Towards the end of Pres. Bush's first term there was much discussion concerning Presidential Powers. Many liberals were terrified that as a nation, we were ceding too much authority to the President. The Patriot Act and FISA were debated non-stop. Those of us on the left who argued that too many civil liberties were being encroached upon in the name of "security" were laughed at. We were stupid they said, at that time, to worry about such things. After all; if you weren't doing anything wrong, you had nothing to worry about. America had been attacked and we would stop at nothing to keep Americans safe.
Now many years later, those on the Right are suddenly concerned about these same civil liberties that the Left was warning about. Back then, it was no big deal that the FBI was infiltrating anti-war meetings to spy on the Left. Now it is a VERY BIG deal that the FBI spied on the Tea Parties. On four separate occasions during the Bush administration, legislation was offered to Congress to end term limits for the President. (A very bad idea but nobody had any objections to it.) But now that same bill (which is still stuck in committee) is a plot to make President Obama dictator for life. A report from Homeland Security (requested by the Bush Administration) warns of the dangers of domestic terrorism from Right Wing Extremists. Suddenly, the idea that "Big Brother's" watching you seems Orwellian and has nothing to do with keeping the country safe from terrorist acts but is a way to confiscate our guns.
Back then, I used to say, "Don't give President Bush any authority that you would be uncomfortable with a President Hillary Clinton having!" Now I just chuckle to myself and think, "I told you so!" as I listen to the Right scream about President Obama taking over the government and turning our country into a dictatorship that endangers their Constitutional rights!
And he could you know. Because both Democrats and Republicans gave him the means to do it way back then by voting for the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act lists the following provisions that many Americans feel infringe on civil liberties:
· INFORMATION SHARING: Allows information gained from a criminal investigation to be shared with intelligence agencies and other government departments. Sounds harmless but it allows the government to establish massive data bases on citizens who are not the target of criminal investigations.
· ROVING WIRETAPS: Allows one wiretap authorization to cover multiple devices. (I.E. Phone, cell phone, e-mail, blackberry, etc.) Many feared that the language of the act was so vague that it would lead to privacy violations on people that came into casual contact with the subject.
· ACCESS TO RECORDS: Allows almost unlimited access to business records in foreign intelligence operations. These records can include credit card records, lists of library books you have checked out, etc.
· "SNEAK & PEEK WARRANTS: These allow a suspect's home or office to be searched by the government without immediate notification. Critics of this provision argue that it is so vague that it could be used for minor crimes as well as major intelligence investigations.
· MATERIAL SUPPORT: This expanded the ban on giving assistance to terrorists to include "expert advice or assistance". The Left has always maintained that this makes "guilt by association" way too easy.
So how does this affect "Joe the Plumber" out in the "Real America"? Let's take a hypothetical example.
Joe likes collecting guns. So Joe goes to a gun show where he purchases a weapon from a dealer. He strikes up a conversation with the dealer, who seems really nice and very well informed on politics. He and the dealer exchange e-mail addresses and the dealer promises to send him some information on any new weapons he receives.
Over the next few months, Joe & the dealer exchange e-mails and phone calls. Joe even purchases a couple more weapons from the dealer. The dealer recommends some books that Joe might enjoy on politics and Survivalism. He also asks Joe for advice on a variety of subjects.
Now, unbeknownst to Joe, the dealer is also the Grand High Poobah for the Grand High Order of White Supremacists! They are secretly plotting to blow up a federal building because they are convinced that President Obama is actually a Kenyan and therefore his taxes are illegal. They are convinced that as "true Americans" it is their duty to keep America from turning Socialist.
The government has discovered this plot and they are now using provisions of the Patriot Act to look into all of the dealer's business and personal contacts. (They can do this because according to the Patriot Act, the President has the power to determine if you are an "enemy combatant", you don't have to be a foreigner to be so labeled.) During this investigation Joe the Plumber's contact with the gun dealer is discovered. And he now comes under investigation.
During a search of his home and computer, they discover a file on his computer that serves as a personal diary where he wonders if the US wouldn't be better off without Obama. He wasn't serious, just a little drunk when he typed it. Never published it or even wanted to show it to anyone. But now he is under suspicion.
E-mails show that he advised the gun dealer when asked specific questions about how to get a plumbing license. A check of credit card records show Joe has made several "payments" to the dealer. Unfortunately the dealer keeps bad books and has no records of originally owning the guns Joe bought. So it gives the appearance of Joe donating money to "the cause". Joe is guilty of offering "material support" (under the new legal definition) to the terrorists.
So Joe is picked up as an enemy combatant and "questioned" about his ties to the Grand High Order of White Supremacists. Now he has none, but they don't believe him. So they decide that he needs "extreme interrogation techniques" to make him reveal what they are certain he must know. (But don't worry....waterboarding isn't really torture!)
Now do I believe this will really happen? Of course not! But if I was as suspicious of President Obama as many on the Right are....I would be seriously rethinking the Patriot Act right now. And I am smart enough to know that in 2012 or 2016 the next President may scare me even more than President Obama scares the Right.
You see how this works. What was once heralded as legislation that would save us all from Muslim terrorists can also be used to persecute YOU for beliefs that differ from the current President. It is essential to our system of checks and balances that we give no President a power that we would not be comfortable with all presidents having.
So my question to Conservatives now is....Do you still support the Patriot Act? (Don't worry, if you're not doing anything wrong they won't bother you!)
I hope you keep in mind the next time you are worrying about how President Obama is going to come and get you....we gave him legal authority to do it. All in the name of keeping America safe!
And just in case you think my hypothetical story is really far fetched, I remind you to research the case of Steve Kurtz.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
TORTURE: A PRAGMATIC VIEW
Fox News got it wrong again! On a recent online webcast, Fox anchor Shepard Smith responded to a question regarding whether America should torture detainees for vital information by yelling, “We are America! I don't give a rat's ass if it helps. We are America! We do not f^*king torture!"
But the truth is that we in America have tortured to obtain information. We have tortured systematically in Afghanistan, Iraq and Quantanamo and it has been approved by the highest levels of government. As a nation, we are bitterly divided on whether torture is justified or not. Approximately half of all Americans believe that there are some situations that justify torture while half believe it is NEVER justified. (Interestingly enough, over 60% of Evangelical Christians believe it is justified…and the more often you attend church services the more likely you are to support torture. While the people least likely to support torture do not attend church at all.)
Conservatives will tell you that America's "enhanced interrogation techniques" are not REALLY torture. "It's not like there is any permanent damage and it's not as bad as what Muslims do to each other anyway." Conservatives tell you that ALL other countries torture. We're no different than they are. Conservatives will tell you that it's ok to torture because IT WORKS!
But the truth is that waterboarding has been called torture by Americans in the past. We have charged, tried, convicted and hung Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American troops. Japanese soldiers whose only crime was to "interrogate" Americans in order to extract information needed to save the lives of Japanese soldiers and civilians. Why is the crime different now than it was then?
And yes, other countries torture. But as my Grandmother used to say, "If everybody else jumped off a bridge, does it make it ok for you to?"
Liberals will tell you that torture lowers our moral standing in the world. It provides recruitment propoganda for terrorists. It endangers our troops in future combat by making it MORE LIKELY that they will be tortured if captured. But these are merely ideological arguments.
If your personal ideology says torture is wrong, none of the arguments from the Right will persuade you that it's ok. If your personal ideology says torture is OK you won't change your mind listening to me. Stop reading, plop down on your couch and put in the second season of "24" or a rerun of HBO's "Oz" or just log onto an internet gay bondage site. You can get your jollies without wasting time on justifying it.
Conservatives are right on only one point. Torture can work. It can get you information that is needed. So if we ignore the ideological reasons for torture, we must examine the pragmatic aspects of torture as a way of obtaining information.
Now I have admitted that torture can work. But just because it works does not mean that it is the BEST way to achieve your goals of obtaining information. There are a lot of problems that are associated with answers received from torture.
For one thing you get a lot of bad answers to go along with the truth. And that leaves you with the problem of which answers are true "threats" and which are made up stories told only to STOP the torture. Eventually you can sift through the lies, but the time and resources to track down all of these stories can be enormous. Remember all the security alerts that were issued almost weekly in 2004. Liberals thought Bush was making things up to keep people scared and voting Republican. Now it looks like the government was reacting to fake confessions from terrorists.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) has been a poster child for waterboarding. The Bush administration has claimed that huge amounts of information came from KSM's "interrogation sessions". But CIA analysts contend that most of it was lies resulting in massive wastes of resources to check out the lies. Said one former senior C.I.A. official, who read all the interrogation reports on K.S.M.,
Only 10% of the information given by KSM was true and that 10% produced NO actionable intelligence. Does that justify torture? The military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (which oversees the SEAR program that our nation's torture policies were designed from) states, "the key deficiency of physical or psychological duress is the reliability and accuracy of the information gained...A subject in pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop,". In conclusion, the document said, "the application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably the potential to result in unreliable information."
Torture also comes with the problem of what if the person you are torturing for information really doesn't know anything. What if he's innocent? The assumption has to be made that he is resisting interrogation which means he knows something which means you need to keep torturing to get the information that you think he's withholding and that he really doesn't know! It's pointless.
Take the case of Diliwar, a young Afghan who was arrested by the Afghan army for suspicion of being involved in a rocket attack against an American base. The US tortured him for information on his co-conspirators. He never gave them up. He continued to insist he was innocent. Eventually he died of injuries suffered during his interrogation. AFTER his death, it was discovered that he really was just a 120 pound, 22 year old kid who had driven his taxi into the wrong neighborhood. The Afghan military officer who turned him in was later arrested and charged with the actual rocket attack. Dilwar was a patsy! We killed him in an effort to obtain information that he never had.
The problem with torture is that it is never as clean as it is in the movies. The information you recieve is not necessarily good information. In the end, we have to ask ourselves as a nation, Is torture really an effective use of intelligence resources? Even if you have no moral objections, you need to be able to prove that the information that torture produces is worth the cost to our nation's ideals!
But the truth is that we in America have tortured to obtain information. We have tortured systematically in Afghanistan, Iraq and Quantanamo and it has been approved by the highest levels of government. As a nation, we are bitterly divided on whether torture is justified or not. Approximately half of all Americans believe that there are some situations that justify torture while half believe it is NEVER justified. (Interestingly enough, over 60% of Evangelical Christians believe it is justified…and the more often you attend church services the more likely you are to support torture. While the people least likely to support torture do not attend church at all.)
Conservatives will tell you that America's "enhanced interrogation techniques" are not REALLY torture. "It's not like there is any permanent damage and it's not as bad as what Muslims do to each other anyway." Conservatives tell you that ALL other countries torture. We're no different than they are. Conservatives will tell you that it's ok to torture because IT WORKS!
But the truth is that waterboarding has been called torture by Americans in the past. We have charged, tried, convicted and hung Japanese soldiers who waterboarded American troops. Japanese soldiers whose only crime was to "interrogate" Americans in order to extract information needed to save the lives of Japanese soldiers and civilians. Why is the crime different now than it was then?
And yes, other countries torture. But as my Grandmother used to say, "If everybody else jumped off a bridge, does it make it ok for you to?"
Liberals will tell you that torture lowers our moral standing in the world. It provides recruitment propoganda for terrorists. It endangers our troops in future combat by making it MORE LIKELY that they will be tortured if captured. But these are merely ideological arguments.
If your personal ideology says torture is wrong, none of the arguments from the Right will persuade you that it's ok. If your personal ideology says torture is OK you won't change your mind listening to me. Stop reading, plop down on your couch and put in the second season of "24" or a rerun of HBO's "Oz" or just log onto an internet gay bondage site. You can get your jollies without wasting time on justifying it.
Conservatives are right on only one point. Torture can work. It can get you information that is needed. So if we ignore the ideological reasons for torture, we must examine the pragmatic aspects of torture as a way of obtaining information.
Now I have admitted that torture can work. But just because it works does not mean that it is the BEST way to achieve your goals of obtaining information. There are a lot of problems that are associated with answers received from torture.
For one thing you get a lot of bad answers to go along with the truth. And that leaves you with the problem of which answers are true "threats" and which are made up stories told only to STOP the torture. Eventually you can sift through the lies, but the time and resources to track down all of these stories can be enormous. Remember all the security alerts that were issued almost weekly in 2004. Liberals thought Bush was making things up to keep people scared and voting Republican. Now it looks like the government was reacting to fake confessions from terrorists.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) has been a poster child for waterboarding. The Bush administration has claimed that huge amounts of information came from KSM's "interrogation sessions". But CIA analysts contend that most of it was lies resulting in massive wastes of resources to check out the lies. Said one former senior C.I.A. official, who read all the interrogation reports on K.S.M.,
“90 percent of it was total f^#king bullsh*t.”A former Pentagon analyst adds: “K.S.M. produced no actionable intelligence. He was trying to tell us how stupid we were.”
Only 10% of the information given by KSM was true and that 10% produced NO actionable intelligence. Does that justify torture? The military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (which oversees the SEAR program that our nation's torture policies were designed from) states, "the key deficiency of physical or psychological duress is the reliability and accuracy of the information gained...A subject in pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop,". In conclusion, the document said, "the application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably the potential to result in unreliable information."
Torture also comes with the problem of what if the person you are torturing for information really doesn't know anything. What if he's innocent? The assumption has to be made that he is resisting interrogation which means he knows something which means you need to keep torturing to get the information that you think he's withholding and that he really doesn't know! It's pointless.
Take the case of Diliwar, a young Afghan who was arrested by the Afghan army for suspicion of being involved in a rocket attack against an American base. The US tortured him for information on his co-conspirators. He never gave them up. He continued to insist he was innocent. Eventually he died of injuries suffered during his interrogation. AFTER his death, it was discovered that he really was just a 120 pound, 22 year old kid who had driven his taxi into the wrong neighborhood. The Afghan military officer who turned him in was later arrested and charged with the actual rocket attack. Dilwar was a patsy! We killed him in an effort to obtain information that he never had.
The problem with torture is that it is never as clean as it is in the movies. The information you recieve is not necessarily good information. In the end, we have to ask ourselves as a nation, Is torture really an effective use of intelligence resources? Even if you have no moral objections, you need to be able to prove that the information that torture produces is worth the cost to our nation's ideals!
Monday, April 27, 2009
AN OPEN LETTER TO RUPERT MURDOCH
Dear Mr. Murdoch:
Last Wednesday Sean Hannity during an interview with Charles Grodin offered to allow himself to be waterboarded for charity. Mr. Grodin immediately asked Mr. Hannity his availablity on Sunday. But unfortunately Mr. Hannity's schedule is apparently very full. On Thursday Keith Olbermann offered to donate $1,0000 for EVERY second that Hannity lasts to a charity that supports military families.
Mr. Hannity is a strong believer that waterboarding is NOT torture. He has said so repeatedly on his show. So obviously, this is not something that should bother him to do. In fact, he should jump at the chance to earn so much money for a worthy cause. (Think of it as elaborate charity baseball dunking with a member of the Spanish Inquisition as the pitcher!)
It is my hope that you will encourage Mr. Hannity to take Mr. Olbermann up on his offer.
Now it is common knowledge that when you fired Mr. Olbermann it cost your company an incredible amount of money to buy out his contract. This is the perfect opportunity for you to retrieve some of the money that you payed him for a good cause as opposed to letting it sit in Mr. Olbermann's bank account drawing interest. (Remember he offered $1,000/second. One minute of Mr. Hannity's time would be $60,000. Think he might be able to make it to two minutes? How long would Mr. Hannity have to last for you to get back ALL of your money...with interest?)
This would also allow YOUR network to be instrumental in PROVING the assertion that waterboarding is really NOT torture. The right wing will hail you as the type of news network that backs up what they say unlike those lousy liberal mainstream networks like MSNBC.
And don't forget the ratings that Sean Hannity will get. Millions of liberals who would normally prefer shooting thier television set to watching Fox news will be tuning in (with popcorn) to watch. You could probably get as much money for ads as the SuperBowl!
So please, Mr. Murdoch; USE YOUR INFLUENCE AS THE OWNER OF FOX NEWS TO PROVE TO ALL THE LIBERALS THAT WATERBOARDING REALLY ISN'T TORTURE. Sean Hannity DESERVES this opportunity!
Sincerely,
A concerned citizen wanting fair & balanced enhanced interrogation techniques!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Messages for Mr. Murdoch regarding this subject can be sent to teverett@newscorp.com.
Last Wednesday Sean Hannity during an interview with Charles Grodin offered to allow himself to be waterboarded for charity. Mr. Grodin immediately asked Mr. Hannity his availablity on Sunday. But unfortunately Mr. Hannity's schedule is apparently very full. On Thursday Keith Olbermann offered to donate $1,0000 for EVERY second that Hannity lasts to a charity that supports military families.
Mr. Hannity is a strong believer that waterboarding is NOT torture. He has said so repeatedly on his show. So obviously, this is not something that should bother him to do. In fact, he should jump at the chance to earn so much money for a worthy cause. (Think of it as elaborate charity baseball dunking with a member of the Spanish Inquisition as the pitcher!)
It is my hope that you will encourage Mr. Hannity to take Mr. Olbermann up on his offer.
Now it is common knowledge that when you fired Mr. Olbermann it cost your company an incredible amount of money to buy out his contract. This is the perfect opportunity for you to retrieve some of the money that you payed him for a good cause as opposed to letting it sit in Mr. Olbermann's bank account drawing interest. (Remember he offered $1,000/second. One minute of Mr. Hannity's time would be $60,000. Think he might be able to make it to two minutes? How long would Mr. Hannity have to last for you to get back ALL of your money...with interest?)
This would also allow YOUR network to be instrumental in PROVING the assertion that waterboarding is really NOT torture. The right wing will hail you as the type of news network that backs up what they say unlike those lousy liberal mainstream networks like MSNBC.
And don't forget the ratings that Sean Hannity will get. Millions of liberals who would normally prefer shooting thier television set to watching Fox news will be tuning in (with popcorn) to watch. You could probably get as much money for ads as the SuperBowl!
So please, Mr. Murdoch; USE YOUR INFLUENCE AS THE OWNER OF FOX NEWS TO PROVE TO ALL THE LIBERALS THAT WATERBOARDING REALLY ISN'T TORTURE. Sean Hannity DESERVES this opportunity!
Sincerely,
A concerned citizen wanting fair & balanced enhanced interrogation techniques!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Messages for Mr. Murdoch regarding this subject can be sent to teverett@newscorp.com.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR
In December of 2005, New York Times Washington Bureau Chief Phillip Taubman met with several members of Congress to discuss an upcoming story in his paper on Bush's Warrantless Wiretapping Program. Among this group was Congresswoman Nancy Harmon(D) who at the time was urging the NYT to kill the story. This Contitutionally questionable program was vital to our National Security interests she argued.
This week it was alleged that Congresswoman Harmon was caught in a NSA wiretap agreeing to intervene in a crimininal investigation of AIPAC officials. At the other end of the phone was an Isreali agent. Ironic isn't it that the defender of an unconstitutional government eavesdropping program gets caught by a wiretap.
Now, Congresswoman Harmon says, "I support, if necessary, surveillance of people in order to prevent attacks against us. But ... surveillance has to be done consistent with our laws and the Constitution. ... I want to know, by the way, if the wiretaps were legal."
She also stated, "Let's see who else was wiretapped. I mean lots of members of Congress talk to advocacy organizations. My phone is ringing off the hook in my office from worried members who are asking whether I think it could have happened to them. I think this is an abuse of power."
She wanted warrantless wiretaps....be careful what you wish for!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 21, 2001 President George Bush signed into law the Patriot Act. A response to 9/11, this statute was passed by wide margins in both the House and Senate. While many Americans on the left feared it sacrificed too many civil liberties, Democrats saw it as political suicide to vote against the bill. Republicans saw it as the ONLY way to save our country from foreign terrorists. There was much rejoicing on Fox News when it passed.
On April 15, 2009 Homeland Security issued a report that has sent the Conservative Right over the edge. It details concerns that during an Obama Presidency right wing extremists could recruit returning military personnel to commit acts of domestic terrorism. To hear the blogosphere tell it, if you are Christian, pro-life, own guns or believe in small government: storm troopers from Obama will arrive at your doorstep to make you disappear into a remote prison where you will be tortured to discover who you are working with.
The sad part of this is that while I don't think President Obama would abuse his power in such a way, legally it COULD happen. The Patriot Act gives the Government the right to detain without habeas corpus ANY suspected terrorists. And the definition of terrorist under the bill includes domestic terrorism. So technically it could happen just the way the Right fears.
All because they got the terrorism protection they wanted....be careful what you wish for!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the Bush Presidency there was a great deal of discussion concerning the powers of the presidency. I used to tell my conservative friends, "Never give President Bush power that you would be hesitant for President Hillary Clinton to also have." Now a great many people on both the Right and the Left are looking at how we have conducted our country's business. And many are not happy with what they see. The Right SHOULD fear the Patriot Act. It gives a President unbelievable power for both protection and for dictatorship. Just because you consider one president to be responsible enough for such power, gives no guarantee that the next will be as responsible.
Democrats need to keep in mind that legislation is like a blade that can cut both ways. As they write new legislation, they need to remember...BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!
This week it was alleged that Congresswoman Harmon was caught in a NSA wiretap agreeing to intervene in a crimininal investigation of AIPAC officials. At the other end of the phone was an Isreali agent. Ironic isn't it that the defender of an unconstitutional government eavesdropping program gets caught by a wiretap.
Now, Congresswoman Harmon says, "I support, if necessary, surveillance of people in order to prevent attacks against us. But ... surveillance has to be done consistent with our laws and the Constitution. ... I want to know, by the way, if the wiretaps were legal."
She also stated, "Let's see who else was wiretapped. I mean lots of members of Congress talk to advocacy organizations. My phone is ringing off the hook in my office from worried members who are asking whether I think it could have happened to them. I think this is an abuse of power."
She wanted warrantless wiretaps....be careful what you wish for!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 21, 2001 President George Bush signed into law the Patriot Act. A response to 9/11, this statute was passed by wide margins in both the House and Senate. While many Americans on the left feared it sacrificed too many civil liberties, Democrats saw it as political suicide to vote against the bill. Republicans saw it as the ONLY way to save our country from foreign terrorists. There was much rejoicing on Fox News when it passed.
On April 15, 2009 Homeland Security issued a report that has sent the Conservative Right over the edge. It details concerns that during an Obama Presidency right wing extremists could recruit returning military personnel to commit acts of domestic terrorism. To hear the blogosphere tell it, if you are Christian, pro-life, own guns or believe in small government: storm troopers from Obama will arrive at your doorstep to make you disappear into a remote prison where you will be tortured to discover who you are working with.
The sad part of this is that while I don't think President Obama would abuse his power in such a way, legally it COULD happen. The Patriot Act gives the Government the right to detain without habeas corpus ANY suspected terrorists. And the definition of terrorist under the bill includes domestic terrorism. So technically it could happen just the way the Right fears.
All because they got the terrorism protection they wanted....be careful what you wish for!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the Bush Presidency there was a great deal of discussion concerning the powers of the presidency. I used to tell my conservative friends, "Never give President Bush power that you would be hesitant for President Hillary Clinton to also have." Now a great many people on both the Right and the Left are looking at how we have conducted our country's business. And many are not happy with what they see. The Right SHOULD fear the Patriot Act. It gives a President unbelievable power for both protection and for dictatorship. Just because you consider one president to be responsible enough for such power, gives no guarantee that the next will be as responsible.
Democrats need to keep in mind that legislation is like a blade that can cut both ways. As they write new legislation, they need to remember...BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!
Sunday, April 19, 2009
TOO BIG FOR HIS BRITCHES
My grandmother was full of sage wisdom. She was always ready to identify any human folly with an old-fashioned saying that usually "hit the nail on the head". I often think of her when I read or hear of the latest rant from GOP Party Spokesman Rush Limbaugh. "Ignore the stupid" I can hear her say whenever I am tempted to express an opinon on some insane comment from Rush. For a long time, I have kept that advice. But finally, Rush has gone a little too far. His recent comments on torture and John McCain were wrong and deserve comment.
On April 17th, Rush was ranting about the release of torture memos from the Bush Administration. He was defending torture as necessary because Rush thinks torture works. To prove his point he took a former Vietnam POW's statements out of context.
Now insisting that torture works is pretty twisted. But it takes a really sick mind to try proving your point by taking a war hero's words out of context. Because John McCain does NOT think torture works. Sen. McCain has written about his experiences with torture in his book, "FAITH OF MY FATHERS". Yes, he "broke" and gave them information. It was information that they already had, was outdated or that he made up.
I am sure that the Vietnamese found this information extremely usefull! Probably as useful as all of the lies given to interrogators on Guantanamo.
Now we can argue whether torture works or not. We can discuss whether the President should have released the memos or not. What we should not do is to disrespect the service of a veteran and former POW by using his words out of context to "prove" a point the Senator disagrees with. What happened to respect for service?
As I recall, Rush and every other conservative was horrified by the disrespect showed Sen. McCain when it was suggested that being shot down did not necessarily qualify you to be president. That was a MAJOR issue at the time! Now, I may not believe that military service makes you Presidential but I do think it earns you a certain amount of respect for that service. And using the personal story of a POW who disagrees with you is certainly not showing proper respect. So how does Rush justify this? And why does no one on the Right call him out for it?
My grandmother had the perfect explanation. Rush is having so much fun being the "leader" of the party that he's gotten too big for his britches! And someone from his side of the aisle needs to call him on it.
On April 17th, Rush was ranting about the release of torture memos from the Bush Administration. He was defending torture as necessary because Rush thinks torture works. To prove his point he took a former Vietnam POW's statements out of context.
Said Limbaugh, "The idea that torture doesn’t work– that’s been put out from John McCain on down– You know, for the longest time McCain said torture doesn’t work then he admitted in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last summer that he was broken by North Vietnamese. So what are we to think here?"
Now insisting that torture works is pretty twisted. But it takes a really sick mind to try proving your point by taking a war hero's words out of context. Because John McCain does NOT think torture works. Sen. McCain has written about his experiences with torture in his book, "FAITH OF MY FATHERS". Yes, he "broke" and gave them information. It was information that they already had, was outdated or that he made up.
"Eventually, I gave them my ship’s name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant. Pressed for more useful information, I gave the names of the Green Bay Packers’ offensive line, and said they were members of my squadron. When asked to identify future targets, I simply recited the names of a number of North Vietnamese cities that had already been bombed."
I am sure that the Vietnamese found this information extremely usefull! Probably as useful as all of the lies given to interrogators on Guantanamo.
Now we can argue whether torture works or not. We can discuss whether the President should have released the memos or not. What we should not do is to disrespect the service of a veteran and former POW by using his words out of context to "prove" a point the Senator disagrees with. What happened to respect for service?
As I recall, Rush and every other conservative was horrified by the disrespect showed Sen. McCain when it was suggested that being shot down did not necessarily qualify you to be president. That was a MAJOR issue at the time! Now, I may not believe that military service makes you Presidential but I do think it earns you a certain amount of respect for that service. And using the personal story of a POW who disagrees with you is certainly not showing proper respect. So how does Rush justify this? And why does no one on the Right call him out for it?
My grandmother had the perfect explanation. Rush is having so much fun being the "leader" of the party that he's gotten too big for his britches! And someone from his side of the aisle needs to call him on it.
Monday, April 13, 2009
A BOY AND HIS DOG
Dear Senator Kennedy:
I met you once. You were speaking at a fundraiser. You are the only person I have ever heard speak who could make a cement floor vibrate with your voice. As you were leaving I watched you looking at a painting on the wall. It was one of many variations on a theme...JFK, RFK & MLK all in profile. As I watched you looking at it, I was hit with the realization of how difficult it must be to have a life as public as yours. These iconic images that grace the walls of thousands of homes across America are very real and tragic events to you. Faces that inspire us, but personal memories to you!
I have reflected often since that day on the sacrifice of public service. I think about it during every confirmation hearing that more closely resembles sharks in the water than statesmen entrusted with our country.
Truthfully, I think you have made many mistakes in your life. Mistakes both professionally and personally. That pretty much puts you on par with the rest of humanity. But unlike most of us, your life is minutely scrutinized for every mistake and every victory. I can't imagine what that costs you.
I think about you and that painting often when I watch the news coverage of the President. What an incredibly lonely job he has! I don't even want to know what it feels like to have the hopes, safety and best interests of over 300 million Americans scattered across the globe resting squarely on your shoulders....and yours alone. A responsibility magnified by the current economic collapse, two wars and an opposition party that seems more concerned with success of the party even if it is at the expense of the country.
So when I saw the photos of your present to the Obama children I was very touched. I love dogs and have two of my own. I am well aware of the importance of man's best friend to your mental health in difficult times. That's why my favorite photo was the one of a very happy President racing Bo through the halls of the White House.
I think your small, personal act of kindness may be the most magnificent gift you have given this country in your long and illustrious career. Because when times are really tough, when the most difficult decisions must be made....you have given the President a moment of refuge. And that tiny bit of escapism may serve us all for the best some day. Because dogs don't worry about world crisis, they worry about you. And regardless of whether you like or dislike the President, you want him at his best when making decisions.
Because of your kind gift, during that next crisis, for a brief moment, for the length of a 100 foot hallway...he can forget being POTUS and just enjoy being a boy and his dog.
Thank you for that Sen. Kennedy, from all of us!
Sunday, April 12, 2009
AN OPEN LETTER TO ASU PRESIDENT CROW
Dear Sir:
I wanted to take a moment of your time to question the reasons for your refusal to grant an honorary degree to Pres. Obama.
While I realize that he has many achievements to come, I also think that his current achievements far outstrip those of past honorees. After all, you have bestowed degrees upon the Canadian Prime Minister, the President of the Navajo Nation and noted humorist Erma Bombeck.
Regardless of the intent, you have caused a great deal of suspicion in the rest of the country. We see this as either racist or sour grapes. Most think it has little to do with the qualifications of the President. Please keep in mind that to many Americans who have never visited Arizona it is best known for the Grand Canyon and as the state that wouldn't celebrate Martin Luther King Day. As a visitor who loves your state, I know it not to be true. But that's based on my personal experiences and not what I have read in the news.
While I personally do not think that race played a part in your decision....others will! And the fact that you did not realize this before you announced your decision is troubling. It makes you, personally; appear to be amazingly blind to public relations. (Which one would think would be an important aspect of your job.)
Perhaps if the accomplishments of the President of the United States are not enough to bestow a degree upon him, you should have selected a different, more qualified speaker.
Regardless of your reasons, you should have realized that this will be a publicity nightmare for the University which you serve and the state in which you live. There will be very good candidates for your school who will choose other schools to attend. There will be vacationers who may prefer visiting somewhere other than the Fairmont Scottsdale this year. I will be curious to see if this alters fund raising figures for your school. I doubt the loss will be significant, but it seems foolhardy in these trying economic times to drive away any business. And your university's seemingly partisan decision must take responsibility for those losses.
All in all, this was a poorly thought out decision on the part of the committee declining to honor the President of the United States. Or it was shortsighted on the part of the committee who selected your commencement speaker. Or it reflected an incredible amount of burecratic incompetence on the part of your staff. Either way it reflects poorly upon you personally, your university and the state of Arizona.
I find it sad that you have chosen a path that leaves you open to charges of racism and political partisanship. On the up side....your graduating students will receive a memorable experience from an eloquent speaker whose' inexperience has led him to the White House in a landslide over one of your state's favorite sons. And since I have heard Sen. McCain speak, I can only say that your students are the real winners here.
I wanted to take a moment of your time to question the reasons for your refusal to grant an honorary degree to Pres. Obama.
While I realize that he has many achievements to come, I also think that his current achievements far outstrip those of past honorees. After all, you have bestowed degrees upon the Canadian Prime Minister, the President of the Navajo Nation and noted humorist Erma Bombeck.
Regardless of the intent, you have caused a great deal of suspicion in the rest of the country. We see this as either racist or sour grapes. Most think it has little to do with the qualifications of the President. Please keep in mind that to many Americans who have never visited Arizona it is best known for the Grand Canyon and as the state that wouldn't celebrate Martin Luther King Day. As a visitor who loves your state, I know it not to be true. But that's based on my personal experiences and not what I have read in the news.
While I personally do not think that race played a part in your decision....others will! And the fact that you did not realize this before you announced your decision is troubling. It makes you, personally; appear to be amazingly blind to public relations. (Which one would think would be an important aspect of your job.)
Perhaps if the accomplishments of the President of the United States are not enough to bestow a degree upon him, you should have selected a different, more qualified speaker.
Regardless of your reasons, you should have realized that this will be a publicity nightmare for the University which you serve and the state in which you live. There will be very good candidates for your school who will choose other schools to attend. There will be vacationers who may prefer visiting somewhere other than the Fairmont Scottsdale this year. I will be curious to see if this alters fund raising figures for your school. I doubt the loss will be significant, but it seems foolhardy in these trying economic times to drive away any business. And your university's seemingly partisan decision must take responsibility for those losses.
All in all, this was a poorly thought out decision on the part of the committee declining to honor the President of the United States. Or it was shortsighted on the part of the committee who selected your commencement speaker. Or it reflected an incredible amount of burecratic incompetence on the part of your staff. Either way it reflects poorly upon you personally, your university and the state of Arizona.
I find it sad that you have chosen a path that leaves you open to charges of racism and political partisanship. On the up side....your graduating students will receive a memorable experience from an eloquent speaker whose' inexperience has led him to the White House in a landslide over one of your state's favorite sons. And since I have heard Sen. McCain speak, I can only say that your students are the real winners here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)