently missed, or they are in serious denial.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The Chicken-Hawk Debate- my thoughts
My fellow liberals have been effectively using the “chicken hawk” label on those Republicans who support the war in Iraq but whose own personal contribution to that war effort has been relatively non-existent. In the movie Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore made some pretty good hay out of that alfalfa and it is interesting looking at the various military records (or lack thereof) of most Presidential candidates. Is it fair to take into account the lack of a military record when it comes to president? The last president to fight in a war was George H.W. Bush. Bill Clinton’s lack of a military service was a source of great contention during his presidency and George W. Bush’s questionable commitment to his military service surfaced in his campaigns for office.
On the Republican side this time around, there is of course John McCain. Without a doubt, McCain served his country honorably. It is interesting that his views on the use of torture diverge from his fellow Republican candidates who never were in harm’s way. Perhaps he realizes that when we justify torture of prisoners, we no longer have the moral high ground to insist others refrain from it. This puts our own soldiers at greater peril.
Particular interest in the chicken hawk debate concerns Utahns and their relative contribution to the war effort. Individually, there have been many who have sacrificed greatly in the Iraqi war. However, collectively Utahns have not made as big of a contribution per capital as the people of most other states. Does this fact influence Utah’s continued support for the war effort? This could be viewed from several directions? Certainly, there may be many Utahns who support the war but have no one close to them risking their lives in this enterprise. However, among those who do have someone close to them engaged in this effort, I’ve noticed a greater likelihood that they would support the war. People support those things for which they’ve made a sacrifice. Often times it is harder to concede that those contributions are in fact, “sunk costs.”
I admit that I often play “devil’s advocate” with my fellow Utahns when they shout the praises of the Bush Administration and the wars the administration have engaged us in. Admittedly, I mostly talk to friends and relatives whose kids aren’t joining the military but are opting for religious service and college. None of my own nephews or nieces have considered the military an option nor have most of their friends. I’ve needled people whose commitments to the war seems to be mere lip service and flag waving. Is the fact that Utah stands as the Bush Administration’s last bastion of support due to risking less in Bush’s wars? I haven’t made my mind up yet on this question. However, if we are going to continue on in this war, I have some proposals that I think should be considered.
1- A draft without deferments for college or religious service
2- Expand the military so the war on terror doesn’t leave us vulnerable on other fronts
3- Refine the training in the military and create more units that specialize in counter-insurgency tactics
4- Raise taxes to pay for re-armament, improved military pay and benefits and a more realistic commitment to reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan.
5- Re-commit to the provisions of the Geneva Convention regarding torture
On the Republican side this time around, there is of course John McCain. Without a doubt, McCain served his country honorably. It is interesting that his views on the use of torture diverge from his fellow Republican candidates who never were in harm’s way. Perhaps he realizes that when we justify torture of prisoners, we no longer have the moral high ground to insist others refrain from it. This puts our own soldiers at greater peril.
Particular interest in the chicken hawk debate concerns Utahns and their relative contribution to the war effort. Individually, there have been many who have sacrificed greatly in the Iraqi war. However, collectively Utahns have not made as big of a contribution per capital as the people of most other states. Does this fact influence Utah’s continued support for the war effort? This could be viewed from several directions? Certainly, there may be many Utahns who support the war but have no one close to them risking their lives in this enterprise. However, among those who do have someone close to them engaged in this effort, I’ve noticed a greater likelihood that they would support the war. People support those things for which they’ve made a sacrifice. Often times it is harder to concede that those contributions are in fact, “sunk costs.”
I admit that I often play “devil’s advocate” with my fellow Utahns when they shout the praises of the Bush Administration and the wars the administration have engaged us in. Admittedly, I mostly talk to friends and relatives whose kids aren’t joining the military but are opting for religious service and college. None of my own nephews or nieces have considered the military an option nor have most of their friends. I’ve needled people whose commitments to the war seems to be mere lip service and flag waving. Is the fact that Utah stands as the Bush Administration’s last bastion of support due to risking less in Bush’s wars? I haven’t made my mind up yet on this question. However, if we are going to continue on in this war, I have some proposals that I think should be considered.
1- A draft without deferments for college or religious service
2- Expand the military so the war on terror doesn’t leave us vulnerable on other fronts
3- Refine the training in the military and create more units that specialize in counter-insurgency tactics
4- Raise taxes to pay for re-armament, improved military pay and benefits and a more realistic commitment to reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan.
5- Re-commit to the provisions of the Geneva Convention regarding torture
Thursday, July 19, 2007
The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)
The release of the newest National Intelligent Estimate (NIE) by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) articulates what most think tanks had already concluded, that U.S. invasions of Afganistan and Iraq have not had the desired effects of constraining and marginalizing Al Qaeda. The NIE indicates that Al Qaeda has grown both in numbers and in the proficiency of their tactics. Particularly, the invasion of Iraq has mobilized the muslim world and the radical elements within that broad community has grown significantly.
To a great extent, this is disheartening news. Despite the billions spent, the thousands of lives lost, the basic freedoms surrendered, and the dividing of an already divided country, we are probably less safe today than we were when the towers fell.
For the record, I supported the decision to go into Afganistan. However, I opposed the decision to invade Iraq. However, I have also opposed timetables for withdrawal, which is something I believe emboldens the insurgents in Iraq. However, I understand the angst felt among Democrats, who re-took the House and Senate on the basis of the public demanding a new direction in Iraq. The frustrating thing about this war is that the President was given political cover from the "Iraq Study Group" to take a different, more diplomatic approach to the issues in the middle east. However, the surge idea seems to be too little and probably too late to resolve the problems in Iraq.
I believe that the United States and her allies had a window of opportunity after the capture of Bagdad that was ultimately botched by an administration that seemed incapable of reconstructing Iraq and providing the manpower and infrastructure to pull off the successful building of a workable coalition government in Iraq. The day is fast approaching when we will need to consider Iraq a sunk cost. Unfortunately, the damage this will do to the credibility of the United States will be considerable, as will the risks of wider conflicts erupting in the middle east, putting at risk the oil supplies our nation is dependent upon.
Whomever takes up residence in the White House in January of 2009, will have their hands full with some of the most complicated foreign policy challenges our nation has faced in a long time. We'd better choose wisely.
To a great extent, this is disheartening news. Despite the billions spent, the thousands of lives lost, the basic freedoms surrendered, and the dividing of an already divided country, we are probably less safe today than we were when the towers fell.
For the record, I supported the decision to go into Afganistan. However, I opposed the decision to invade Iraq. However, I have also opposed timetables for withdrawal, which is something I believe emboldens the insurgents in Iraq. However, I understand the angst felt among Democrats, who re-took the House and Senate on the basis of the public demanding a new direction in Iraq. The frustrating thing about this war is that the President was given political cover from the "Iraq Study Group" to take a different, more diplomatic approach to the issues in the middle east. However, the surge idea seems to be too little and probably too late to resolve the problems in Iraq.
I believe that the United States and her allies had a window of opportunity after the capture of Bagdad that was ultimately botched by an administration that seemed incapable of reconstructing Iraq and providing the manpower and infrastructure to pull off the successful building of a workable coalition government in Iraq. The day is fast approaching when we will need to consider Iraq a sunk cost. Unfortunately, the damage this will do to the credibility of the United States will be considerable, as will the risks of wider conflicts erupting in the middle east, putting at risk the oil supplies our nation is dependent upon.
Whomever takes up residence in the White House in January of 2009, will have their hands full with some of the most complicated foreign policy challenges our nation has faced in a long time. We'd better choose wisely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
