Internet muse.
Daring, bold, never sold.
My daily weblog of politics, humor, philosophy...and a constant and nagging reminder of the existence of universal love....
Thursday, April 03, 2003
Tuesday, April 01, 2003
Monday, March 31, 2003
The Independent Online - News
DSEA/Patriot Act II:
This is why the "Anti-American" rhetoric is being passed on and abused by the NeoConservative Right and the Media that Loves Them:
Excerpt:
"If massive protests continue after U.S. bombs start pounding Iraq, expect the anti-war movement to be lambasted by President Bush’s pro-war minions. Radio and television pundits will crank up the volume, labeling protests un-patriotic and anti-American. Some may equate dissent with treason. Expect long-winded, one-sided debates on the Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN focusing on the nature of treason.
With even the mildest congressional condemnation of war with Iraq stifled, the Bush administration will take advantage of a jingoist climate and try to rush through the Justice Department’s newly drafted “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003,” aka PATRIOT Act II. This draconian measure would expand the government’s powers to gather intelligence on the home front; increased surveillance and the prosecution of American citizens could become the order of the day."
DSEA/Patriot Act II:
This is why the "Anti-American" rhetoric is being passed on and abused by the NeoConservative Right and the Media that Loves Them:
Excerpt:
"If massive protests continue after U.S. bombs start pounding Iraq, expect the anti-war movement to be lambasted by President Bush’s pro-war minions. Radio and television pundits will crank up the volume, labeling protests un-patriotic and anti-American. Some may equate dissent with treason. Expect long-winded, one-sided debates on the Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN focusing on the nature of treason.
With even the mildest congressional condemnation of war with Iraq stifled, the Bush administration will take advantage of a jingoist climate and try to rush through the Justice Department’s newly drafted “Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003,” aka PATRIOT Act II. This draconian measure would expand the government’s powers to gather intelligence on the home front; increased surveillance and the prosecution of American citizens could become the order of the day."
My Thoughts On Bush's Poorest Choice
Excerpt from My Post:
"I think we should discuss the fact that
this president was far too hasty in getting the US into this war...for the wrong reasons...based upon very bad counsel..and rest assured, I am not blind to the fact that there are sound moral reasons...for you are now witnessing a "choosing" (if you will) of a final "reason" after all the other myriad (failed)reasons were laid upon us day after day after day. I think Bush may have finally landed on a good reason to justify a perfectly horrid one.
While he may be credited in history for helping out some Iraqi citizens and creating new jobs for them (which is better than can be said about him in his own nation), we will have increased the propensity for great violence from the Islamic world toward our very own people.
Since we have entered this unwise
war-adventure, I would not wish to see Saddam Hussein stay in power.
There are perfectly sound moral reasons for his removal.(And always have been).
The poorly planned and anti-UN war is my complaint...as well as the blatant ignorance of the man that is supposed to be leading us...he has relied upon the wrong counsel...ADMITTEDLY so! He's letting his AIDES take the fall for him!! He admits he's been a puppet.
We fire brutally honest men like Peter Arnett who state the obvious (granted, I'm sure talking to Iraq TV was NOT in his contract!!)"
Link to Charlotte Observer story
Excerpt from My Post:
"I think we should discuss the fact that
this president was far too hasty in getting the US into this war...for the wrong reasons...based upon very bad counsel..and rest assured, I am not blind to the fact that there are sound moral reasons...for you are now witnessing a "choosing" (if you will) of a final "reason" after all the other myriad (failed)reasons were laid upon us day after day after day. I think Bush may have finally landed on a good reason to justify a perfectly horrid one.
While he may be credited in history for helping out some Iraqi citizens and creating new jobs for them (which is better than can be said about him in his own nation), we will have increased the propensity for great violence from the Islamic world toward our very own people.
Since we have entered this unwise
war-adventure, I would not wish to see Saddam Hussein stay in power.
There are perfectly sound moral reasons for his removal.(And always have been).
The poorly planned and anti-UN war is my complaint...as well as the blatant ignorance of the man that is supposed to be leading us...he has relied upon the wrong counsel...ADMITTEDLY so! He's letting his AIDES take the fall for him!! He admits he's been a puppet.
We fire brutally honest men like Peter Arnett who state the obvious (granted, I'm sure talking to Iraq TV was NOT in his contract!!)"
Link to Charlotte Observer story
D. Allan Kerr: Unused freedom isn’t worth much
Excerpt:
"Leaders have long known that one of the best methods of uniting a people is to have a common enemy upon which we can focus our hate, as illustrated famously in George Orwell’s "1984." A certain segment of the U.S. population seems to have a wealth of targets for their hate these days, be it the Axis of Evil, our old ally France, or Hollywood celebrities speaking out against the nation’s policy on Iraq.
Country singer Charlie Daniels, who hasn’t had a decent song in 20 years and surprised me by being alive, called these celebrities "some of the most disgusting examples of a waste of protoplasm I’ve ever had the displeasure to hear about." The other day I heard a bunch of morons on a local radio station talking about obtaining a French-made car for the sole purpose of demolishing it, in order to express their displeasure with France’s opposition to this war. I don’t know if they ever did it, because I got tired of listening to them.
These people were, at least, treating the situation as something of a joke. But when stations organize the destruction of someone’s recorded music because she has voiced an opinion on international events, it’s not just stupid, it’s scary. Hearing stories of CDs publicly destroyed and music censored sounds to me too much like the old Nazi book burnings of a few decades ago."
Excerpt:
"Leaders have long known that one of the best methods of uniting a people is to have a common enemy upon which we can focus our hate, as illustrated famously in George Orwell’s "1984." A certain segment of the U.S. population seems to have a wealth of targets for their hate these days, be it the Axis of Evil, our old ally France, or Hollywood celebrities speaking out against the nation’s policy on Iraq.
Country singer Charlie Daniels, who hasn’t had a decent song in 20 years and surprised me by being alive, called these celebrities "some of the most disgusting examples of a waste of protoplasm I’ve ever had the displeasure to hear about." The other day I heard a bunch of morons on a local radio station talking about obtaining a French-made car for the sole purpose of demolishing it, in order to express their displeasure with France’s opposition to this war. I don’t know if they ever did it, because I got tired of listening to them.
These people were, at least, treating the situation as something of a joke. But when stations organize the destruction of someone’s recorded music because she has voiced an opinion on international events, it’s not just stupid, it’s scary. Hearing stories of CDs publicly destroyed and music censored sounds to me too much like the old Nazi book burnings of a few decades ago."
Saturday, March 29, 2003
THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE WORST TACTICAL IDEAS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO LOOK LIKE YOU'RE CRUSADERS
"EVANGELICALS READY TO REBUILD IRAQ FOR CHRIST
MARK O'KEEFE, RELIGION NEWS SERVICE - Two leading evangelical Christian
relief and missionary organizations say they have teams of workers
poised to enter Iraq to address the physical and spiritual needs of its
large Muslim population. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest
Protestant denomination in the United States, and the Rev. Franklin
Graham's Samaritan's Purse said Tuesday that workers are near the Iraq
border in Jordan and are ready to go in as soon as it is safe. The
relief and missionary work is certain to be closely watched because both
Graham and the Southern Baptist Convention have been at the heart of
controversial evangelical denunciations of Islam, the world's
second-largest religion."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
"EVANGELICALS READY TO REBUILD IRAQ FOR CHRIST
MARK O'KEEFE, RELIGION NEWS SERVICE - Two leading evangelical Christian
relief and missionary organizations say they have teams of workers
poised to enter Iraq to address the physical and spiritual needs of its
large Muslim population. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest
Protestant denomination in the United States, and the Rev. Franklin
Graham's Samaritan's Purse said Tuesday that workers are near the Iraq
border in Jordan and are ready to go in as soon as it is safe. The
relief and missionary work is certain to be closely watched because both
Graham and the Southern Baptist Convention have been at the heart of
controversial evangelical denunciations of Islam, the world's
second-largest religion."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Thich Nhat Hanh:
"Fear is born from ignorance. We think that the other person is trying to take away something from us. But if we look deeply, we see that the desire of the other person is exactly our own desire—to have peace, to be able to have a chance to live. So if you realize that the other person is a human being too, and you have exactly the same kind of spiritual path, and then the two can become good practitioners. This appears to be practical for both.
The only answer to fear is more understanding. And there is no understanding if there is no effort to look more deeply to see what is there in our heart and in the heart of the other person. The Buddha always reminds us that our afflictions, including our fear and our desiring, are born from our ignorance. That is why in order to dissipate fear, we have to remove wrong perception."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
"Fear is born from ignorance. We think that the other person is trying to take away something from us. But if we look deeply, we see that the desire of the other person is exactly our own desire—to have peace, to be able to have a chance to live. So if you realize that the other person is a human being too, and you have exactly the same kind of spiritual path, and then the two can become good practitioners. This appears to be practical for both.
The only answer to fear is more understanding. And there is no understanding if there is no effort to look more deeply to see what is there in our heart and in the heart of the other person. The Buddha always reminds us that our afflictions, including our fear and our desiring, are born from our ignorance. That is why in order to dissipate fear, we have to remove wrong perception."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
From the "GEEZ- WHO KNEW??" Department :
--TELEGRAPH, UK - Fueled by graphic television pictures of wounded Iraqi
civilians and text messages on mobile phones, a tidal wave of fury
against Britain and America is sweeping the Arab world."
--"All these images have led Arabs with no sympathy for Saddam to rally behind his regime. "I acknowledge that Saddam is a dictator," said Hisham Bustani, a 27-year-old dentist in Amman. "But at the moment, I am with Saddam against the imperialist aggression.
"You will not find a single person here who feels differently. We are against the aggression not out of any particular sympathy with the Iraqi regime but because it violates the territory of the Arab nation and Islam."--
Go to link for full story
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Related story about Arab Fury
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC27Ak05.html
The 'Palestinization' of Iraq
By Pepe Escobar
EXCERPT:
"One of the most extraordinary developments of the war so far is how the resistance of the Iraqi population against a foreign invasion has galvanized this sentiment of anger in the Arab world. "We are all Palestinians now," as a Bedouin taxi driver puts it."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
--TELEGRAPH, UK - Fueled by graphic television pictures of wounded Iraqi
civilians and text messages on mobile phones, a tidal wave of fury
against Britain and America is sweeping the Arab world."
--"All these images have led Arabs with no sympathy for Saddam to rally behind his regime. "I acknowledge that Saddam is a dictator," said Hisham Bustani, a 27-year-old dentist in Amman. "But at the moment, I am with Saddam against the imperialist aggression.
"You will not find a single person here who feels differently. We are against the aggression not out of any particular sympathy with the Iraqi regime but because it violates the territory of the Arab nation and Islam."--
Go to link for full story
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Related story about Arab Fury
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EC27Ak05.html
The 'Palestinization' of Iraq
By Pepe Escobar
EXCERPT:
"One of the most extraordinary developments of the war so far is how the resistance of the Iraqi population against a foreign invasion has galvanized this sentiment of anger in the Arab world. "We are all Palestinians now," as a Bedouin taxi driver puts it."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
TOO ILLEGIT NOT TO QUIT!
HALLIBURON' S OUT *well..for the most obvious part, anyhow*
Halliburton out of the running
Dick Cheney's former employer won't have lead role in reconstructing Iraq
March 28, 2003: 7:45 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Halliburton, the energy and construction company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, is no longer in the running for a $600 million contract to rebuilt post-war Iraq, according to the United States Agency for International Development.
The development is likely to spare Cheney, who was Halliburton's CEO from 1995-2000, and the Bush administration from conflict-of-interest criticism.
A spokesperson for USAID, Ellen Yount, said there are two remaining firms bidding on the contract. No decision has been made on who will be awarded it, she said.
Halliburton, which declined to comment, could still be awarded a sub-contractor role.
Newsweek reported that it was unclear whether Halliburton took itself out of the running for the contract, was asked by the Bush administration to do so, or whether its bid was simply not deemed competitive." ****HMMM...I WONDER WHICH?****
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HALLIBURON' S OUT *well..for the most obvious part, anyhow*
Halliburton out of the running
Dick Cheney's former employer won't have lead role in reconstructing Iraq
March 28, 2003: 7:45 PM EST
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Halliburton, the energy and construction company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, is no longer in the running for a $600 million contract to rebuilt post-war Iraq, according to the United States Agency for International Development.
The development is likely to spare Cheney, who was Halliburton's CEO from 1995-2000, and the Bush administration from conflict-of-interest criticism.
A spokesperson for USAID, Ellen Yount, said there are two remaining firms bidding on the contract. No decision has been made on who will be awarded it, she said.
Halliburton, which declined to comment, could still be awarded a sub-contractor role.
Newsweek reported that it was unclear whether Halliburton took itself out of the running for the contract, was asked by the Bush administration to do so, or whether its bid was simply not deemed competitive." ****HMMM...I WONDER WHICH?****
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HOWARD DEAN IN WASHINGTON TIMES TODAY
Democrat catches antiwar wave
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Former Gov. Howard Dean is riding a surge of strong antiwar support for the Democratic presidential nomination, and the latest polls show him running even in New Hampshire with his party's front-runner, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. Top Stories
Democratic strategists and pollsters say the Vermont liberal's swift rise in the polls in the nation's first presidential primary state is due entirely to his opposition to President Bush's war in Iraq.
"There is absolutely no question that the war is what's fueling his jump in the polls. Our polling not only shows very good numbers for him in New Hampshire, but also the potential to grow," said John Zogby, who is polling extensively in the early primary states.
"In addition to the candidate horse-race questions in Iowa and New Hampshire, we've matched nameless candidate positions on the issues and clearly what Democratic voters say they want is a candidate who is unequivocally against the war," Mr. Zogby said.
But in a telephone interview as he was driving to a campaign appearance in Iowa, Mr. Dean said, "I truly don't believe that my antiwar position is drawing people to me. I think that gets people's attention and I'd say that about 50 percent of the Democrats are against the war.
"But that's not what's fueling the candidacy. There are other candidates that are against the war. I think it allows people to give me a look that might not ordinarily look at me," the former Vermont governor said.
What Democrats like about him "was the willingness to be a Democrat again. They want you to stand up and be proud of what we Democrats have traditionally stood for, things like health insurance," he said.
Still, Mr. Dean has made his opposition to the war the centerpiece of his campaign. He has been aggressively attacking his nearest rivals in the race for supporting the president's war to topple Saddam Hussein from power.
Mr. Dean has said that the campaign in Iraq is "the wrong war at the wrong time." He said that he would not have voted for the war resolution in Congress that his rivals for the nomination helped to pass last year.
More recently, Mr. Dean has focused all of his attacks on Mr. Kerry, accusing the senator of straddling the issue of war in Iraq and deliberately trying to obscure his continued support for Mr. Bush's military policies.
"I think everybody has made themselves clear except John," Mr. Dean said at a campaign appearance in Iowa earlier this week. "Senator Kerry to this day continues to be ambivalent about his position."
Mr. Dean, who began his campaign more than a year ago, has made more than 40 trips into neighboring New Hampshire, running in part on his opposition to war with Iraq, his support for universal health insurance and calling for the repeal of Mr. Bush's tax cuts. He remained in the middle tier in the polls until last week when the U.S.-led war against Iraq began. That's when his poll numbers shot up by 6 points and moved him to within 1 point of Mr. Kerry, who leads with 23 percent.
Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri is in third place with 15 percent, followed by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut at 12 percent. The other candidates are in the low single digits, according to a survey of 600 registered Democratic voters by the American Research Group that was taken between March 16 and 19.
Mr. Dean has criticized not only Mr. Kerry, but also Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards were overheard recently on the Senate floor complaining about Mr. Dean's attacks and have been mounting a counterattack that is giving their little-known rival even more visibility in the crowded field of nine candidates.
"Senator Kerry has been clear and consistent on his policy on Iraq and many Democrats are disappointed Howard Dean has decided to put politics first and attack other candidates in a negative, divisive and personal way," Kerry spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday.
Mr. Dean refused to respond to Mr. Gibbs' criticism.
The biggest political hurdle that Mr. Dean will have to clear in the months ahead will be getting enough campaign contributions to compete with the heavy fund raising that Mr. Kerry's advisers say he has been drawing lately. Democratic fund-raisers say Mr. Kerry could easily raise the $40 million that it will take to finance a national campaign for the nomination.
Even so, Mr. Dean believes that an effective message — and not money — will be the critical factor in the 2004 primary contests.
"We're raising money and we'll raise a significant amount of money, about $10 million by the end of the year, but money can't buy exciting the Democratic base," he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Democrat catches antiwar wave
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Former Gov. Howard Dean is riding a surge of strong antiwar support for the Democratic presidential nomination, and the latest polls show him running even in New Hampshire with his party's front-runner, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. Top Stories
Democratic strategists and pollsters say the Vermont liberal's swift rise in the polls in the nation's first presidential primary state is due entirely to his opposition to President Bush's war in Iraq.
"There is absolutely no question that the war is what's fueling his jump in the polls. Our polling not only shows very good numbers for him in New Hampshire, but also the potential to grow," said John Zogby, who is polling extensively in the early primary states.
"In addition to the candidate horse-race questions in Iowa and New Hampshire, we've matched nameless candidate positions on the issues and clearly what Democratic voters say they want is a candidate who is unequivocally against the war," Mr. Zogby said.
But in a telephone interview as he was driving to a campaign appearance in Iowa, Mr. Dean said, "I truly don't believe that my antiwar position is drawing people to me. I think that gets people's attention and I'd say that about 50 percent of the Democrats are against the war.
"But that's not what's fueling the candidacy. There are other candidates that are against the war. I think it allows people to give me a look that might not ordinarily look at me," the former Vermont governor said.
What Democrats like about him "was the willingness to be a Democrat again. They want you to stand up and be proud of what we Democrats have traditionally stood for, things like health insurance," he said.
Still, Mr. Dean has made his opposition to the war the centerpiece of his campaign. He has been aggressively attacking his nearest rivals in the race for supporting the president's war to topple Saddam Hussein from power.
Mr. Dean has said that the campaign in Iraq is "the wrong war at the wrong time." He said that he would not have voted for the war resolution in Congress that his rivals for the nomination helped to pass last year.
More recently, Mr. Dean has focused all of his attacks on Mr. Kerry, accusing the senator of straddling the issue of war in Iraq and deliberately trying to obscure his continued support for Mr. Bush's military policies.
"I think everybody has made themselves clear except John," Mr. Dean said at a campaign appearance in Iowa earlier this week. "Senator Kerry to this day continues to be ambivalent about his position."
Mr. Dean, who began his campaign more than a year ago, has made more than 40 trips into neighboring New Hampshire, running in part on his opposition to war with Iraq, his support for universal health insurance and calling for the repeal of Mr. Bush's tax cuts. He remained in the middle tier in the polls until last week when the U.S.-led war against Iraq began. That's when his poll numbers shot up by 6 points and moved him to within 1 point of Mr. Kerry, who leads with 23 percent.
Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri is in third place with 15 percent, followed by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut at 12 percent. The other candidates are in the low single digits, according to a survey of 600 registered Democratic voters by the American Research Group that was taken between March 16 and 19.
Mr. Dean has criticized not only Mr. Kerry, but also Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.
Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards were overheard recently on the Senate floor complaining about Mr. Dean's attacks and have been mounting a counterattack that is giving their little-known rival even more visibility in the crowded field of nine candidates.
"Senator Kerry has been clear and consistent on his policy on Iraq and many Democrats are disappointed Howard Dean has decided to put politics first and attack other candidates in a negative, divisive and personal way," Kerry spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday.
Mr. Dean refused to respond to Mr. Gibbs' criticism.
The biggest political hurdle that Mr. Dean will have to clear in the months ahead will be getting enough campaign contributions to compete with the heavy fund raising that Mr. Kerry's advisers say he has been drawing lately. Democratic fund-raisers say Mr. Kerry could easily raise the $40 million that it will take to finance a national campaign for the nomination.
Even so, Mr. Dean believes that an effective message — and not money — will be the critical factor in the 2004 primary contests.
"We're raising money and we'll raise a significant amount of money, about $10 million by the end of the year, but money can't buy exciting the Democratic base," he said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Friday, March 28, 2003
THE BEST OPINION I'VE READ TODAY!
On Native Ground
A DUTY TO SPEAK UP
by Randolph T. Holhut
American Reporter Correspondent
Dummerston, Vt.
DUMMERSTON, Vt. -- Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle expressed the views of many in America when he said: "I am saddened that this President failed so miserably
at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life, because this President couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."
Predictably, the Republicans went berserk over this mild criticism of the failure of the Bush administration to avoid war.
"Is Tom Daschle the official Democrat hatchet-man or just a taxpayer-funded pundit?" House Majority Leader Tom DeLay asked. "Fermez la bouche, Monsieur Daschle."
House Speaker Dennis Hastert said he that he "was disappointed to see his comments. Those comments may not undermine the President as he leads us into war, and they may not give comfort to our adversaries, but they come mighty close."
We'll hear lots more comments like that in the coming days. We're all supposed to shut up and support this war.
My response to this kind of thinking is simple.
I will not keep quiet as I watch the land that I love turn into a rogue nation.
I will not keep quiet as I watch scheming men profit economically and politically from blood shed by others.
I will not keep quiet as I watch as nearly six decades of international law and institutions are crushed in an effort to bring a Pax Americana to the world.
I will not keep quiet as I watch my government manipulate the fears of the citizenry to grab more power for itself.
I will not keep quiet as we wage a war that is - by any objective standard - unjust, immoral, illegal and just plain stupid.
And I will not allow anyone to attempt to silence me, for I and others who are opposed to this unjust, immoral, illegal and stupid war still have the right to dissent and the obligation to speak up when our nation is doing something that is terribly, terribly wrong.
Dissent is the essence of democracy. The suppression of dissent is the essence of tyranny. Those who wish to shut up those who oppose this war do democracy a disservice.
This is a frightening time. Dissent is rarely appreciated in times of peace, but it is equated with treason in a time of war. We are but one terror attack away from martial law and a suspension of the Constitutional guarantees that have been in place for more than two centuries. And that attack became more likely to happen the moment the bombs and cruise missiles started falling on Baghdad.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the federal government has room to scale back individual rights during wartime without violating the Constitution.
"The Constitution just sets minimums," Scalia said after a speech at John Carroll University in suburban Cleveland. "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."
Scalia didn't say what rights he believed are constitutionally protected, but said that in wartime, "the protections will be ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum."
Given the record of Scalia and his conservative allies on the Supreme Court, I would say that the Bush administration has a blank check to do whatever it wishes to our civil liberties in the name of national security.
But we don't have to see this happen. It's not over yet.
The former governor of my adopted state of Vermont, Howard Dean, made these remarks after Bush's Mar. 17 speech that started the final countdown to Gulf War II. Dean is one of the few Democrats running for president that has the guts to challenge the Bush administration on this stupid war. Dean's remarks are words all of us should remember in the coming weeks.
"Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam 'unsuitable, immoral and intolerable.'
"This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced - this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so."
As will I. And, I hope, as will every other American who right now is grieving for the death of the principles that once guided this once-great nation.
Randolph T. Holhut has been a journalist in New England for more than 20 years. He edited "The George Seldes Reader" (Barricade Books).
Copyright 2003 Joe Shea The American Reporter. All Rights Reserved.
On Native Ground
A DUTY TO SPEAK UP
by Randolph T. Holhut
American Reporter Correspondent
Dummerston, Vt.
DUMMERSTON, Vt. -- Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle expressed the views of many in America when he said: "I am saddened that this President failed so miserably
at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life, because this President couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."
Predictably, the Republicans went berserk over this mild criticism of the failure of the Bush administration to avoid war.
"Is Tom Daschle the official Democrat hatchet-man or just a taxpayer-funded pundit?" House Majority Leader Tom DeLay asked. "Fermez la bouche, Monsieur Daschle."
House Speaker Dennis Hastert said he that he "was disappointed to see his comments. Those comments may not undermine the President as he leads us into war, and they may not give comfort to our adversaries, but they come mighty close."
We'll hear lots more comments like that in the coming days. We're all supposed to shut up and support this war.
My response to this kind of thinking is simple.
I will not keep quiet as I watch the land that I love turn into a rogue nation.
I will not keep quiet as I watch scheming men profit economically and politically from blood shed by others.
I will not keep quiet as I watch as nearly six decades of international law and institutions are crushed in an effort to bring a Pax Americana to the world.
I will not keep quiet as I watch my government manipulate the fears of the citizenry to grab more power for itself.
I will not keep quiet as we wage a war that is - by any objective standard - unjust, immoral, illegal and just plain stupid.
And I will not allow anyone to attempt to silence me, for I and others who are opposed to this unjust, immoral, illegal and stupid war still have the right to dissent and the obligation to speak up when our nation is doing something that is terribly, terribly wrong.
Dissent is the essence of democracy. The suppression of dissent is the essence of tyranny. Those who wish to shut up those who oppose this war do democracy a disservice.
This is a frightening time. Dissent is rarely appreciated in times of peace, but it is equated with treason in a time of war. We are but one terror attack away from martial law and a suspension of the Constitutional guarantees that have been in place for more than two centuries. And that attack became more likely to happen the moment the bombs and cruise missiles started falling on Baghdad.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the federal government has room to scale back individual rights during wartime without violating the Constitution.
"The Constitution just sets minimums," Scalia said after a speech at John Carroll University in suburban Cleveland. "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."
Scalia didn't say what rights he believed are constitutionally protected, but said that in wartime, "the protections will be ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum."
Given the record of Scalia and his conservative allies on the Supreme Court, I would say that the Bush administration has a blank check to do whatever it wishes to our civil liberties in the name of national security.
But we don't have to see this happen. It's not over yet.
The former governor of my adopted state of Vermont, Howard Dean, made these remarks after Bush's Mar. 17 speech that started the final countdown to Gulf War II. Dean is one of the few Democrats running for president that has the guts to challenge the Bush administration on this stupid war. Dean's remarks are words all of us should remember in the coming weeks.
"Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam 'unsuitable, immoral and intolerable.'
"This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced - this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so."
As will I. And, I hope, as will every other American who right now is grieving for the death of the principles that once guided this once-great nation.
Randolph T. Holhut has been a journalist in New England for more than 20 years. He edited "The George Seldes Reader" (Barricade Books).
Copyright 2003 Joe Shea The American Reporter. All Rights Reserved.
U.S. becoming censored police state?
A Tough time in America for Musicians
Soldiers at the Door
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!
March 27, 2003
EXCERPTS:
One day after performing at an anti-war rally, relatives of one of Franti's bandmates got an unexpected visitor. Franti told Democracy Now!:
"His mother received a visit from two plain clothes men from the military and this band member of mine has a sibling who is in the gulf. And they came in and talked to her and said you have a child who's in the Gulf and you have a child who's in this band Spearhead who's part of the 'resistance' in their words. They had pictures of us performing the day before at the rally, they had pictures of us performing at some of our annual concerts that we put on that are in support of peace and human rights."
"They had his flight records for the past several months, they had the names of everybody who works in my office, our management office Guerilla Management, they had his checking account records. They asked his mother a lot of questions about where he was, what he was doing in this place, why he was going here. They confiscated his sibling's CD collection that they had brought over to listen to while they were in the Gulf, and basically were intimidating, told her which members of the press she could talk to and which members of the press she should not speak to…"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And for musicians in particular it's a really hard time. Last week our label received a letter, a mass email from MTV instructing the fact that no videos could be shown that mentioned the words "bombing" or "war." No videos could be shown that had protesters in it. Any footage from military – they gave a list of prior videos that could not be shown, yet MTV has aired videos that show troops saying goodbye to their loved ones and going off to war in a very heroic fashion and troops which are gonna be coming home traumatized, wounded and dead and then be treated and thrown onto the scrap heap of veterans, as we've seen veterans treated in this country.
And at the Academy Awards, there were also letters and talk that went around saying not to speak out. Radio – mainstream radio, Clear Channel in particular, of course – has put the word out not to air songs that are in opposition to the war and in support of peace. Meanwhile, our song "Bomb Da World" which we just put out is now in heavy rotation on a top youth radio station in Australia and in Denmark and it's expected to get added to a lot of stations in other countries.
A few days ago, Democracy Now correspondent Jeremy Scahill and I were at the Ani DiFranco concert at the New Jersey Performing Arts Center to talk about Democracy Now and the importance of independent media in a time of war, just before she went on. And Clear Channel, which owns New Jersey Performing Arts Center, runs that venue, told her no political information could be given out and threatened – it seemed the venue threatened to close down the concert if there was any political speech.
It's incredible, it's outrageous and I think it's something that we all need to be aware of and need to support the art, you know, whether it's music, whether it's films, whether it's dance performances or whatever, this is the last place, apart from Pacifica and a few other stations around the country, where these voices are being heard.
And Clear Channel that runs 1,200 radio stations now, runs many of the big venues in this country for musicians.
So it's important that we call these stations and demand that these voices be heard."
A Tough time in America for Musicians
Soldiers at the Door
By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!
March 27, 2003
EXCERPTS:
One day after performing at an anti-war rally, relatives of one of Franti's bandmates got an unexpected visitor. Franti told Democracy Now!:
"His mother received a visit from two plain clothes men from the military and this band member of mine has a sibling who is in the gulf. And they came in and talked to her and said you have a child who's in the Gulf and you have a child who's in this band Spearhead who's part of the 'resistance' in their words. They had pictures of us performing the day before at the rally, they had pictures of us performing at some of our annual concerts that we put on that are in support of peace and human rights."
"They had his flight records for the past several months, they had the names of everybody who works in my office, our management office Guerilla Management, they had his checking account records. They asked his mother a lot of questions about where he was, what he was doing in this place, why he was going here. They confiscated his sibling's CD collection that they had brought over to listen to while they were in the Gulf, and basically were intimidating, told her which members of the press she could talk to and which members of the press she should not speak to…"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And for musicians in particular it's a really hard time. Last week our label received a letter, a mass email from MTV instructing the fact that no videos could be shown that mentioned the words "bombing" or "war." No videos could be shown that had protesters in it. Any footage from military – they gave a list of prior videos that could not be shown, yet MTV has aired videos that show troops saying goodbye to their loved ones and going off to war in a very heroic fashion and troops which are gonna be coming home traumatized, wounded and dead and then be treated and thrown onto the scrap heap of veterans, as we've seen veterans treated in this country.
And at the Academy Awards, there were also letters and talk that went around saying not to speak out. Radio – mainstream radio, Clear Channel in particular, of course – has put the word out not to air songs that are in opposition to the war and in support of peace. Meanwhile, our song "Bomb Da World" which we just put out is now in heavy rotation on a top youth radio station in Australia and in Denmark and it's expected to get added to a lot of stations in other countries.
A few days ago, Democracy Now correspondent Jeremy Scahill and I were at the Ani DiFranco concert at the New Jersey Performing Arts Center to talk about Democracy Now and the importance of independent media in a time of war, just before she went on. And Clear Channel, which owns New Jersey Performing Arts Center, runs that venue, told her no political information could be given out and threatened – it seemed the venue threatened to close down the concert if there was any political speech.
It's incredible, it's outrageous and I think it's something that we all need to be aware of and need to support the art, you know, whether it's music, whether it's films, whether it's dance performances or whatever, this is the last place, apart from Pacifica and a few other stations around the country, where these voices are being heard.
And Clear Channel that runs 1,200 radio stations now, runs many of the big venues in this country for musicians.
So it's important that we call these stations and demand that these voices be heard."
Here's an article related to my blog entry of March 12, 2003:
Date: 2003-03-15
Is Bush Too Christian? Or Not Enough?
Scrutiny over Religion's Role in U.S. Foreign Policy
WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 15, 2003 (Zenit.org).- The United States is governed by a dangerous religious fanatic. That's how many opinion writers, domestic and foreign, are describing President George W. Bush.
For Georgie Anne Geyer, writing in the Chicago Tribune on March 7, the president's intention to invade Iraq "is based primarily on religious obsession and visions of personal grandiosity."
"The president of the United States of America," she alleged, "sees himself as part of God's divine plan."
Newsweek dedicated its March 10 cover to Bush's religiosity. And in a separate opinion article, Martin E. Marty acknowledged that "few doubt that Bush is sincere in his faith," but fretted about the president's "evident conviction that he's doing God's will."
Likewise, Jackson Lears, in a March 11 opinion article for the New York Times, worried that Bush's certitude about his carrying out "divine purpose" can promote dangerous simplifications and "slide into self-righteousness." As Lears sees it at the White House, "faith in Providence frees one from having to consider the role of chance in armed conflict, the least predictable of human affairs. Between divine will and American know-how, we have everything under control."
In the London Times on March 1, Stephen Plant wrote: "Bush's supporters have inherited the idea of manifest destiny. For them war on Iraq is not about oil, it is America's next date with salvation."
These and similar criticisms have not gone unanswered, even by Bush foes. In the New York Post on Feb. 18, E.J. Dionne noted that he doesn't have problems in criticizing the president. But he added: "Can we please stop pretending that Bush's regular invocations of the Almighty make him some sort of strange religious fanatic? In this, he is much more typically presidential than he's painted, especially by our friends abroad."
In a Business Week Online commentary, Stan Crock admitted he was not always in agreement over the president's use of religious language, but disagreed that religious fanaticism is behind White House strategy. One of the administration's leading strategists on Iraq, he observed, is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a Jew. And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not "speaking in tongues as he talks to General Tommy Franks about war plans."
Fred Barnes, in the March 17 issue of the Weekly Standard, explained that while Bush readily invokes God, he avoids mention of Jesus Christ, and calls for tolerance of all faiths. "His comments have been confined to four specific areas: comforting people in grief, citing faith's ability to improve lives, commenting on the mysterious ways of providence, and mentioning God's concern for humanity."
Road map of statecraft
Yet, some commentaries contend that Bush is setting a dangerous precedent by allowing his faith to influence foreign policy. But even if Christian principles are behind his decisions, this would be nothing new for the country.
Religion and foreign policy, in fact, have long been entwined in the United States, notes Leo P. Ribuffo in a collection of essays, "The Influence of Faith: Religious Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy," edited by Elliott Abrams and published in 2001. Ribuffo, a history professor at George Washington University, explained that foreign policy debates throughout the 19th century included religious themes such as a desire to spread Christianity and fears over undue Catholic influence.
In 1898, President William McKinley told Congress that intervention in Cuba would fulfill American aspirations as a "Christian, peace-loving people," quoted Ribuffo. During World War I a pair of prominent Presbyterians -- President Woodrow Wilson and Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan -- were "convinced that the United States had a special mission in the world," the essay noted.
Religion continued to play a part in foreign policy debates during World War II and beyond. Yet Ribuffo believes that religion had more of an indirect, and not a determining, role in foreign policy.
In another essay, Harvard professor Samuel Huntington affirms that "politics and religion cannot be disentangled." He notes the high correlation between Christianity and democracy. In many Christian and non-Christian countries, he observes, religion is central to a nation's identity, in both positive and negative forms.
Conventional wisdom in past decades has argued that U.S. foreign policy should avoid entanglement with religion, observed Mark Amstutz, political science professor at Wheaton College. But religion and religious institutions still play a vital role in people's lives. Churches and faith-based organizations also play a role, albeit indirect, in foreign policy, concludes Amstutz. Through offering ethical perspectives and moral values, churches and religious organizations can help formulate a foreign policy "road map," he notes.
A previous collection of essays, published in 1994, agreed that basing U.S. foreign policy on purely material and secular grounds, while ignoring the importance that religion plays in many countries, is a big mistake. In "Religion, the Missing Dimension of Statecraft," experts such as Edward Luttwak and Barry Rubin called for greater focus on the role of religious factors by those responsible for determining foreign policy.
To say that President Bush is motivated in part by his Christian faith does not mean that he is pursuing a policy dictated by the churches. The president worships in the Methodist Church. But, in the opinion of Bishop Melvin Talbert, the United Methodists' top ecumenical official, expressed in a Newsweek online interview March 7, "it's clear to us that he is not following the teachings of his own church or the teachings of churches that believe in a 'just war' theory."
Nor does Bush's religious belief mean that Christians will necessarily agree on political strategy. Former President Jimmy Carter, well known for his invocation of Christian principles when in power, expressed his strong disagreement with the U.S. policy regarding Iraq, in a New York Times article March 9.
Paradoxically, Bush's policy on Iraq is being strongly criticized for ignoring moral principles, while at the same time secular commentators attack him for being a religious fanatic.
Outside observers can only speculate as to how much weight religion plays in the president's decisions. What is clear is that he finds in his faith a source of personal and moral comfort and strength, along with a series of principles that help guide his actions. Other considerations -- political, economic, military, etc. -- also play a role in decisions, of course.
To argue that a politician should decide policy in a religious and moral vacuum is to ignore long-standing American traditions of its presidents and political leaders who have frequently used religious language.
Moreover, seeking to deny the legitimacy of a Christian's political involvement because of his convictions about the common good is a form of "intolerant secularism," observed the doctrinal note on religion and politicians, recently published by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Marginalizing Christianity "would threaten the very spiritual and cultural foundations of civilization," it said.
In his address Jan. 13 to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See, John Paul II observed: "In effect, the indispensable professional competence of political leaders can find no legitimation unless it is connected to strong moral convictions." Many Christian leaders -- who think U.S. policy toward Iraq needs more religious input, not less -- might agree on that point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: 2003-03-15
Is Bush Too Christian? Or Not Enough?
Scrutiny over Religion's Role in U.S. Foreign Policy
WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 15, 2003 (Zenit.org).- The United States is governed by a dangerous religious fanatic. That's how many opinion writers, domestic and foreign, are describing President George W. Bush.
For Georgie Anne Geyer, writing in the Chicago Tribune on March 7, the president's intention to invade Iraq "is based primarily on religious obsession and visions of personal grandiosity."
"The president of the United States of America," she alleged, "sees himself as part of God's divine plan."
Newsweek dedicated its March 10 cover to Bush's religiosity. And in a separate opinion article, Martin E. Marty acknowledged that "few doubt that Bush is sincere in his faith," but fretted about the president's "evident conviction that he's doing God's will."
Likewise, Jackson Lears, in a March 11 opinion article for the New York Times, worried that Bush's certitude about his carrying out "divine purpose" can promote dangerous simplifications and "slide into self-righteousness." As Lears sees it at the White House, "faith in Providence frees one from having to consider the role of chance in armed conflict, the least predictable of human affairs. Between divine will and American know-how, we have everything under control."
In the London Times on March 1, Stephen Plant wrote: "Bush's supporters have inherited the idea of manifest destiny. For them war on Iraq is not about oil, it is America's next date with salvation."
These and similar criticisms have not gone unanswered, even by Bush foes. In the New York Post on Feb. 18, E.J. Dionne noted that he doesn't have problems in criticizing the president. But he added: "Can we please stop pretending that Bush's regular invocations of the Almighty make him some sort of strange religious fanatic? In this, he is much more typically presidential than he's painted, especially by our friends abroad."
In a Business Week Online commentary, Stan Crock admitted he was not always in agreement over the president's use of religious language, but disagreed that religious fanaticism is behind White House strategy. One of the administration's leading strategists on Iraq, he observed, is Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a Jew. And Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not "speaking in tongues as he talks to General Tommy Franks about war plans."
Fred Barnes, in the March 17 issue of the Weekly Standard, explained that while Bush readily invokes God, he avoids mention of Jesus Christ, and calls for tolerance of all faiths. "His comments have been confined to four specific areas: comforting people in grief, citing faith's ability to improve lives, commenting on the mysterious ways of providence, and mentioning God's concern for humanity."
Road map of statecraft
Yet, some commentaries contend that Bush is setting a dangerous precedent by allowing his faith to influence foreign policy. But even if Christian principles are behind his decisions, this would be nothing new for the country.
Religion and foreign policy, in fact, have long been entwined in the United States, notes Leo P. Ribuffo in a collection of essays, "The Influence of Faith: Religious Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy," edited by Elliott Abrams and published in 2001. Ribuffo, a history professor at George Washington University, explained that foreign policy debates throughout the 19th century included religious themes such as a desire to spread Christianity and fears over undue Catholic influence.
In 1898, President William McKinley told Congress that intervention in Cuba would fulfill American aspirations as a "Christian, peace-loving people," quoted Ribuffo. During World War I a pair of prominent Presbyterians -- President Woodrow Wilson and Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan -- were "convinced that the United States had a special mission in the world," the essay noted.
Religion continued to play a part in foreign policy debates during World War II and beyond. Yet Ribuffo believes that religion had more of an indirect, and not a determining, role in foreign policy.
In another essay, Harvard professor Samuel Huntington affirms that "politics and religion cannot be disentangled." He notes the high correlation between Christianity and democracy. In many Christian and non-Christian countries, he observes, religion is central to a nation's identity, in both positive and negative forms.
Conventional wisdom in past decades has argued that U.S. foreign policy should avoid entanglement with religion, observed Mark Amstutz, political science professor at Wheaton College. But religion and religious institutions still play a vital role in people's lives. Churches and faith-based organizations also play a role, albeit indirect, in foreign policy, concludes Amstutz. Through offering ethical perspectives and moral values, churches and religious organizations can help formulate a foreign policy "road map," he notes.
A previous collection of essays, published in 1994, agreed that basing U.S. foreign policy on purely material and secular grounds, while ignoring the importance that religion plays in many countries, is a big mistake. In "Religion, the Missing Dimension of Statecraft," experts such as Edward Luttwak and Barry Rubin called for greater focus on the role of religious factors by those responsible for determining foreign policy.
To say that President Bush is motivated in part by his Christian faith does not mean that he is pursuing a policy dictated by the churches. The president worships in the Methodist Church. But, in the opinion of Bishop Melvin Talbert, the United Methodists' top ecumenical official, expressed in a Newsweek online interview March 7, "it's clear to us that he is not following the teachings of his own church or the teachings of churches that believe in a 'just war' theory."
Nor does Bush's religious belief mean that Christians will necessarily agree on political strategy. Former President Jimmy Carter, well known for his invocation of Christian principles when in power, expressed his strong disagreement with the U.S. policy regarding Iraq, in a New York Times article March 9.
Paradoxically, Bush's policy on Iraq is being strongly criticized for ignoring moral principles, while at the same time secular commentators attack him for being a religious fanatic.
Outside observers can only speculate as to how much weight religion plays in the president's decisions. What is clear is that he finds in his faith a source of personal and moral comfort and strength, along with a series of principles that help guide his actions. Other considerations -- political, economic, military, etc. -- also play a role in decisions, of course.
To argue that a politician should decide policy in a religious and moral vacuum is to ignore long-standing American traditions of its presidents and political leaders who have frequently used religious language.
Moreover, seeking to deny the legitimacy of a Christian's political involvement because of his convictions about the common good is a form of "intolerant secularism," observed the doctrinal note on religion and politicians, recently published by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Marginalizing Christianity "would threaten the very spiritual and cultural foundations of civilization," it said.
In his address Jan. 13 to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See, John Paul II observed: "In effect, the indispensable professional competence of political leaders can find no legitimation unless it is connected to strong moral convictions." Many Christian leaders -- who think U.S. policy toward Iraq needs more religious input, not less -- might agree on that point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PRINCE OF DARKNESS STEPS AWAY....BUT NOT FAR ENOUGH AWAY
"In a brief written statement, Rumsfeld thanked Perle for his service and made no mention of why Perle resigned. He said he had asked Perle to remain as a member of the board."
"In a brief written statement, Rumsfeld thanked Perle for his service and made no mention of why Perle resigned. He said he had asked Perle to remain as a member of the board."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)