Update from the Heartland
No.296
6.8.07 – 12.8.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
No.296
6.8.07 – 12.8.07
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The follow-up news items:
-- The title of the new law turns bold blue. The President signed the Protect America Act of 2007 [PL 110-055 (S.1927)] [295], a week ago Sunday. We have modified procedures for electronic surveillance of our enemies. This law improved and updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA): [PL 95-511], but it is a long way from the capabilities and efficiency our Intelligence Community must have to support our warfighting capacity against the Islamic fascists. The uber-Left is, of course, outraged that Congress even modestly added to the President’s ability to wage war successfully . . . not surprising, after all, since they believe this war is just a manifest creation of George W. Bush’s megalomaniacal ambitions. Unfortunately and regrettably, the new law leaves open several doors for continued litigation similar to ACLU v. NSA [6CCA nos. 06-2095/2140] [291]; we have no reason to believe the uber-Left will desist in their efforts to hobble the President – not George W. Bush – the office, not the man. This test is about the President’s – any President’s – primary constitutional responsibility to defend this Grand Republic and “wage war successfully,” when necessary. Again unfortunately, the arrogance and missteps of the Bush administration, and the political egocentrism of Congress will most likely lead to a weakening of the President’s primary task, and increase the internal corrosion and the external threat. We have more pain ahead.
-- The New York Times editorial staff finally said what many of us have been worrying about and/or fearing for the last eight months. “Selective Prosecution” was the title. The Times is encouraging the House Judiciary Committee to investigation the administration’s use of the U.S. attorneys to selectively prosecute individuals and groups for political gain. The U.S. attorney fiasco flared into our awareness last December with the firing of eight plus U.S. attorneys for what appeared to be political reasons [268 & subsequent]. A few years ago, I would have said baloney to such allegations. Today, I must say, where there is smoke . . . I am with the Times on this one. The President created this mess by allowing the implication of politics to color the prosecutorial process; so, let’s get all this odiferous garbage on the table and let the chips fall where they may.
-- Last week, we discussed the continuing saga of ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson’s effort to evade justice as well as the tightening noose around bad ol’ boy ‘Ted’ Stevens [295]. (You may recall that Ted was the benevolent benefactor of congressional largesse with the infamous ‘bridge to nowhere’ in Alaska.) Anyway, also last week but not yet reported, Congress passed the Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress Act of 2007, AKA Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 (S.1) {vote: Senate: 83-14-3; House: 411-8-0-13}; the bill is expected to be signed by the President. Seems impressive at face value, doesn’t it? Would anyone like to guess who one of the House ‘nay’ votes was? Give up? None other than earmark and largesse king-of-the-hill ‘Rollin’ Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania. What a shocker that was! Anyway, beyond all the snickering, does anyone expect this law will change the obscene spending habits of Congress or strengthen our confidence in that questionable body? On this topic, I am reminded of the wise words of Associate Justice Louis Brandeis – “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants”; in this sense, the new law should have some benefit . . . but, requires persistent vigilance by the Press and attentiveness by the citizenry.
-- I rendered my opinion of the DC Circuit’s decision in the case of United States v. Rayburn House Office Building [295] – ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson’s evasion of the law proxy. The Wall Street Journal editorial staff chose to ignore the ‘Felony’ exception in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, as well. I still think the DC Circuit was wrong, and I believe the Supreme Court will so recognize that the Constitution does not protect any citizen including a Member of Congress from felony prosecution and all its associated processes. The Constitution never intended to make Congress a haven for criminal conduct, just as the White House provides no sanctuary for such conduct either.
-- The fear mongers have won again. Not quite half of Sedgwick County, Kansas, citizens voted in the local special election this week and rejected gambling in the county including slot machines at the dog track [292]. The owner of the track indicated that he will close the facility as it is no longer profitable. This vote was not about facts or even projections; it was about emotion and moral vindication. The really sad part, and perhaps even disgusting element of this special election, was the all-too-common low voter turnout; county election officials reported 43% of the eligible voters (actually a high turnout for U.S. standards) took the few extra minutes to register their opinion. Once again, voters have reacted on emotion and personal preference rather than upon the general character of the public domain, i.e., they disapprove of gambling, rather than should we prohibit gambling for everyone? A vote is not an opinion poll but a statement of law – a huge difference.
-- I will pass on Barry Bonds. I am not a fan of artificially enhanced human performance.
On Wednesday, The Times (of London) reported that the outbreak of Hoof & Mouth Disease (HMD) in two small herds of cattle in Surrey may have been sabotage. The specific HMD virus in these cases is unique to two local laboratories – the government’s Institute of Animal Health and a private company, Merial, located at the same site near Pirbright, Surrey. The British health, police, and counterterrorism authorities are still considering potential causes of the latest outbreak from accidental to bioterrorism. The economic devastation of this type of event is staggering. Sadly, in today’s troubled world, we must consider the worst until the definitive cause is determined.
I have never been drawn to or aligned with Noam Chomsky’s views of society, politics or relationships, and yet, I have genuine respect for his intellect. The article noted below is in an interview format.
“Democracy’s invisible line”
by Noam Chomsky and Daniel Mermet
Le Monde diplomatique
August 2007
http://mondediplo.com/2007/08/02democracy
One of Chomsky’s thoughts struck a chord with me. Noam talked about the tools and instruments of power used to influence a population, and specifically the Nazis’ employment of marketing and advertising techniques developed by Eddie Bernays and others in the 1920’s. Chomsky said, “[Media manipulation] is always used to impose an ideology. Violence is not enough to dominate people: some other justification is required. When one person wields power over another – whether they are a dictator, a colonist, a bureaucrat, a spouse or a boss – they need an ideology justifying their action. And it is always the same: their domination is exerted for the good of the underdog. Those in power always present themselves as being altruistic, disinterested and generous.” I believe all of us can cite personal life examples that validate Noam’s observation. In this context, our protection against such manipulation is a free, open, aggressive Press and broad, rapid communications, i.e., the ability to compare, contrast and evaluate diverse sources and inputs to arrive at an independent opinion. Curiosity, inquisitiveness and debate are essential instruments to maintain our liberty and freedom. Apathy and complacency become the willing conduits for the powerful to impose their will upon the rest of us. Let us remain vigilant, attentive and demanding.
I shall draw your attention to another Le Monde article, and an interesting and worthy view of the Israeli-Palestinian issue:
“Palestine: a policy of deliberate blindness”
by Régis Debray
Le Monde diplomatique
August 2007
http://mondediplo.com/2007/08/05palestine
Once again, the title is certainly descriptive, and appropriately so. I have never been a supporter of the Israeli settlement policy implemented after the 1967 war and aggressively pursued since the early 1990’s; I have seen it as a recipe for perpetual conflict. It was bad enough that the British Balfour Declaration (1917) gave explicit consent to a future Jewish homeland in Palestine and the end of the British Mandate over Palestine (1948) codified the division of land by artificial means. We can blame the artificial, and perhaps even capricious, partitioning of Palestine, but the subjugation of the Palestinian people has not and will not serve the Israelis well toward finding peaceful coexistence. My opinion: a combination of the 1967 and 1973 ceasefire lines should be the basis of a negotiated border; the World should recognize the State of Palestine; a transition period between affirmation and confirmation of the new State should allow individuals and families the opportunity to relocate; and after confirmation, anyone remaining in the sovereign territory of the respective nations shall be citizens and residents of that State and fully subject to its laws. I recognize my opinion will not please some Israelis, but tough; “That’s my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
“Why Terrorists Aren’t Soldiers”
by Wesley K. Clark and Kal Raustiala
Op-Ed Contributors
New York Times
Published: August 8, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/opinion/08clark.html?th&emc=th
General Wesley Clark, USA (Ret.), a former Democratic presidential candidate and NATO supreme commander, joined his current colleague to write a disappointing statement on the classification of the Guantánamo detainees. Clark/Raustiala cite the recent 4th Circuit Court of Appeals detainee habeas corpus decision of al-Marri v. Wright [4CCA no. 06-7427] [288]. As for all of us, Clark and Raustiala are entitled to their opinion. What I find truly disappointing in Clark rests with the implication in his words that he believes we are not at war. I do agree with him that the battlefield combatants, AKA detainees, are NOT soldiers, and do not deserved to be dignified by such recognition. Conversely, they are NOT criminals; they are below criminals; these detainees are stateless, uniform-less, purveyors of death who subscribe to no body of recognizable law. Once again, Wes Clark appears to have fallen victim to myopic, blinder’ed, political partisanship above the need to keep captured combatants from returning to the battlefield during the course of an active and hot war. Flooding the judicial system with these guys is not a solution. The title of their article is spot on; the captured jihadistanis are NOT soldiers or simple criminals, and do not deserve recognition under the law within civilized society; to do so would be to grant them legitimacy.
Our self-appointed, national, moral conscience, AKA the American Family Association (AFA), has been quite busy this week. Given my mood after the insult of the gambling vote in Sedgwick County, I am feeling a bit combative and un-quiet. Donald Wildmon’s hot buttons this week were Internet pornography and sex advice in Redbook magazine. He wants obscenity laws enforced on Internet content because children are exposed to pornographic material while they are on the Internet. And, apparently, Redbook magazine has gone too far, too many times, regarding sex life advice and other hedonistic topics. Production, publication and distribution of pornographic material for private consumption of adult citizens have been and should be protected by the First Amendment. Various federal, state and local obscenity laws from the Comstock Act of 1873 and subsequent have attempted to regulate sexually explicit material. We can all appreciate the aversion some of us and perhaps most of us have to sexually explicit or pornographic materials; sexual relations for other than procreation is a sin, after all . . . so say some clerics. Yet, regardless, such materials, whether sinful or otherwise, are largely private. The State has a legitimate and proper responsibility to regulate public display of such materials, but interruption or interference with conveyance for private use remains tantamount to censorship. Obscenity or the offense of pornographic material rests in the attitudes, morals, beliefs and desires of the individual; what is obscene to me may not be obscene to you. Thus, the question comes to exposure rather than existence; a highway billboard can hardly be considered a similar medium to a painting or photograph in one’s home. Once again, we face the relevant question: does a group of my friends and like-minded citizens have a right to decide whether a photograph on the wall of your home is obscene and perhaps criminal? As long as every citizen has the opportunity to exercise their discreet freedom of choice regarding pornography, then every citizen should and indeed must respect another citizen’s freedom of choice, perhaps to the contrary. Why isn’t the freedom to choose, or not choose as the case may be, sufficient to satisfy society rather than prohibition by law, peer pressure, or societal disdain? As an adult citizen of some maturity and travel, I have legal access to many vices – alcohol, tobacco, nudity, gambling, hedonistic sex, pornography, prostitution (in some locales), et al – and yet, I freely choose not to succumb to those sinful pursuits . . . well, perhaps an occasional dribble of alcohol from time to time, among others. Several extractions from Supreme Court decisions seem appropriate. Associate Justice Potter Stewart noted, “Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” Ginzberg v. United States [383 U.S. 463 (1966)] Wise words, I should think. Rather than restricting the exercise of our Freedom of Speech, or any other of our established freedoms, we should focus on our actions in the public domain rather than every citizens private choices. Associate Justice Louis Brandeis stated, “The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness.” He continued, “They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” Olmstead v. United States [277 U.S. 438 (1928)] Justice Brandeis was not referring to the government’s pursuit of happiness or even society’s or the pursuits of the majority of voting citizens; he meant every individual citizen’s personal choices and their concomitant right to the privacy of their choices. Donald Wildmon, like so many of our countrymen, confuses public and private conduct, and his personal moral values, beliefs and desires with those to be imposed upon every private citizen. He has every right to voice his opinion just as I am doing now, but where he invariably crosses the line comes with his advocacy of using peer pressure, or even worse, the instruments of State to project his moral values into every household in this Grand Republic. I do not disparage his private choices; I wish he would respect mine. I hurt no one. I offend no one in the public domain. I simply seek my happiness and wish to be left alone in the privacy of my home. When will they ever learn? To close this thought and since Louis Brandeis appears to be a feature of this edition, I offer one last sample of his quotations.
“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.”
— Associate Justice Louis Brandeis (1856–1941), Whitney v. California [274 U.S. 357 (1927)]
Comments and contributions from Update no.295:
"Saw your comments in your latest update on the O'Hanlon and Pollack article. However, I add my skepticism to their optimistic and, frankly, cherry-picked article. They omitted large parts of Iraq, and their citations were not helpful. As noted in Michael Ware's interview below, they are overlooking the fact that what successes they cite are being based on actions that cut our long-term goal of a unified Iraqi government. And now, both Pollack and O'Hanlon are backtracking and qualifying their article in interviews since its publication.
"O'Hanlon and Pollack are described as "military experts" but neither served a day in uniform. I have seen O'Hanlon in action when he was at the Brookings Institution and he came to Moscow to discuss the Russian military. He had pre-conceived ideas and was critical of anything that was against them. Pretty arrogant, and to put it bluntly, plain wrong. But he was an expert from an Ivy League school and one couldn't tell him anything.
"Michael Ware, an Aussie journalist for CNN, has been in Baghdad, was interviewed about the article shortly after its publication. He notes that the successes cited in the article have been achieved at the expense of our long-term goals.
"Cooper: [We have] Michael Ware, who has been there in Baghdad and all across Iraq almost nonstop since the fighting began. Right now, he's embedded with American forces in Diyala Province, coming to us through a nightscope camera. Because of the danger there, they're not allowed to turn on any camera lights. Michael, you just heard the vice president saying he expects General Petraeus to report significant progress when he gives his assessment come September. What do you think of the vice president's evaluation?
"Ware: Well, Anderson, there is progress. And that's indisputable. Sectarian violence is down in certain pockets. There are areas of great instability in this country. They're at last finding some stability.
"The point, though, is, at what price? What we're seeing is -- is, to a degree, some sleight of hand. What America needs to come clean about is that it's achieving these successes by cutting deals primarily with its enemies. We have all heard the administration praise the work of the tribal sheiks in turning against al Qaeda. Well, this is just a euphemism for the Sunni insurgency. That's who has turned against al Qaeda.
"And why? Because they offered America terms in 2003 to do this. And it's taken America four years of war to come round to the Sunnis' terms. And, principally, that means cutting the Iraqi government out of the loop. By achieving these successes, America is building Sunni militias. Yes, they're targeting al Qaeda, but these are also anti- government forces opposed to the very government that America created."
My response:
I cannot and will not claim to be a military expert. I am but a humble citizen who has opinions . . . based on my experience, my knowledge and my thoughts. I have served this Grand Republic in uniform on the pointy end of the sword, as many of our classmates have; that gives me some authority, but nowhere near enough for this discussion. Nonetheless . . .
I could sense the conflagration about to erupt when I read the O’Hanlon & Pollack article in the Times. It is certainly no surprise that everyone is taking O’Hanlon & Pollack to task. I have seen neither and do not know either journalist. As I said, a moment’s respite in the storm. And yet, from day one, I have rejected both extremes . . . the President’s all-is-right-with-the-world view as well as the Times’ sky-is-falling perspective. There are too many reports from the field reporting successes . . . little and big. Nonetheless, I am no Pollyanna green-horn who fell off the turnip truck yesterday. We can see the pacification of the hinterland and the isolation of Baghdad. CBS’s 60 Minutes had an interesting segment on the Kurdish North. Tom Ricks’ “Fiasco” fairly well established the basis for what we have now; and yet, General Petraeus is making headway; let’s give him his due. That said, there can never be a military solution; the best the military can hope for is some stability to allow the moderates and security forces to establish some indigenous control. I think the reality of inept immobility of the Baghdad government has slapped us all square in the face. As such, I suspect we are headed toward a confederation of sorts; I can hardly use the phrase ‘weak federal’ with this discordant and intransigent group; thus, the evolving effort with the local tribes.
At what price indeed! We could say the whole of Iraq was not worth one American life, but I think that attitude leads to an isolationist, entrenched, defensive mentality destined to yield a far higher price down the road. I hold W, Rummie, Wolfie, and the other politicos responsible and accountable for the fiasco, as Tom put it, of the first four years of this battle. I have long held the opinion of overwhelming force. I can document my worries about the inadequate force structure for the Battle of Iraq back at least to Update no.72 (7.4.03 - 13.4.03), but I vividly recall listening to General Shinseki’s testimony before Congress (Feb’03) and saying “He’s right, and he’ll probably lose his job for it.” My estimate was 500K to 1M men on the ground to control post-invasion Iraq; I was gobsmacked, as our British cousins say, to hear Rummie slough off Shinseki’s position and offer up a number 1/3 of Shinseki’s estimate. I am no fan of this administration and the enormous cost in lives lost and damaged, by the ridiculous notion of superiority that led Rummie & Wolfie to their war on the cheap position. I talked about the need for general mobilization in late 2001, and probably conscription – never a popular idea. Regardless, the ineptitude of the politicos and the poor performance of the military leadership in those first years of the Battle does not alter my belief that W. chose the correct battlefield for this fight . . . just the wrong players to fight the fight. It would have cost far less if we had the proper number of troops on the ground and a proper plan to deal with the inevitable insurgency at the conclusion of the invasion.
. . . with this follow-up:
"I agree with your points -- although you are being modest about claiming expertise on the military. I just am fed up with people being touted as military experts who have never served and are arrogant towards those who have served. And having seen O'Hanlon's arrogance -- and ignorance -- close up, I just exploded.
"I recall the line Army Chief of Staff General Vessey uttered while testifying before the Senate right after a think tank maven had expostulated for some time about a grotesque plan to reorganize the military. General Vessey ventured to the senators that "they should be very cautious about taking military advice from somebody who had never used a slit trench."
"Below is an interesting observation from an observer:
"The optimism of O'Hanlon and Pollack is at odds with the conclusions of Brookings' own Iraq Index project. It reported July 23 that 'violence nationwide has failed to improve measurably over the past two-plus months,' and that - contrary to their enthusiasm about the provision of electricity and other essentials -- 'the average person in Baghdad can count on only one or two hours of electricity per day,' far less than they had under Saddam. More ironic still, the person in charge of the Iraq Index is Michael O'Hanlon!"
. . . with my follow-up:
I’d say John Vessey summarized my feelings quite succinctly and accurately. I shall accept unchallenged your observations of O’Hanlon. As you reacted to the O’Hanlon arrogance, I react to the negativism of so many who report on the battle.
Another contribution:
"I am totally down with your one contributor who said if the terrorists really want to scare us, they should nail some small town USA place. Everyone expects the next attack to be NYC, LA, CHI, someplace like that. Imagine the sort of shock and horror they could inflict by setting off a truck bomb at the Frontier Days Rodeo in Prescott, AZ or a similar event in another small town. Let's face it. Who thinks terrorism when you live in a town of 30,000?"
My response:
Vigilance . . . an attribute we should all exercise continuously regardless of where we live; after all, we are at war.
A different contribution:
[This contributor sent the following URL link discussing John McCain's financial disclosure statement.]
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/MutualFunds/McCainsWifeControlsFamilysRiches.aspx
The follow-up news items:
-- The title of the new law turns bold blue. The President signed the Protect America Act of 2007 [PL 110-055 (S.1927)] [295], a week ago Sunday. We have modified procedures for electronic surveillance of our enemies. This law improved and updated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA): [PL 95-511], but it is a long way from the capabilities and efficiency our Intelligence Community must have to support our warfighting capacity against the Islamic fascists. The uber-Left is, of course, outraged that Congress even modestly added to the President’s ability to wage war successfully . . . not surprising, after all, since they believe this war is just a manifest creation of George W. Bush’s megalomaniacal ambitions. Unfortunately and regrettably, the new law leaves open several doors for continued litigation similar to ACLU v. NSA [6CCA nos. 06-2095/2140] [291]; we have no reason to believe the uber-Left will desist in their efforts to hobble the President – not George W. Bush – the office, not the man. This test is about the President’s – any President’s – primary constitutional responsibility to defend this Grand Republic and “wage war successfully,” when necessary. Again unfortunately, the arrogance and missteps of the Bush administration, and the political egocentrism of Congress will most likely lead to a weakening of the President’s primary task, and increase the internal corrosion and the external threat. We have more pain ahead.
-- The New York Times editorial staff finally said what many of us have been worrying about and/or fearing for the last eight months. “Selective Prosecution” was the title. The Times is encouraging the House Judiciary Committee to investigation the administration’s use of the U.S. attorneys to selectively prosecute individuals and groups for political gain. The U.S. attorney fiasco flared into our awareness last December with the firing of eight plus U.S. attorneys for what appeared to be political reasons [268 & subsequent]. A few years ago, I would have said baloney to such allegations. Today, I must say, where there is smoke . . . I am with the Times on this one. The President created this mess by allowing the implication of politics to color the prosecutorial process; so, let’s get all this odiferous garbage on the table and let the chips fall where they may.
-- Last week, we discussed the continuing saga of ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson’s effort to evade justice as well as the tightening noose around bad ol’ boy ‘Ted’ Stevens [295]. (You may recall that Ted was the benevolent benefactor of congressional largesse with the infamous ‘bridge to nowhere’ in Alaska.) Anyway, also last week but not yet reported, Congress passed the Commission to Strengthen Confidence in Congress Act of 2007, AKA Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 (S.1) {vote: Senate: 83-14-3; House: 411-8-0-13}; the bill is expected to be signed by the President. Seems impressive at face value, doesn’t it? Would anyone like to guess who one of the House ‘nay’ votes was? Give up? None other than earmark and largesse king-of-the-hill ‘Rollin’ Jack Murtha of Pennsylvania. What a shocker that was! Anyway, beyond all the snickering, does anyone expect this law will change the obscene spending habits of Congress or strengthen our confidence in that questionable body? On this topic, I am reminded of the wise words of Associate Justice Louis Brandeis – “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants”; in this sense, the new law should have some benefit . . . but, requires persistent vigilance by the Press and attentiveness by the citizenry.
-- I rendered my opinion of the DC Circuit’s decision in the case of United States v. Rayburn House Office Building [295] – ‘Dollar Bill’ Jefferson’s evasion of the law proxy. The Wall Street Journal editorial staff chose to ignore the ‘Felony’ exception in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, as well. I still think the DC Circuit was wrong, and I believe the Supreme Court will so recognize that the Constitution does not protect any citizen including a Member of Congress from felony prosecution and all its associated processes. The Constitution never intended to make Congress a haven for criminal conduct, just as the White House provides no sanctuary for such conduct either.
-- The fear mongers have won again. Not quite half of Sedgwick County, Kansas, citizens voted in the local special election this week and rejected gambling in the county including slot machines at the dog track [292]. The owner of the track indicated that he will close the facility as it is no longer profitable. This vote was not about facts or even projections; it was about emotion and moral vindication. The really sad part, and perhaps even disgusting element of this special election, was the all-too-common low voter turnout; county election officials reported 43% of the eligible voters (actually a high turnout for U.S. standards) took the few extra minutes to register their opinion. Once again, voters have reacted on emotion and personal preference rather than upon the general character of the public domain, i.e., they disapprove of gambling, rather than should we prohibit gambling for everyone? A vote is not an opinion poll but a statement of law – a huge difference.
-- I will pass on Barry Bonds. I am not a fan of artificially enhanced human performance.
On Wednesday, The Times (of London) reported that the outbreak of Hoof & Mouth Disease (HMD) in two small herds of cattle in Surrey may have been sabotage. The specific HMD virus in these cases is unique to two local laboratories – the government’s Institute of Animal Health and a private company, Merial, located at the same site near Pirbright, Surrey. The British health, police, and counterterrorism authorities are still considering potential causes of the latest outbreak from accidental to bioterrorism. The economic devastation of this type of event is staggering. Sadly, in today’s troubled world, we must consider the worst until the definitive cause is determined.
I have never been drawn to or aligned with Noam Chomsky’s views of society, politics or relationships, and yet, I have genuine respect for his intellect. The article noted below is in an interview format.
“Democracy’s invisible line”
by Noam Chomsky and Daniel Mermet
Le Monde diplomatique
August 2007
http://mondediplo.com/2007/08/02democracy
One of Chomsky’s thoughts struck a chord with me. Noam talked about the tools and instruments of power used to influence a population, and specifically the Nazis’ employment of marketing and advertising techniques developed by Eddie Bernays and others in the 1920’s. Chomsky said, “[Media manipulation] is always used to impose an ideology. Violence is not enough to dominate people: some other justification is required. When one person wields power over another – whether they are a dictator, a colonist, a bureaucrat, a spouse or a boss – they need an ideology justifying their action. And it is always the same: their domination is exerted for the good of the underdog. Those in power always present themselves as being altruistic, disinterested and generous.” I believe all of us can cite personal life examples that validate Noam’s observation. In this context, our protection against such manipulation is a free, open, aggressive Press and broad, rapid communications, i.e., the ability to compare, contrast and evaluate diverse sources and inputs to arrive at an independent opinion. Curiosity, inquisitiveness and debate are essential instruments to maintain our liberty and freedom. Apathy and complacency become the willing conduits for the powerful to impose their will upon the rest of us. Let us remain vigilant, attentive and demanding.
I shall draw your attention to another Le Monde article, and an interesting and worthy view of the Israeli-Palestinian issue:
“Palestine: a policy of deliberate blindness”
by Régis Debray
Le Monde diplomatique
August 2007
http://mondediplo.com/2007/08/05palestine
Once again, the title is certainly descriptive, and appropriately so. I have never been a supporter of the Israeli settlement policy implemented after the 1967 war and aggressively pursued since the early 1990’s; I have seen it as a recipe for perpetual conflict. It was bad enough that the British Balfour Declaration (1917) gave explicit consent to a future Jewish homeland in Palestine and the end of the British Mandate over Palestine (1948) codified the division of land by artificial means. We can blame the artificial, and perhaps even capricious, partitioning of Palestine, but the subjugation of the Palestinian people has not and will not serve the Israelis well toward finding peaceful coexistence. My opinion: a combination of the 1967 and 1973 ceasefire lines should be the basis of a negotiated border; the World should recognize the State of Palestine; a transition period between affirmation and confirmation of the new State should allow individuals and families the opportunity to relocate; and after confirmation, anyone remaining in the sovereign territory of the respective nations shall be citizens and residents of that State and fully subject to its laws. I recognize my opinion will not please some Israelis, but tough; “That’s my opinion, but I could be wrong.”
“Why Terrorists Aren’t Soldiers”
by Wesley K. Clark and Kal Raustiala
Op-Ed Contributors
New York Times
Published: August 8, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/opinion/08clark.html?th&emc=th
General Wesley Clark, USA (Ret.), a former Democratic presidential candidate and NATO supreme commander, joined his current colleague to write a disappointing statement on the classification of the Guantánamo detainees. Clark/Raustiala cite the recent 4th Circuit Court of Appeals detainee habeas corpus decision of al-Marri v. Wright [4CCA no. 06-7427] [288]. As for all of us, Clark and Raustiala are entitled to their opinion. What I find truly disappointing in Clark rests with the implication in his words that he believes we are not at war. I do agree with him that the battlefield combatants, AKA detainees, are NOT soldiers, and do not deserved to be dignified by such recognition. Conversely, they are NOT criminals; they are below criminals; these detainees are stateless, uniform-less, purveyors of death who subscribe to no body of recognizable law. Once again, Wes Clark appears to have fallen victim to myopic, blinder’ed, political partisanship above the need to keep captured combatants from returning to the battlefield during the course of an active and hot war. Flooding the judicial system with these guys is not a solution. The title of their article is spot on; the captured jihadistanis are NOT soldiers or simple criminals, and do not deserve recognition under the law within civilized society; to do so would be to grant them legitimacy.
Our self-appointed, national, moral conscience, AKA the American Family Association (AFA), has been quite busy this week. Given my mood after the insult of the gambling vote in Sedgwick County, I am feeling a bit combative and un-quiet. Donald Wildmon’s hot buttons this week were Internet pornography and sex advice in Redbook magazine. He wants obscenity laws enforced on Internet content because children are exposed to pornographic material while they are on the Internet. And, apparently, Redbook magazine has gone too far, too many times, regarding sex life advice and other hedonistic topics. Production, publication and distribution of pornographic material for private consumption of adult citizens have been and should be protected by the First Amendment. Various federal, state and local obscenity laws from the Comstock Act of 1873 and subsequent have attempted to regulate sexually explicit material. We can all appreciate the aversion some of us and perhaps most of us have to sexually explicit or pornographic materials; sexual relations for other than procreation is a sin, after all . . . so say some clerics. Yet, regardless, such materials, whether sinful or otherwise, are largely private. The State has a legitimate and proper responsibility to regulate public display of such materials, but interruption or interference with conveyance for private use remains tantamount to censorship. Obscenity or the offense of pornographic material rests in the attitudes, morals, beliefs and desires of the individual; what is obscene to me may not be obscene to you. Thus, the question comes to exposure rather than existence; a highway billboard can hardly be considered a similar medium to a painting or photograph in one’s home. Once again, we face the relevant question: does a group of my friends and like-minded citizens have a right to decide whether a photograph on the wall of your home is obscene and perhaps criminal? As long as every citizen has the opportunity to exercise their discreet freedom of choice regarding pornography, then every citizen should and indeed must respect another citizen’s freedom of choice, perhaps to the contrary. Why isn’t the freedom to choose, or not choose as the case may be, sufficient to satisfy society rather than prohibition by law, peer pressure, or societal disdain? As an adult citizen of some maturity and travel, I have legal access to many vices – alcohol, tobacco, nudity, gambling, hedonistic sex, pornography, prostitution (in some locales), et al – and yet, I freely choose not to succumb to those sinful pursuits . . . well, perhaps an occasional dribble of alcohol from time to time, among others. Several extractions from Supreme Court decisions seem appropriate. Associate Justice Potter Stewart noted, “Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.” Ginzberg v. United States [383 U.S. 463 (1966)] Wise words, I should think. Rather than restricting the exercise of our Freedom of Speech, or any other of our established freedoms, we should focus on our actions in the public domain rather than every citizens private choices. Associate Justice Louis Brandeis stated, “The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness.” He continued, “They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” Olmstead v. United States [277 U.S. 438 (1928)] Justice Brandeis was not referring to the government’s pursuit of happiness or even society’s or the pursuits of the majority of voting citizens; he meant every individual citizen’s personal choices and their concomitant right to the privacy of their choices. Donald Wildmon, like so many of our countrymen, confuses public and private conduct, and his personal moral values, beliefs and desires with those to be imposed upon every private citizen. He has every right to voice his opinion just as I am doing now, but where he invariably crosses the line comes with his advocacy of using peer pressure, or even worse, the instruments of State to project his moral values into every household in this Grand Republic. I do not disparage his private choices; I wish he would respect mine. I hurt no one. I offend no one in the public domain. I simply seek my happiness and wish to be left alone in the privacy of my home. When will they ever learn? To close this thought and since Louis Brandeis appears to be a feature of this edition, I offer one last sample of his quotations.
“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.”
— Associate Justice Louis Brandeis (1856–1941), Whitney v. California [274 U.S. 357 (1927)]
Comments and contributions from Update no.295:
"Saw your comments in your latest update on the O'Hanlon and Pollack article. However, I add my skepticism to their optimistic and, frankly, cherry-picked article. They omitted large parts of Iraq, and their citations were not helpful. As noted in Michael Ware's interview below, they are overlooking the fact that what successes they cite are being based on actions that cut our long-term goal of a unified Iraqi government. And now, both Pollack and O'Hanlon are backtracking and qualifying their article in interviews since its publication.
"O'Hanlon and Pollack are described as "military experts" but neither served a day in uniform. I have seen O'Hanlon in action when he was at the Brookings Institution and he came to Moscow to discuss the Russian military. He had pre-conceived ideas and was critical of anything that was against them. Pretty arrogant, and to put it bluntly, plain wrong. But he was an expert from an Ivy League school and one couldn't tell him anything.
"Michael Ware, an Aussie journalist for CNN, has been in Baghdad, was interviewed about the article shortly after its publication. He notes that the successes cited in the article have been achieved at the expense of our long-term goals.
"Cooper: [We have] Michael Ware, who has been there in Baghdad and all across Iraq almost nonstop since the fighting began. Right now, he's embedded with American forces in Diyala Province, coming to us through a nightscope camera. Because of the danger there, they're not allowed to turn on any camera lights. Michael, you just heard the vice president saying he expects General Petraeus to report significant progress when he gives his assessment come September. What do you think of the vice president's evaluation?
"Ware: Well, Anderson, there is progress. And that's indisputable. Sectarian violence is down in certain pockets. There are areas of great instability in this country. They're at last finding some stability.
"The point, though, is, at what price? What we're seeing is -- is, to a degree, some sleight of hand. What America needs to come clean about is that it's achieving these successes by cutting deals primarily with its enemies. We have all heard the administration praise the work of the tribal sheiks in turning against al Qaeda. Well, this is just a euphemism for the Sunni insurgency. That's who has turned against al Qaeda.
"And why? Because they offered America terms in 2003 to do this. And it's taken America four years of war to come round to the Sunnis' terms. And, principally, that means cutting the Iraqi government out of the loop. By achieving these successes, America is building Sunni militias. Yes, they're targeting al Qaeda, but these are also anti- government forces opposed to the very government that America created."
My response:
I cannot and will not claim to be a military expert. I am but a humble citizen who has opinions . . . based on my experience, my knowledge and my thoughts. I have served this Grand Republic in uniform on the pointy end of the sword, as many of our classmates have; that gives me some authority, but nowhere near enough for this discussion. Nonetheless . . .
I could sense the conflagration about to erupt when I read the O’Hanlon & Pollack article in the Times. It is certainly no surprise that everyone is taking O’Hanlon & Pollack to task. I have seen neither and do not know either journalist. As I said, a moment’s respite in the storm. And yet, from day one, I have rejected both extremes . . . the President’s all-is-right-with-the-world view as well as the Times’ sky-is-falling perspective. There are too many reports from the field reporting successes . . . little and big. Nonetheless, I am no Pollyanna green-horn who fell off the turnip truck yesterday. We can see the pacification of the hinterland and the isolation of Baghdad. CBS’s 60 Minutes had an interesting segment on the Kurdish North. Tom Ricks’ “Fiasco” fairly well established the basis for what we have now; and yet, General Petraeus is making headway; let’s give him his due. That said, there can never be a military solution; the best the military can hope for is some stability to allow the moderates and security forces to establish some indigenous control. I think the reality of inept immobility of the Baghdad government has slapped us all square in the face. As such, I suspect we are headed toward a confederation of sorts; I can hardly use the phrase ‘weak federal’ with this discordant and intransigent group; thus, the evolving effort with the local tribes.
At what price indeed! We could say the whole of Iraq was not worth one American life, but I think that attitude leads to an isolationist, entrenched, defensive mentality destined to yield a far higher price down the road. I hold W, Rummie, Wolfie, and the other politicos responsible and accountable for the fiasco, as Tom put it, of the first four years of this battle. I have long held the opinion of overwhelming force. I can document my worries about the inadequate force structure for the Battle of Iraq back at least to Update no.72 (7.4.03 - 13.4.03), but I vividly recall listening to General Shinseki’s testimony before Congress (Feb’03) and saying “He’s right, and he’ll probably lose his job for it.” My estimate was 500K to 1M men on the ground to control post-invasion Iraq; I was gobsmacked, as our British cousins say, to hear Rummie slough off Shinseki’s position and offer up a number 1/3 of Shinseki’s estimate. I am no fan of this administration and the enormous cost in lives lost and damaged, by the ridiculous notion of superiority that led Rummie & Wolfie to their war on the cheap position. I talked about the need for general mobilization in late 2001, and probably conscription – never a popular idea. Regardless, the ineptitude of the politicos and the poor performance of the military leadership in those first years of the Battle does not alter my belief that W. chose the correct battlefield for this fight . . . just the wrong players to fight the fight. It would have cost far less if we had the proper number of troops on the ground and a proper plan to deal with the inevitable insurgency at the conclusion of the invasion.
. . . with this follow-up:
"I agree with your points -- although you are being modest about claiming expertise on the military. I just am fed up with people being touted as military experts who have never served and are arrogant towards those who have served. And having seen O'Hanlon's arrogance -- and ignorance -- close up, I just exploded.
"I recall the line Army Chief of Staff General Vessey uttered while testifying before the Senate right after a think tank maven had expostulated for some time about a grotesque plan to reorganize the military. General Vessey ventured to the senators that "they should be very cautious about taking military advice from somebody who had never used a slit trench."
"Below is an interesting observation from an observer:
"The optimism of O'Hanlon and Pollack is at odds with the conclusions of Brookings' own Iraq Index project. It reported July 23 that 'violence nationwide has failed to improve measurably over the past two-plus months,' and that - contrary to their enthusiasm about the provision of electricity and other essentials -- 'the average person in Baghdad can count on only one or two hours of electricity per day,' far less than they had under Saddam. More ironic still, the person in charge of the Iraq Index is Michael O'Hanlon!"
. . . with my follow-up:
I’d say John Vessey summarized my feelings quite succinctly and accurately. I shall accept unchallenged your observations of O’Hanlon. As you reacted to the O’Hanlon arrogance, I react to the negativism of so many who report on the battle.
Another contribution:
"I am totally down with your one contributor who said if the terrorists really want to scare us, they should nail some small town USA place. Everyone expects the next attack to be NYC, LA, CHI, someplace like that. Imagine the sort of shock and horror they could inflict by setting off a truck bomb at the Frontier Days Rodeo in Prescott, AZ or a similar event in another small town. Let's face it. Who thinks terrorism when you live in a town of 30,000?"
My response:
Vigilance . . . an attribute we should all exercise continuously regardless of where we live; after all, we are at war.
A different contribution:
[This contributor sent the following URL link discussing John McCain's financial disclosure statement.]
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/MutualFunds/McCainsWifeControlsFamilysRiches.aspx
"I like McCain. For his integrity, loyalty to causes he believes in, and personal demonstrated courage. THIS is about $$$$.
"My point is that while it may or may not be true of John. Many people get into politics for the $$$ it may bring them, often in entirely legitimate ways, if they can just get elected.
"There are almost NO 'poor' Senators and Congressmen. Even if they had little actual wealth when they first ran for office."
My reply:
I could not agree more. Well said, spot on, and to the point. The disclosure information is far more than I recall any other candidate giving; and, far more than I've ever made in my non-private disclosures. Some of it is quite sensitive, I'd say. We could be surprised by his primary performance, but I suspect the uber-Right faction of the Republican Party cannot accept the kind of man he is. The Nation shall be lesser for it.
. . . with this follow-up:
"At this moment I believe that of the Republican candidates (the only ones I would vote for), McCain is likely the best qualified to be President. Giuliani is a great manager and personable leader who is riding his fame as the man on the spot during 9/11 to a possible place in history as President. But I do not think that ANY way his credentials qualify him for the job. Romney is handsome, personable, likeable, and has at least run a State. But his religion most likely will be his killer. Would not be for ME but I think it will be for him. Regardless of his abilities. Though Remember we elected John F. Kennedy over all the cries about HIS faith as a Catholic. Then it turned out he was a pretty damn strong President for the short time he got to exercise that Presidency, though he could not keep his dick in his pants. Nor could any of his brothers (we don't know much about the oldest who got shot down in WW2).
"So -- I am not decided, BUT will vote Republican I'm sure. I WILL Vote!! Otherwise I cannot bitch. And NOT for a Democrat unless one suddenly emerges out of the bushes who is unlike any since possibly Harry Truman.
"I cannot imagine either Hillary or Obama being in the White House -- though I admit it is a Definite possibility. God!!! And then there is Edwards.
"The Dems are riding a wave of Public sentiment, (totally understandable with the record of our current Pres) and taking all the advantage of that which they can. They are doing well too. Maybe Gloating. But doing well, in MY opinion, at the expense of the best interests of our Nation. That expense will become VERY expensive in terms of our place in this world because the Democrats just either do not understand, or do not care, about World Realities. WR is a term I just coined, but it is very pertinent. World equals this planet. Realities equals the entire history of the evolution of the species and the survival of the fittest----the Best able and equipped to lead/take over/ command/ whatever.
"No Democrat currently running for President meets the criteria to lead out country in my opinion. I am not sure right now that any Republican does either, other than McCain. but I'm not sure he would take us on the right path.
"Not that I myself know the right path. I guess only Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck do.
"We are in trouble. So all I can say is DO vote, but do so with the Utmost concern and thought about what may come about because of Your vote.
"YES -- your vote DOES count."
. . . and my follw-up:
I remain demonstrably neutral and non-committal. I see goodness in about half the candidates from both parties . . . even Hillary. It is the extremes of both parties that scare the bloody hell out of me -- Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, et al. In Kansas, only voters registered in a particular party are allowed to vote in primaries; so, I must wait to the general election to make my selection. And, I have not missed voting in a general election since I became eligible to vote, and I do not intend to miss any now. I have voiced my opinion of John McCain; my opinion remains unchanged; in John, we share a common view . . . at least in the part you have offered.
One additional thought . . . Jimmy Carter was the most anti-military president in my lifetime and every President from Jimmy to and including George W. contributed to the burgeoning of Islamic fascism; at least W. had the balls to confront the bastards after the worst attack on Americans in 66 years. The security and safety of the American People and this Grand Republic are the President's primary responsibility. However, using the fear of war to carry out a domestic social agenda and divisive party politics is not acceptable.
. . . the third round:
"Same here as to voting in Primaries.
"Generally speaking, the extremists do not scare me because I believe they cannot win.
"I agree pretty much with what you say about Carter, and all your stuff after that. The present Bush started out fairly strong, then got whiff of how much power he really did have and began to go overboard in what he did and how he ignored advice from his advisors and others. SO -- he has, in MY mind, screwed himself as far as any great legacy is concerned. Maybe 50-100 years down the line we will have to re-think that. I won't be here to do that."
. . . and my reply to round three:
The extreme candidates like Dennis the Menace don’t scare me either; they are quite humorous and great entertainment. However, the extremes of each party (the power brokers) have far more and disproportionate influence on the primary process, which in turn virtually destroys moderates like John McCain. Given a race between John McCain and Hillary Clinton, I think we could safely predict the outcome, barring a major goof. The broadest contrast might be Dennis Kucinich and Sam Brownback, in which case, we would have a far more polarized country than we already have; and for moderate, independents like me, a definite vote for the lesser of two evils.
Yes, I think W. started out with good intentions, but those around him stoked his sense of secrecy, autonomy and ultimately led to his arrogance after 9/11. Franklin Roosevelt had unprecedented power for a President, and yet, he continued to work hard to garner support even among his most ardent opponents. Winston Churchill sought and led a coalition war cabinet including all the major party players – the equivalent of having Hillary in his cabinet. Even Bill Clinton tried to include Republicans in his cabinet, e.g., Bill Cohen at SecDef. Unfortunately, W. began believing his own press releases, and none of his chosen lieutenants would tell him his new clothes left him naked.
Another contributor passed along this observation from an unknown source:
"President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq. Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII. It is not. Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression."
My response:
All true and accurate. There are several elements to his failure:
1. Failure to seek and obtain a full declaration of war.
2. Blind loyalty to men who were wrong for the job + time.
3. Failure to mobilize the Nation for war.
4. Allowing war on the cheap or measured response.
5. Allowing, perhaps even encouraging, a pervasive arrogance of power, i.e., he was a war President and no longer needed to find compromise with Congress.
6. Almost intentional alienation of the opposition party virtually guaranteed a hostile Congress.
I could go on, but those are the big ones in my eyes.
. . . with this follow-up:
"Tough job as President ... wonder how any other one would have handled the 911 situation. Hopefully, we won't have to find out in the next years to come!"
. . . with my follow-up reply:
Toughest job, perhaps.
Interesting speculation. I would like to think others of an earlier generation as well as our own would have taken the same action, but I strongly suspect they would have also quietly found the means to build a coalition government, publicly united against our enemy – that is the real power of political leadership.
[A contributor offered this quote from Thomas Sowell in Patriot Post Vol.07 No.32 -- 08 August 2007]
“The real problem is that the political incentives are to spend the taxpayers’ money on things that will enhance politicians’ chances of getting re-elected. There may be enough money available to maintain bridges and other infrastructure but that same money can have a bigger political pay-off if spent building something new instead of maintaining and repairing existing structures.”
"COMMENT: politicians seem to be able to turn any disaster into a reason to raise taxes: Minnesota just spent 2 million dollars on rerouting a proposed light rail system around some walking paths that aren’t being used but 'will be in the future.' Minnesota has several million dollars in surplus and is building new stadiums, playing fields, and light rail – all with surplus tax dollars but they might have to raise gasoline taxes to pay for bridge repairs."
My response:
We don’t always get our priorities straight, and so many of the states look to Big Daddy Warbucks to bail them out. It is a genuine mess.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
"My point is that while it may or may not be true of John. Many people get into politics for the $$$ it may bring them, often in entirely legitimate ways, if they can just get elected.
"There are almost NO 'poor' Senators and Congressmen. Even if they had little actual wealth when they first ran for office."
My reply:
I could not agree more. Well said, spot on, and to the point. The disclosure information is far more than I recall any other candidate giving; and, far more than I've ever made in my non-private disclosures. Some of it is quite sensitive, I'd say. We could be surprised by his primary performance, but I suspect the uber-Right faction of the Republican Party cannot accept the kind of man he is. The Nation shall be lesser for it.
. . . with this follow-up:
"At this moment I believe that of the Republican candidates (the only ones I would vote for), McCain is likely the best qualified to be President. Giuliani is a great manager and personable leader who is riding his fame as the man on the spot during 9/11 to a possible place in history as President. But I do not think that ANY way his credentials qualify him for the job. Romney is handsome, personable, likeable, and has at least run a State. But his religion most likely will be his killer. Would not be for ME but I think it will be for him. Regardless of his abilities. Though Remember we elected John F. Kennedy over all the cries about HIS faith as a Catholic. Then it turned out he was a pretty damn strong President for the short time he got to exercise that Presidency, though he could not keep his dick in his pants. Nor could any of his brothers (we don't know much about the oldest who got shot down in WW2).
"So -- I am not decided, BUT will vote Republican I'm sure. I WILL Vote!! Otherwise I cannot bitch. And NOT for a Democrat unless one suddenly emerges out of the bushes who is unlike any since possibly Harry Truman.
"I cannot imagine either Hillary or Obama being in the White House -- though I admit it is a Definite possibility. God!!! And then there is Edwards.
"The Dems are riding a wave of Public sentiment, (totally understandable with the record of our current Pres) and taking all the advantage of that which they can. They are doing well too. Maybe Gloating. But doing well, in MY opinion, at the expense of the best interests of our Nation. That expense will become VERY expensive in terms of our place in this world because the Democrats just either do not understand, or do not care, about World Realities. WR is a term I just coined, but it is very pertinent. World equals this planet. Realities equals the entire history of the evolution of the species and the survival of the fittest----the Best able and equipped to lead/take over/ command/ whatever.
"No Democrat currently running for President meets the criteria to lead out country in my opinion. I am not sure right now that any Republican does either, other than McCain. but I'm not sure he would take us on the right path.
"Not that I myself know the right path. I guess only Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck do.
"We are in trouble. So all I can say is DO vote, but do so with the Utmost concern and thought about what may come about because of Your vote.
"YES -- your vote DOES count."
. . . and my follw-up:
I remain demonstrably neutral and non-committal. I see goodness in about half the candidates from both parties . . . even Hillary. It is the extremes of both parties that scare the bloody hell out of me -- Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, et al. In Kansas, only voters registered in a particular party are allowed to vote in primaries; so, I must wait to the general election to make my selection. And, I have not missed voting in a general election since I became eligible to vote, and I do not intend to miss any now. I have voiced my opinion of John McCain; my opinion remains unchanged; in John, we share a common view . . . at least in the part you have offered.
One additional thought . . . Jimmy Carter was the most anti-military president in my lifetime and every President from Jimmy to and including George W. contributed to the burgeoning of Islamic fascism; at least W. had the balls to confront the bastards after the worst attack on Americans in 66 years. The security and safety of the American People and this Grand Republic are the President's primary responsibility. However, using the fear of war to carry out a domestic social agenda and divisive party politics is not acceptable.
. . . the third round:
"Same here as to voting in Primaries.
"Generally speaking, the extremists do not scare me because I believe they cannot win.
"I agree pretty much with what you say about Carter, and all your stuff after that. The present Bush started out fairly strong, then got whiff of how much power he really did have and began to go overboard in what he did and how he ignored advice from his advisors and others. SO -- he has, in MY mind, screwed himself as far as any great legacy is concerned. Maybe 50-100 years down the line we will have to re-think that. I won't be here to do that."
. . . and my reply to round three:
The extreme candidates like Dennis the Menace don’t scare me either; they are quite humorous and great entertainment. However, the extremes of each party (the power brokers) have far more and disproportionate influence on the primary process, which in turn virtually destroys moderates like John McCain. Given a race between John McCain and Hillary Clinton, I think we could safely predict the outcome, barring a major goof. The broadest contrast might be Dennis Kucinich and Sam Brownback, in which case, we would have a far more polarized country than we already have; and for moderate, independents like me, a definite vote for the lesser of two evils.
Yes, I think W. started out with good intentions, but those around him stoked his sense of secrecy, autonomy and ultimately led to his arrogance after 9/11. Franklin Roosevelt had unprecedented power for a President, and yet, he continued to work hard to garner support even among his most ardent opponents. Winston Churchill sought and led a coalition war cabinet including all the major party players – the equivalent of having Hillary in his cabinet. Even Bill Clinton tried to include Republicans in his cabinet, e.g., Bill Cohen at SecDef. Unfortunately, W. began believing his own press releases, and none of his chosen lieutenants would tell him his new clothes left him naked.
Another contributor passed along this observation from an unknown source:
"President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq. Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII. It is not. Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression."
My response:
All true and accurate. There are several elements to his failure:
1. Failure to seek and obtain a full declaration of war.
2. Blind loyalty to men who were wrong for the job + time.
3. Failure to mobilize the Nation for war.
4. Allowing war on the cheap or measured response.
5. Allowing, perhaps even encouraging, a pervasive arrogance of power, i.e., he was a war President and no longer needed to find compromise with Congress.
6. Almost intentional alienation of the opposition party virtually guaranteed a hostile Congress.
I could go on, but those are the big ones in my eyes.
. . . with this follow-up:
"Tough job as President ... wonder how any other one would have handled the 911 situation. Hopefully, we won't have to find out in the next years to come!"
. . . with my follow-up reply:
Toughest job, perhaps.
Interesting speculation. I would like to think others of an earlier generation as well as our own would have taken the same action, but I strongly suspect they would have also quietly found the means to build a coalition government, publicly united against our enemy – that is the real power of political leadership.
[A contributor offered this quote from Thomas Sowell in Patriot Post Vol.07 No.32 -- 08 August 2007]
“The real problem is that the political incentives are to spend the taxpayers’ money on things that will enhance politicians’ chances of getting re-elected. There may be enough money available to maintain bridges and other infrastructure but that same money can have a bigger political pay-off if spent building something new instead of maintaining and repairing existing structures.”
"COMMENT: politicians seem to be able to turn any disaster into a reason to raise taxes: Minnesota just spent 2 million dollars on rerouting a proposed light rail system around some walking paths that aren’t being used but 'will be in the future.' Minnesota has several million dollars in surplus and is building new stadiums, playing fields, and light rail – all with surplus tax dollars but they might have to raise gasoline taxes to pay for bridge repairs."
My response:
We don’t always get our priorities straight, and so many of the states look to Big Daddy Warbucks to bail them out. It is a genuine mess.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment