Update from the Heartland
No.323
11.2.08 – 17.2.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.323
11.2.08 – 17.2.08
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
Individual conduct that is defined by or conforms to those activities approved by autocratic legislators, an activist minority or even a majority of our population is NOT freedom. Either we are free or we are not. Parsing freedom to validate our values, our opinions, our beliefs, diminishes the freedom of all of us. By the time we figure out this reality, it may be too late. Wake up, America!
The follow-up news items:
-- The President signed into law the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008 [PL 110-185] [322]. The stimulus checks should be distributed in May. I hope US$170B achieves the desired result.
-- The Senate voted on their version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007 (FISA Amendments Act of 2007) [S.2248; Senate vote: 68-29-3] [320], which contains the critical provision of limited immunity for the telecommunications companies that contributed to the war effort and its associated intelligence collection activities. The House version [H.R.3773] passed late last year [House vote: 227-189-0-16]. Now, they must reconcile the two versions before the final votes and passing the bill to the President.
-- Surprise, surpise! U.S. District Court Judge James Ware in the Northern District of California dismissed the ACLU v. Jeppesen DataPlan case [289, 307] and rightly so.
If the uber-Right continues to press their ideological agenda with no effort to seek compromise, they will most likely achieve a veto-proof Democratic Congress along with the Democratic President. I hope they find comfort in their ideology to gird them against the sting of rejection.
A contributor passed along two interesting, relevant and pointed articles.
"The Audacity of Compromise"
by Kathleen Parker
RealClearPolitics.com
February 08, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/standing_for_principle_cant_el.html
Kathleen coined the term ‘Kamikaze Republicans’ -- those who say they'll never vote for John McCain because he isn't conservative enough. Her opinion complements my thought offered above.
The second article takes a different perspective of the same issue.
"Decision Time for Conservatives"
by Oliver North
RealClearPolitics.com
February 12, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/time_to_unite_behind_mccain.html
The New York State Supreme Court issued a controversial ruling -- Martinez v. Monroe County, [NYSC 1562 CA 06-02591 (2008)] -- reversing a lower court ruling and directing the state to provide married benefits to a same-gender married couple. The decision stands in contrast to the court's earlier ruling in the case of Daniel Hernandez v. Victor L. Robles [NY CoA 1 No. 86 (2006)] affirming the state’s Defense of Marriage Act [240]. The key to the court's reconciliation of the two cases rested on the fact that Patricia Martinez and Lisa Ann Golden were lawfully married in the Province of Ontario, Canada (since same-gender marriage in New York State was prohibited by the DOMA law as affirmed by the Hernandez ruling). Progress comes in small steps.
Individual conduct that is defined by or conforms to those activities approved by autocratic legislators, an activist minority or even a majority of our population is NOT freedom. Either we are free or we are not. Parsing freedom to validate our values, our opinions, our beliefs, diminishes the freedom of all of us. By the time we figure out this reality, it may be too late. Wake up, America!
The follow-up news items:
-- The President signed into law the Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008 [PL 110-185] [322]. The stimulus checks should be distributed in May. I hope US$170B achieves the desired result.
-- The Senate voted on their version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007 (FISA Amendments Act of 2007) [S.2248; Senate vote: 68-29-3] [320], which contains the critical provision of limited immunity for the telecommunications companies that contributed to the war effort and its associated intelligence collection activities. The House version [H.R.3773] passed late last year [House vote: 227-189-0-16]. Now, they must reconcile the two versions before the final votes and passing the bill to the President.
-- Surprise, surpise! U.S. District Court Judge James Ware in the Northern District of California dismissed the ACLU v. Jeppesen DataPlan case [289, 307] and rightly so.
If the uber-Right continues to press their ideological agenda with no effort to seek compromise, they will most likely achieve a veto-proof Democratic Congress along with the Democratic President. I hope they find comfort in their ideology to gird them against the sting of rejection.
A contributor passed along two interesting, relevant and pointed articles.
"The Audacity of Compromise"
by Kathleen Parker
RealClearPolitics.com
February 08, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/standing_for_principle_cant_el.html
Kathleen coined the term ‘Kamikaze Republicans’ -- those who say they'll never vote for John McCain because he isn't conservative enough. Her opinion complements my thought offered above.
The second article takes a different perspective of the same issue.
"Decision Time for Conservatives"
by Oliver North
RealClearPolitics.com
February 12, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/time_to_unite_behind_mccain.html
The New York State Supreme Court issued a controversial ruling -- Martinez v. Monroe County, [NYSC 1562 CA 06-02591 (2008)] -- reversing a lower court ruling and directing the state to provide married benefits to a same-gender married couple. The decision stands in contrast to the court's earlier ruling in the case of Daniel Hernandez v. Victor L. Robles [NY CoA 1 No. 86 (2006)] affirming the state’s Defense of Marriage Act [240]. The key to the court's reconciliation of the two cases rested on the fact that Patricia Martinez and Lisa Ann Golden were lawfully married in the Province of Ontario, Canada (since same-gender marriage in New York State was prohibited by the DOMA law as affirmed by the Hernandez ruling). Progress comes in small steps.
A few additional related items:
"Study reports on same-sex relationships in Kansas -- Number of couples increase by almost 68 percent from 2000 to 2005; Douglas County has the fifth highest total with 239 same-sex couples reported."
by Andrew Wiebe
The University Daily Kansan
Monday, February 11th, 2008
http://www.kansan.com/stories/2008/feb/11/study_reports_samesex_relationships_kansas/
In case anyone might be curious about the contributions to humanity made by non-heterosexual citizens, here is a link to a wikipedia compilation from history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people
Then, we have another view of the non-traditional:
"Pairs With Spares -- For Polyamorists With a Whole Lotta Love, Three, or More, Is Never a Crowd"
by Monica Hesse
Washington Post
Wednesday, February 13, 2008; Page C01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/12/AR2008021203072.html
As an odd reflective sign of the times, the Archbishop of Canterbury Doctor Rowan Douglas Williams, DPhil, declared that implementation of some aspects of sharia Islamic law was unavoidable in Great Britain. The statement by the head of the Anglican Church sparked an astounding flurry of comment and opinion across Europe. If Williams' intention was to instigate public debate on the integration of Muslims in the predominately Christian western democracies, he accomplished his objective. Tolerance, diversity, integration -- hallmarks of modern democracies -- can also be our greatest vulnerability. We are faced with the question of limits to our tolerance. Williams suggests we have not adapted enough, to absorb Muslims as we have absorbed those of other religions and religious sects. The notion of adapting our laws to allow sharia law is about as offensive as a 20KT nuclear detonation in Kansas City. My condemnation of Williams' foolish pronouncement cannot be strong enough. We can only hope the British people rise to the threat from within that they face today, as they did to the threat from across the Channel in 1588, 1805, and 1940. The truly, even more, threatening element . . . there are non-Muslims so consumed by political correctness -- not wanting to offend anyone -- that they will find wisdom in Williams' opinion. This foolishness is coming to the United States as well. I can find nothing attractive or enhancing in sharia law. My prayers go with the British people to lead us through this self-induced minefield.
If you would like to read a sliver perspective of why the Archbishop of Canterbury is wrong, here is one sample:
"Free Speech and Radical Islam"
by Flemming Rose
Wall Street Journal
Published: February 15, 2008; Page A14
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303586375870157.html
I have no problem with the choices anyone makes in how they wish to live their private lives as long as no one is injured. Where this whole topic of debate crosses my line comes when their private choices impact the public domain or the private choices of any other citizen. Sharia law crosses my line.
Comments and contributions from Update no.322:
“Concur on your comments about McCain voting against the tax cuts. Insanity or criminal stupidity to cut taxes in a time of war.”
My response:
Given conditions as McCain saw them . . . we are in agreement. However, I would have supported a tax cut if we had eliminated earmarks, cut domestic spending, and fought the war in a more rational manner. But, as I said, I think McCain did the responsible thing, although it is a lightning rod for Republicans – just what happens with blind party loyalty.
Another contribution:
“Our present Pres, GW, is likely to go down in history as one of if not the worst Pres we've ever had, even though he has shown courage and steadfastness about his ideas of what we should do and how. It has cost us dearly, in lives and $$$, and so far, as far as I can see anyway, for naught.
“McCain is too far towards the political center for the hard-core true Conservatives in the Republican Party. They consider him almost a Democrat and liberal. I say he has a better grasp on reality and what should be done for this country than most. Romney was not bad, but only a Governor and Businessman. McCain has walked the long walk, seen things we mostly cannot imagine, been in Politics a long time now, and has the "Steel" I believe we need to lead us for the next 4 years.”
My reply:
I do not know if W. will be remembered in history as the worst President. I can suggest other candidates for that dubious distinction. Yet, he is in that bottom 10%. He campaigned as a ‘uniter not a divider,’ and I cannot think of another President who has done more to divide this Grand Republic. I could go on; there is ample fodder for such illumination.
The candidates have not been decided, as yet. We must fine a person who can listen to, understand and absorb the political extremes and help us find a compromise solution with balance. We need a President who can articulate the issues and help us understand how we can help achieve the solution. Hopefully, we can find a President who is not seduced by the intoxication of power.
This lengthy thread illuminates a facet of the political difficulties we face:
“Whatever you think of the war, this is a sad reality:”
“Bush Turns U.S. Soldiers into Murderers”
by Robert Parry
February 13, 2008
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/021208.html
My response:
I’m afraid I respectfully do NOT agree. George W. Bush is certainly not the best President this Grand Republic has ever had, and he may well be one of the worst; but, the article is a politically jaundiced view of a critical international issue. I always enjoy reading / hearing a broad spectrum of opinion, so thank you for including me.
. . . round two:
“So, you are condoning the killing of innocent people simply because some ‘authority,’ such as bush labels them as suitable to be killed? You may take this article as a criticism of the soldiers who are being tried for murder, which it is not. It is a criticism of the policies of an administration which should be brought up on charges of war crimes. It is an attempt to make us aware of how far from the standards of American justice, jurisprudence, compassion, values, and righteousness we have sunk, not to mention what it has done to our young men who are put on the front lines. No wonder Ron Paul has received more military contributions than any other candidate.”
. . . my round two response:
A rhetorical rather than an inquisitive question, I presume.
I do not take the article as critical of soldiers, rather a manifestation of blindly opposing anything and everything George W. Bush has touched . . . thus, my ‘politically jaundiced’ remark. A couple of thoughts that may be useful:
1. The President made a fundamental mistake in not asking for a declaration of war on Islamic Fascism. There are positives & negatives to a full & proper congressional declaration of war, but the hard part remains . . . what does a declaration of war on a non-nation-state mean? We can argue whether the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force [PL’s 107-40 & 107-243] were equivalent actions; the President believed they were, and I believe the Court would validate the President’s Article II authority in this instance.
2. The military is a slice of American society. As such, there are good people and bad people in the military, just as there are in society. War is killing, plain & simple; trying to put lipstick & a dress on the pig will not alter the pig. Bad people have used the excuse of combat to do bad things; it has been that way in every war in history. To stretch a few incidents into a broad condemnation is as wrong for the military as it is for society.
3. The aggrandizement of the oddities and the political differences with President do NOT alter the reality of the War on Islamic Fascism. The anti-war crowd may feel good condemning the President for taking action or even for the manner by which he chose to execute the War, but again that does not alter the fact that we are at War. I am thankful the President chose to do the killing in Afghanistan and Iraq; they were rational and logical targets. He could have chosen Syria & Iran, or even Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, but given the exigencies of the moment, he made the correct choice, IMHO.
4. You know from my writing that I have been and remain quite critical of the President on how he chose to execute the war. Huge mistakes; cost precious lives & treasure. If he had listened to John McCain or Eric Shinseki instead of Don Rumsfeld, the course of the War probably would have been fundamentally different. How the Battle for Iraq has gone shall be his burden to bear.
I could go on, but those are the high points. So, when I read the words of Robert Parry, and especially with a broad brush inflammatory title like “Bush Turns US Soldiers into Murderers,” I chalk it up to mindless political ideology based on emotion rather than fact.
Lastly and for the record, I abhor violence and I have always done my best to avoid it, but I have been well trained and will not suffer the slightest hesitation to be a stone-cold killer when my family or innocent people are threatened. If that makes me a bad and evil person to be despised by the anti-war crowd, I’m good with that; I shall not lose a moment’s sleep.
. . . round three:
"Sorry to be so combative, rude, in my email back to you. We just disagree on these things and not so much because you are right or I am wrong or vice versa. Neither of us would condone killing an innocent person. I don't think the whole Muslim world deserves to be treated as the enemy yet that is what we have come down to in our political divisions. Friends who are Republicans inevitably and sadly reduce everything to kill em all and ask questions later. We need to get past all this rhetoric and them vs us reductionism to a place where we identify the criminals deal with them with the American way of due process and stop demonizing entire groups and nations. It is a good thing we are still the super power that we are, else there would be war crime trials on the horizon for those leaders who have disregarded Constitutional and international laws, don't you agree?"
. . . my round three response:
No worries. I understand these are passionate times.
I do not think we, as a society or Nation, are treating all Muslims as enemy. There are bigots, who cannot think beyond their taught ideology, in all societies including ours. We are helping those Muslims who appreciate our help.
I do not believe all Republicans can be put into such a shallow box. I could argue the appropriateness of W's 'with us or against us' position, but I don't see that it would serve any purpose.
First, I do not agree that the President violated national or international law. Second, international war crimes tribunals did not exist until we created them in 1945. The victors conduct war crimes trials. The key is winning.
. . . round four:
A couple points:
1. I dont think you can say what the President believed about the war powers act, in light of the evidence that the administration intended to invade Iraq well before 911, so the war powers authorizations were just getting permission from a very weak and negligent Congress. That Congress went on to authorize the Patriot Acts which I believe we will come to rue, both Dems and Repubs, in time. Fundamentally they are unconstitutional, but it will take much abuse and much heartache before a strong Congress is back in place to correct it, if ever. I could elaborate, but I would just sound partisan at this time. Essentially, due process has been tossed to the wind. As to positives and negatives, I don't agree. Congress declares war, not the President. We could argue that as well, but I think there is good reason to leave it up to a broad array of elected representatives rather than one ex-Yale cheerleader. (I couldn't resist)
2. The military is us, as you say, and that is more reason to recognize what this war has done to thousands of our young people- of course calling soldiers murderers is inflammatory, but the war is illegal, so what do you call it? War is killing and I hear what you say but can not understand how you can continue to condemn entire peoples nations, religions with the smear that they are Islamic-fascism. Islamic fascism, as I am now realizing is nothing more than a jingoistic term to describe a fabricated enemy, just as
we used to say the only good injun is a dead injun, or Better Dead than Red. As for a few instances of innocent deaths, I believe the number is well above that- and I have seen the number thousands. We do not have the right to kill foreigners or anybody because one man has claimed they are enemies. Yet that is what this boils down to. 19 Saudis and Egyptians flew planes into our buildings-we have yet to understand who they really were, what their real purpose was, what Able Danger was, why Sybil Edmunds is essentially muzzled from speaking out, etc. Most of us thought Afghanistan was worth attacking because we thought Osama was there, and the Taliban were obviously not allowing us to build the Chevron, or was it Unocal, pipeline. We don't know why the buildings in New York fell, and we don't dare discuss it openly because we will be branded a conspiracy nut and so on. The world is very complicated and to have the misfortune of being born in Iraq and being thought of as an enemy of the US simply for that reason is a true modern travesty.
. . . my round four response:
The debate process is far more interesting, intriguing and stimulating to me than being correct or ‘on the right side.’ I try to treat people with respect . . . even those with whom I may strongly disagree. From politics to business, I truly believe in what I call ‘constructive conflict’ – ideas, opinions and suggestions can be aggressively debated. The solution is often a compromise of the middle.
Item 1: Well, yes I can . . . say what I believe; I cannot say what he was thinking. Where we may differ is in our perception of George W. Bush. I have never met the man, but I believe George W. Bush is a good and descent human being with good intentions and compassion for his fellow man. So, yes, I do believe that W. thinks he has acted and continues to act within the authority vested in the President of the United States by Article II of the Constitution to include the Battles of Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the War on Islamic Fascism, and the array of intelligence collection activities including electronic surveillance, battlefield combatant interrogation, and such. The key factor in our assessment as well as the Court’s analysis of the constitutionality of the President’s action remains whether we are at war . . . thus my earlier comments on the significance of a congressional declaration of war. I believe the President made a fundamental mistake in not seeking a full and proper declaration of war; the Authorizations [PL’s 107-40 & 107-243] were properly executed, legal actions, however the ambiguity created by such half-measures opened up the question of constitutionality. Since I am not a Supreme Court justice, my opinion does not matter a hoot. That said, my opinion has been and remains that the President acted legally and properly within the Constitution; however, I also remain critical of his execution prior to the replacement of Rumsfeld. Under Gates & Petraeus, we have made progress, and I certainly would not advocate throwing away that achievement.
Item 2: As noted in item 1 above, I reject the notion that the war is illegal. Please help me understand why you think that I “condemn entire peoples, nations, (and) religions.” In a related point, I condemn Nazis; I do not condemn the German people. Islamic Fascism is a simple, discreet moniker for those who use force of arms in the guise of Islam to impose Islamic dicta on others. Not all Muslims are fascists, however I think you can or will agree that there are indeed Islamic fascists out there, intent upon doing us harm. “Jingoistic,” “fabricated enemy” . . . please help me understand why you believe these things? If it is the moniker I use that offends you, what name would you use? If you do not see the larger threat, then perhaps I can appreciate why you seem to think the threat is limited to a few criminals. Only the misinformed among us would think the Iraqis are our enemy; they are NOT the enemy. In fact, we have given the precious blood of our youth to help them realize the freedom they deserve, just as my generation tried to do in Vietnam, and my father’s generation did in Europe and the Pacific, and my grandfather’s generation did earlier in France. The impression I am left with is that you see Americans as the bad guys, and everyone else in the world as down-trodden, oppressed by Americans, and otherwise good guys; is this really the impression you seek to leave me with?
Hindsight conjecture can be worthwhile occasionally to illuminate nuances in a larger debate topic. So, here is one for you. What do you think President Al Gore would have done in the aftermath of 9/11?
As I said, I try to respect all points of view. I certainly respect the fact that we disagree on the President and the War . . . that’s part of the beauty of life . . . diversity. If whomever those guys are out there killing Americans get their way, we shall be living under a very strict, autocratic, authoritarian theocracy. I cherish my freedom too much to allow that to happen.
In a different but related thread:
"All wars are this way but endless wars are even worse if possible. That is why Paul says we should have created a Constitutional Marquis de Reprisal which would have allowed us to take out Osama and the Taliban with overwhelming force and come home. That is how we should respond to pirates and rogues. Not occupation - but you know that."
My reply:
I did not understand his logic. The Taliban & al-Qaeda are just symptoms. The root cause of all this death & destruction is the fundamental Islamic clerics who teach intolerance, martyrdom, suicide, and the taking of innocent lives to further their megalomaniacal objectives. Not so easy to flush them out. Plus, I heard a warning a long time ago . . . beware of the return of communism in the guise of Islam.
. . . a follow-up comment:
"I think you are talking about a very small minority of extremists who are actually talking this way- I don't think it is accurate to label all fundamental Islamic clerics as calling for the killing of innocents, etc, especially since it is against their religion. Osama Bin Laden, the one bush can't catch, is not well thought of or recognized as a national, Arab, middle eastern or even Islamic leader by most Iraqis or even middle eastern Muslims in general. It is a complex issue and we are training a generation to hate based on jingoistic, ethnic, religious and racial slurs. This is why I made the generality about Republicans. I haven't heard any yet who do not speak in this over-simplified way about Muslims. Except for Ron Paul who has made the point that it is a small group of extremists who promote violence and we have wasted blood and treasure building a beachhead in order to control oil. I think he said it like that, but if not, that's what I think it's all about."
. . . with my follow-up reply:
Here we get into semantics. I try to avoid absolutes, like ‘all,’ ‘never,’ ‘always,’ and such, just as I try to avoid labels. And yet, we need handles to succinctly describe what it is we are talking about. Saying ALL fundamentalist Islamic clerics are jihadi advocates would be akin to say that all fundamentalist Christian clerics are parochial, paternalistic, bigoted megalomaniacs – an error of generalities. On the obverse, there is a very real reason the jihadi movement is so widespread, violent, and aggressive. With inflammatory clerics like Nasrallah, al-Sadr, ad infinitum, I think it is easy to see the role the clerics play in the current war. The number of killers among the Islamic fascists would be difficult to estimate. However, I believe any substantive attempt would under-estimate the number of Muslims willing to kill innocent people to accomplish their objectives. I also believe several generations of clerics have convinced their followers that this is their time to extend Islam to every corner of the planet. They are not content within their dominion; they seek what Hitler called lebensraum – living room. Look what is happening in Europe; the sign are all around us.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gay,_lesbian_or_bisexual_people
Then, we have another view of the non-traditional:
"Pairs With Spares -- For Polyamorists With a Whole Lotta Love, Three, or More, Is Never a Crowd"
by Monica Hesse
Washington Post
Wednesday, February 13, 2008; Page C01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/12/AR2008021203072.html
As an odd reflective sign of the times, the Archbishop of Canterbury Doctor Rowan Douglas Williams, DPhil, declared that implementation of some aspects of sharia Islamic law was unavoidable in Great Britain. The statement by the head of the Anglican Church sparked an astounding flurry of comment and opinion across Europe. If Williams' intention was to instigate public debate on the integration of Muslims in the predominately Christian western democracies, he accomplished his objective. Tolerance, diversity, integration -- hallmarks of modern democracies -- can also be our greatest vulnerability. We are faced with the question of limits to our tolerance. Williams suggests we have not adapted enough, to absorb Muslims as we have absorbed those of other religions and religious sects. The notion of adapting our laws to allow sharia law is about as offensive as a 20KT nuclear detonation in Kansas City. My condemnation of Williams' foolish pronouncement cannot be strong enough. We can only hope the British people rise to the threat from within that they face today, as they did to the threat from across the Channel in 1588, 1805, and 1940. The truly, even more, threatening element . . . there are non-Muslims so consumed by political correctness -- not wanting to offend anyone -- that they will find wisdom in Williams' opinion. This foolishness is coming to the United States as well. I can find nothing attractive or enhancing in sharia law. My prayers go with the British people to lead us through this self-induced minefield.
If you would like to read a sliver perspective of why the Archbishop of Canterbury is wrong, here is one sample:
"Free Speech and Radical Islam"
by Flemming Rose
Wall Street Journal
Published: February 15, 2008; Page A14
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120303586375870157.html
I have no problem with the choices anyone makes in how they wish to live their private lives as long as no one is injured. Where this whole topic of debate crosses my line comes when their private choices impact the public domain or the private choices of any other citizen. Sharia law crosses my line.
Comments and contributions from Update no.322:
“Concur on your comments about McCain voting against the tax cuts. Insanity or criminal stupidity to cut taxes in a time of war.”
My response:
Given conditions as McCain saw them . . . we are in agreement. However, I would have supported a tax cut if we had eliminated earmarks, cut domestic spending, and fought the war in a more rational manner. But, as I said, I think McCain did the responsible thing, although it is a lightning rod for Republicans – just what happens with blind party loyalty.
Another contribution:
“Our present Pres, GW, is likely to go down in history as one of if not the worst Pres we've ever had, even though he has shown courage and steadfastness about his ideas of what we should do and how. It has cost us dearly, in lives and $$$, and so far, as far as I can see anyway, for naught.
“McCain is too far towards the political center for the hard-core true Conservatives in the Republican Party. They consider him almost a Democrat and liberal. I say he has a better grasp on reality and what should be done for this country than most. Romney was not bad, but only a Governor and Businessman. McCain has walked the long walk, seen things we mostly cannot imagine, been in Politics a long time now, and has the "Steel" I believe we need to lead us for the next 4 years.”
My reply:
I do not know if W. will be remembered in history as the worst President. I can suggest other candidates for that dubious distinction. Yet, he is in that bottom 10%. He campaigned as a ‘uniter not a divider,’ and I cannot think of another President who has done more to divide this Grand Republic. I could go on; there is ample fodder for such illumination.
The candidates have not been decided, as yet. We must fine a person who can listen to, understand and absorb the political extremes and help us find a compromise solution with balance. We need a President who can articulate the issues and help us understand how we can help achieve the solution. Hopefully, we can find a President who is not seduced by the intoxication of power.
This lengthy thread illuminates a facet of the political difficulties we face:
“Whatever you think of the war, this is a sad reality:”
“Bush Turns U.S. Soldiers into Murderers”
by Robert Parry
February 13, 2008
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/021208.html
My response:
I’m afraid I respectfully do NOT agree. George W. Bush is certainly not the best President this Grand Republic has ever had, and he may well be one of the worst; but, the article is a politically jaundiced view of a critical international issue. I always enjoy reading / hearing a broad spectrum of opinion, so thank you for including me.
. . . round two:
“So, you are condoning the killing of innocent people simply because some ‘authority,’ such as bush labels them as suitable to be killed? You may take this article as a criticism of the soldiers who are being tried for murder, which it is not. It is a criticism of the policies of an administration which should be brought up on charges of war crimes. It is an attempt to make us aware of how far from the standards of American justice, jurisprudence, compassion, values, and righteousness we have sunk, not to mention what it has done to our young men who are put on the front lines. No wonder Ron Paul has received more military contributions than any other candidate.”
. . . my round two response:
A rhetorical rather than an inquisitive question, I presume.
I do not take the article as critical of soldiers, rather a manifestation of blindly opposing anything and everything George W. Bush has touched . . . thus, my ‘politically jaundiced’ remark. A couple of thoughts that may be useful:
1. The President made a fundamental mistake in not asking for a declaration of war on Islamic Fascism. There are positives & negatives to a full & proper congressional declaration of war, but the hard part remains . . . what does a declaration of war on a non-nation-state mean? We can argue whether the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force [PL’s 107-40 & 107-243] were equivalent actions; the President believed they were, and I believe the Court would validate the President’s Article II authority in this instance.
2. The military is a slice of American society. As such, there are good people and bad people in the military, just as there are in society. War is killing, plain & simple; trying to put lipstick & a dress on the pig will not alter the pig. Bad people have used the excuse of combat to do bad things; it has been that way in every war in history. To stretch a few incidents into a broad condemnation is as wrong for the military as it is for society.
3. The aggrandizement of the oddities and the political differences with President do NOT alter the reality of the War on Islamic Fascism. The anti-war crowd may feel good condemning the President for taking action or even for the manner by which he chose to execute the War, but again that does not alter the fact that we are at War. I am thankful the President chose to do the killing in Afghanistan and Iraq; they were rational and logical targets. He could have chosen Syria & Iran, or even Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, but given the exigencies of the moment, he made the correct choice, IMHO.
4. You know from my writing that I have been and remain quite critical of the President on how he chose to execute the war. Huge mistakes; cost precious lives & treasure. If he had listened to John McCain or Eric Shinseki instead of Don Rumsfeld, the course of the War probably would have been fundamentally different. How the Battle for Iraq has gone shall be his burden to bear.
I could go on, but those are the high points. So, when I read the words of Robert Parry, and especially with a broad brush inflammatory title like “Bush Turns US Soldiers into Murderers,” I chalk it up to mindless political ideology based on emotion rather than fact.
Lastly and for the record, I abhor violence and I have always done my best to avoid it, but I have been well trained and will not suffer the slightest hesitation to be a stone-cold killer when my family or innocent people are threatened. If that makes me a bad and evil person to be despised by the anti-war crowd, I’m good with that; I shall not lose a moment’s sleep.
. . . round three:
"Sorry to be so combative, rude, in my email back to you. We just disagree on these things and not so much because you are right or I am wrong or vice versa. Neither of us would condone killing an innocent person. I don't think the whole Muslim world deserves to be treated as the enemy yet that is what we have come down to in our political divisions. Friends who are Republicans inevitably and sadly reduce everything to kill em all and ask questions later. We need to get past all this rhetoric and them vs us reductionism to a place where we identify the criminals deal with them with the American way of due process and stop demonizing entire groups and nations. It is a good thing we are still the super power that we are, else there would be war crime trials on the horizon for those leaders who have disregarded Constitutional and international laws, don't you agree?"
. . . my round three response:
No worries. I understand these are passionate times.
I do not think we, as a society or Nation, are treating all Muslims as enemy. There are bigots, who cannot think beyond their taught ideology, in all societies including ours. We are helping those Muslims who appreciate our help.
I do not believe all Republicans can be put into such a shallow box. I could argue the appropriateness of W's 'with us or against us' position, but I don't see that it would serve any purpose.
First, I do not agree that the President violated national or international law. Second, international war crimes tribunals did not exist until we created them in 1945. The victors conduct war crimes trials. The key is winning.
. . . round four:
A couple points:
1. I dont think you can say what the President believed about the war powers act, in light of the evidence that the administration intended to invade Iraq well before 911, so the war powers authorizations were just getting permission from a very weak and negligent Congress. That Congress went on to authorize the Patriot Acts which I believe we will come to rue, both Dems and Repubs, in time. Fundamentally they are unconstitutional, but it will take much abuse and much heartache before a strong Congress is back in place to correct it, if ever. I could elaborate, but I would just sound partisan at this time. Essentially, due process has been tossed to the wind. As to positives and negatives, I don't agree. Congress declares war, not the President. We could argue that as well, but I think there is good reason to leave it up to a broad array of elected representatives rather than one ex-Yale cheerleader. (I couldn't resist)
2. The military is us, as you say, and that is more reason to recognize what this war has done to thousands of our young people- of course calling soldiers murderers is inflammatory, but the war is illegal, so what do you call it? War is killing and I hear what you say but can not understand how you can continue to condemn entire peoples nations, religions with the smear that they are Islamic-fascism. Islamic fascism, as I am now realizing is nothing more than a jingoistic term to describe a fabricated enemy, just as
we used to say the only good injun is a dead injun, or Better Dead than Red. As for a few instances of innocent deaths, I believe the number is well above that- and I have seen the number thousands. We do not have the right to kill foreigners or anybody because one man has claimed they are enemies. Yet that is what this boils down to. 19 Saudis and Egyptians flew planes into our buildings-we have yet to understand who they really were, what their real purpose was, what Able Danger was, why Sybil Edmunds is essentially muzzled from speaking out, etc. Most of us thought Afghanistan was worth attacking because we thought Osama was there, and the Taliban were obviously not allowing us to build the Chevron, or was it Unocal, pipeline. We don't know why the buildings in New York fell, and we don't dare discuss it openly because we will be branded a conspiracy nut and so on. The world is very complicated and to have the misfortune of being born in Iraq and being thought of as an enemy of the US simply for that reason is a true modern travesty.
. . . my round four response:
The debate process is far more interesting, intriguing and stimulating to me than being correct or ‘on the right side.’ I try to treat people with respect . . . even those with whom I may strongly disagree. From politics to business, I truly believe in what I call ‘constructive conflict’ – ideas, opinions and suggestions can be aggressively debated. The solution is often a compromise of the middle.
Item 1: Well, yes I can . . . say what I believe; I cannot say what he was thinking. Where we may differ is in our perception of George W. Bush. I have never met the man, but I believe George W. Bush is a good and descent human being with good intentions and compassion for his fellow man. So, yes, I do believe that W. thinks he has acted and continues to act within the authority vested in the President of the United States by Article II of the Constitution to include the Battles of Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the War on Islamic Fascism, and the array of intelligence collection activities including electronic surveillance, battlefield combatant interrogation, and such. The key factor in our assessment as well as the Court’s analysis of the constitutionality of the President’s action remains whether we are at war . . . thus my earlier comments on the significance of a congressional declaration of war. I believe the President made a fundamental mistake in not seeking a full and proper declaration of war; the Authorizations [PL’s 107-40 & 107-243] were properly executed, legal actions, however the ambiguity created by such half-measures opened up the question of constitutionality. Since I am not a Supreme Court justice, my opinion does not matter a hoot. That said, my opinion has been and remains that the President acted legally and properly within the Constitution; however, I also remain critical of his execution prior to the replacement of Rumsfeld. Under Gates & Petraeus, we have made progress, and I certainly would not advocate throwing away that achievement.
Item 2: As noted in item 1 above, I reject the notion that the war is illegal. Please help me understand why you think that I “condemn entire peoples, nations, (and) religions.” In a related point, I condemn Nazis; I do not condemn the German people. Islamic Fascism is a simple, discreet moniker for those who use force of arms in the guise of Islam to impose Islamic dicta on others. Not all Muslims are fascists, however I think you can or will agree that there are indeed Islamic fascists out there, intent upon doing us harm. “Jingoistic,” “fabricated enemy” . . . please help me understand why you believe these things? If it is the moniker I use that offends you, what name would you use? If you do not see the larger threat, then perhaps I can appreciate why you seem to think the threat is limited to a few criminals. Only the misinformed among us would think the Iraqis are our enemy; they are NOT the enemy. In fact, we have given the precious blood of our youth to help them realize the freedom they deserve, just as my generation tried to do in Vietnam, and my father’s generation did in Europe and the Pacific, and my grandfather’s generation did earlier in France. The impression I am left with is that you see Americans as the bad guys, and everyone else in the world as down-trodden, oppressed by Americans, and otherwise good guys; is this really the impression you seek to leave me with?
Hindsight conjecture can be worthwhile occasionally to illuminate nuances in a larger debate topic. So, here is one for you. What do you think President Al Gore would have done in the aftermath of 9/11?
As I said, I try to respect all points of view. I certainly respect the fact that we disagree on the President and the War . . . that’s part of the beauty of life . . . diversity. If whomever those guys are out there killing Americans get their way, we shall be living under a very strict, autocratic, authoritarian theocracy. I cherish my freedom too much to allow that to happen.
In a different but related thread:
"All wars are this way but endless wars are even worse if possible. That is why Paul says we should have created a Constitutional Marquis de Reprisal which would have allowed us to take out Osama and the Taliban with overwhelming force and come home. That is how we should respond to pirates and rogues. Not occupation - but you know that."
My reply:
I did not understand his logic. The Taliban & al-Qaeda are just symptoms. The root cause of all this death & destruction is the fundamental Islamic clerics who teach intolerance, martyrdom, suicide, and the taking of innocent lives to further their megalomaniacal objectives. Not so easy to flush them out. Plus, I heard a warning a long time ago . . . beware of the return of communism in the guise of Islam.
. . . a follow-up comment:
"I think you are talking about a very small minority of extremists who are actually talking this way- I don't think it is accurate to label all fundamental Islamic clerics as calling for the killing of innocents, etc, especially since it is against their religion. Osama Bin Laden, the one bush can't catch, is not well thought of or recognized as a national, Arab, middle eastern or even Islamic leader by most Iraqis or even middle eastern Muslims in general. It is a complex issue and we are training a generation to hate based on jingoistic, ethnic, religious and racial slurs. This is why I made the generality about Republicans. I haven't heard any yet who do not speak in this over-simplified way about Muslims. Except for Ron Paul who has made the point that it is a small group of extremists who promote violence and we have wasted blood and treasure building a beachhead in order to control oil. I think he said it like that, but if not, that's what I think it's all about."
. . . with my follow-up reply:
Here we get into semantics. I try to avoid absolutes, like ‘all,’ ‘never,’ ‘always,’ and such, just as I try to avoid labels. And yet, we need handles to succinctly describe what it is we are talking about. Saying ALL fundamentalist Islamic clerics are jihadi advocates would be akin to say that all fundamentalist Christian clerics are parochial, paternalistic, bigoted megalomaniacs – an error of generalities. On the obverse, there is a very real reason the jihadi movement is so widespread, violent, and aggressive. With inflammatory clerics like Nasrallah, al-Sadr, ad infinitum, I think it is easy to see the role the clerics play in the current war. The number of killers among the Islamic fascists would be difficult to estimate. However, I believe any substantive attempt would under-estimate the number of Muslims willing to kill innocent people to accomplish their objectives. I also believe several generations of clerics have convinced their followers that this is their time to extend Islam to every corner of the planet. They are not content within their dominion; they seek what Hitler called lebensraum – living room. Look what is happening in Europe; the sign are all around us.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment