CNN.com - Bush announces major troop realignment - Aug 16%2C 2004
I am of two minds (in case anyone wanted to know) about this troop announcement. Having served in the military in Europe during the time the Soviet Union was imploding, I can see the need to bring the troops home and leave but a token force in their place. Europe boarders are largely porous now and Russia presents little threat. It will take time to bring them home because Army and Air Force personnel were allowed to bring tier families with. It will take time to outfit U.S. bases to accommodate that many soldiers and airman and their families, not to mention the support infrastructure that must be bolstered.
As far as Korea is concerned; bad move. The country is on the verge of sometime and it isn’t good; pulling out U.S. troops at a time when the North Koreans have signaled by spotlight that they are developing nuclear weapons is just foolish. We have already started moving troops back from the DMZ (demilitarized zone), but the North has a million men under arms, and at least that many artillery pieces. Invading the South would be a small detail; just firing a few rounds over the DMZ would be enough to upset the world economy. After all South Korea has the world’s fifth largest economy and is a center for steel, automobiles, electronics, textiles, and shipbuilding. And strategically its position vis-à-vis Japan cannot be discounted or ignored; you know Japan, the country with the world’s third largest economy.
It is rumored the North Korea is soon to be in possession of six old Russian missile submarines (my guess is Delta class SSBN’s), and according to Jane’s Defense Weekly is working on an SLBM with a range of some 1000 nautical miles. If left unchecked a nuclear capable North Korea would destabilize the entire Pacific Ocean basin, from the Bearing Sea to Australia, from the Asian landmass to California.
Funny how is was imperative for use to invade Iraq because Saddam MAY have had WMD, but the other two countries that constitute the so-called Axis of Evil, that have confirmed that they have nuclear weapons programs underway, we leave well enough alone. And instead of putting more troops into South Korea as a deterrent and incentive to negotiate, we pull them out. Make sense to anyone?
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Monday, August 16, 2004
As Americans, It is Up to All of Us to be Well Informed and Thoughtful
Richard Clarke closes his much (wrongly) maligned book Against All Enemies; Inside America’s War on Terror with the following paragraph: “[a]s Americans, it is up to all of us to be well informed and thoughtful, to help out country make the right decisions in this time of testing. We all need to recommit ourselves to that ancient pledge ‘to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of American, Against All Enemies…”
I remember when Clarke, a career Civil Servant who has served under four Presidents released this book. The Republican pundits and Bush Administration officials alike, lined up in lockstep spreading all sorts of malicious trash about the man in an effort to undermine his creditability and question his motivations. Nowhere were theses attacks on Clarke more vicious then on Fox News. To a certain extent the attacks worked, insofar as not enough Americans have read this book, and took to heart its message. And we all need to read this book; that is if we truly care about our national safety.
In Against All Enemies; Inside America’s War on Terror Clarke says that he is telling a personal story, one that led him first to the Sate Department where he held a number of high ranking positions, the then to the White House where he worked the counterterrorism problem for some ten year, under three different Presidents, becoming the first Director of Counterterrorism under Clinton. If anyone knows how Usama bin Laden and his ever growing gang of murders think, it is him, and those who served with and under him. As far as I can tell he has no agenda other than the truth and the safeguarding of America.
What I learned by reading Against All Enemies; Inside America’s War on Terror is the startling, and often troubling history of our governments struggle against fundamentalist Islam, a struggle that begin with the ineffectual responses by President Reagan. I was in the military at the time the Marines barracks was bombed and could never understand why we didn’t respond to the bombing in like kind, despite the massive lose of life (what is little known is that the Marines were told not to chamber rounds in their rifels and had no clips in their guns when they were attacked). Now I understand our response, or lack thereof, and the disastrous consequences that have ensued.
Book Excerpt:
Wolfowitz fidgeted and scowled…”Well, I just don’t want understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden.”
“We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations call al Qaeda, that happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States, I answered…
Wolfowitz turned to me. “You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA failed to find the linkage doesn’t mean they don’t exist.” I could hardly believe it, but Wolfowitz was actually spouting the totally discredited Laurie Mylroie theory hat Iraq was behind the 1993 truck bomb at the World Trade Center, a theory that has been investigated for years and found to be totally untrue.
End Book Excerpt
Clarke lays it all out in easy to verify facts that paint a picture of neglect from Reagan to Bush Jr. Many Republicans have decried his treatment of Clinton in the book, stating that he let Clinton off the hook. Never mind that what Clinton did during his tenure is a matter of fact. But Clarke does not let Clinton off the hook, he is critical of the former President for not leaning on the CIA and FBI enough, and for allowing the Monica Lewinski scandal to diminish his political capital.
Critics had tented to focus on his treatment of Bush Jr., and true Clarke has few kind things to say about him, but Bush flubbing of the War against Terror are well documented. What Clarke does is give us a behind the scenes look at what Bush’s ill conceived decision to invade Iraq have done to U.S. security, and the over all War on Terror, and why after three years of fighting in Afghanistan we are not safer as a nation.
Then too Clarke writes volumes about the failures in the FBI, CIA, State Department, Justice Department etc. to take the terrorist threat seriously enough to end the incessant infighting long enough to form a united front and do something about it. And this was never more pervasive then under the current Bush Administration, where, yes, terrorism was not on the front burner until the tragedy of 9/11.
It is clear after reading the book, that our (Americans in general) ignorance of the fundamentalism Islamic movement might well be our undoing. They do have an agenda, and it is not just to kill Americans, it is world domination as absurd as that may sound. But in Against All Enemies; Inside America’s War on Terror, Clarke makes a convincing case that this is Usama’s and his followers intent, their long sought after goal, and a study of Islam and it spread at the fall of the Roman Empire will bear him out.
We are at a crucial nexus in our nation’s history. Vexing problems beset out society from within and without and this general election is perhaps the most important in our Republic’s history. I do not hide my distain for the sitting President and his Administration. I believe they have endangered this country with arrogance, inept leadership, and a plentitude of unwise decisions most of which have left the United States in a position of being scorned, ridiculed, disrespected and feared. We owe it to ourselves, or children, and each other to go into this election armed with knowledge and understanding; in short to be informed and informed well.
By writing Against All Enemies; Inside America’s War on Terror Richard Clarke has attempted to do just that, inform the American public. I implore you not to dismiss this book out of hand out of loyalty to Party; read it with an objective eye, and open mind. The future of the Republic depends on an informed electorate, be informed!
I remember when Clarke, a career Civil Servant who has served under four Presidents released this book. The Republican pundits and Bush Administration officials alike, lined up in lockstep spreading all sorts of malicious trash about the man in an effort to undermine his creditability and question his motivations. Nowhere were theses attacks on Clarke more vicious then on Fox News. To a certain extent the attacks worked, insofar as not enough Americans have read this book, and took to heart its message. And we all need to read this book; that is if we truly care about our national safety.
In Against All Enemies; Inside America’s War on Terror Clarke says that he is telling a personal story, one that led him first to the Sate Department where he held a number of high ranking positions, the then to the White House where he worked the counterterrorism problem for some ten year, under three different Presidents, becoming the first Director of Counterterrorism under Clinton. If anyone knows how Usama bin Laden and his ever growing gang of murders think, it is him, and those who served with and under him. As far as I can tell he has no agenda other than the truth and the safeguarding of America.
What I learned by reading Against All Enemies; Inside America’s War on Terror is the startling, and often troubling history of our governments struggle against fundamentalist Islam, a struggle that begin with the ineffectual responses by President Reagan. I was in the military at the time the Marines barracks was bombed and could never understand why we didn’t respond to the bombing in like kind, despite the massive lose of life (what is little known is that the Marines were told not to chamber rounds in their rifels and had no clips in their guns when they were attacked). Now I understand our response, or lack thereof, and the disastrous consequences that have ensued.
Book Excerpt:
Wolfowitz fidgeted and scowled…”Well, I just don’t want understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man bin Laden.”
“We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations call al Qaeda, that happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States, I answered…
Wolfowitz turned to me. “You give bin Laden too much credit. He could not do all these things like the 1993 attack on New York, not without a state sponsor. Just because FBI and CIA failed to find the linkage doesn’t mean they don’t exist.” I could hardly believe it, but Wolfowitz was actually spouting the totally discredited Laurie Mylroie theory hat Iraq was behind the 1993 truck bomb at the World Trade Center, a theory that has been investigated for years and found to be totally untrue.
End Book Excerpt
Clarke lays it all out in easy to verify facts that paint a picture of neglect from Reagan to Bush Jr. Many Republicans have decried his treatment of Clinton in the book, stating that he let Clinton off the hook. Never mind that what Clinton did during his tenure is a matter of fact. But Clarke does not let Clinton off the hook, he is critical of the former President for not leaning on the CIA and FBI enough, and for allowing the Monica Lewinski scandal to diminish his political capital.
Critics had tented to focus on his treatment of Bush Jr., and true Clarke has few kind things to say about him, but Bush flubbing of the War against Terror are well documented. What Clarke does is give us a behind the scenes look at what Bush’s ill conceived decision to invade Iraq have done to U.S. security, and the over all War on Terror, and why after three years of fighting in Afghanistan we are not safer as a nation.
Then too Clarke writes volumes about the failures in the FBI, CIA, State Department, Justice Department etc. to take the terrorist threat seriously enough to end the incessant infighting long enough to form a united front and do something about it. And this was never more pervasive then under the current Bush Administration, where, yes, terrorism was not on the front burner until the tragedy of 9/11.
It is clear after reading the book, that our (Americans in general) ignorance of the fundamentalism Islamic movement might well be our undoing. They do have an agenda, and it is not just to kill Americans, it is world domination as absurd as that may sound. But in Against All Enemies; Inside America’s War on Terror, Clarke makes a convincing case that this is Usama’s and his followers intent, their long sought after goal, and a study of Islam and it spread at the fall of the Roman Empire will bear him out.
We are at a crucial nexus in our nation’s history. Vexing problems beset out society from within and without and this general election is perhaps the most important in our Republic’s history. I do not hide my distain for the sitting President and his Administration. I believe they have endangered this country with arrogance, inept leadership, and a plentitude of unwise decisions most of which have left the United States in a position of being scorned, ridiculed, disrespected and feared. We owe it to ourselves, or children, and each other to go into this election armed with knowledge and understanding; in short to be informed and informed well.
By writing Against All Enemies; Inside America’s War on Terror Richard Clarke has attempted to do just that, inform the American public. I implore you not to dismiss this book out of hand out of loyalty to Party; read it with an objective eye, and open mind. The future of the Republic depends on an informed electorate, be informed!
Sunday, August 15, 2004
Outfoxed: What Liberal Media?
Where to begin? Ordinarily I would not undertake to review a documentary within the virtual walls of this forum, but Outfoxed; Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism, a film which takes an objective look at Fox News, is a one well worth heralding because its message affects us all as Americans, especially in the run-up to the crucial elections in November.
I do not regularly watch Fox News, because of three overriding reasons; 1). their slant on the news is decidedly biased towards the right; 2). the O’Reilly Factor with Bill O’Reilly, and; 3). Hannity & Colmes with Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes. I consider both O’Reilly and Hannity liars and bullies in the worst tradition of elementary School playground childhood interaction, and the rest of the major Fox News on-air personalities are not far behind.
It is an open secret that Fox News is neither “fair” or “balanced.” How can it be when Hannity opens his show with a countdown to how many days it will be until Bush is reelected, and O’Reilly regularly and habitually bullies his guest, and yells at them the shut-up, and when they don’t, has their microphones cut? I am left wondering: is this the Jerry Springer Show or a place where the issues are debated fairly and without an agenda by the host(s)? The later is true of course, O’Reilly, Hannity, Brit Hume (whom I used to respect), Geraldo Rivera (who I have never thought mush of ), and the entire Fox News organization have an agenda, and that is to be the 24-hour mouthpiece of the Republican Party and its ever increasing lean to the right of center. It is almost as if the term fair and balanced is used to mock those gullible enough to watch the news channel.
The documentary Outfoxed examines Fox News from a number of different angles, starting with its owner, openly right leaning, naturalized American citizen Rupert Murdoch owner of international News Corporation. But the documentary is not content to examine Fox News from the outside; it delves into the meat of the network, interviewing a number of former Fox News producers, and news reporters/local news anchormen, in order to get their perspective. And it dissects the methods Fox News uses to get their slanted message out to the public at large. But what I found most enlightening is how deeply entrenched Fox News is the Republican Party ethos to the exclusion of any other view point. As Outfoxed shows in glaring detail, Fox News is, once again, nothing more then the 24 hour mouth piece of the Republican Party, the same Party that regular reminds the American people that the “liberal” press is lying to us! How ironic.
The documentary points out that what Fox News is doing is worse than the old Soviet propaganda machine, because at least one knew what the Soviet government was up to: it was suppressing all other view points except its own in a bid to control the populace. What Fox News and the Republican Party are doing is far more insidious and underhanded because it clothes it right wing propaganda in the American flag and calls it news. News that heralds itself as “fair and balanced” however is anything but, even to the most causal observer who cares to pay attention to the world around them.
The most disturbing part of the documentary is when Outfoxed delves into the coverage of election night, 2000 in which Fox News network was the first to call the election in Bush’s favor despite the fact that Florida was still in contention. Fox’s declaration forced the other news organizations to follow suit in very short order, and the documentary points out that this and not the contentious court case to follow, or the war of words, nor the endless debate over counting ballots, was the main reason Bush became President. Why you might ask? Because the declaration set up an expectation, an air of finality that swayed public opinion in Bush’s direction; it is an argument that is hard to refute.
Outfoxed also goes the great lengths to paint Hannity and O’Reilly (especially O’Reilly) with a brush of reality that colors their shows with the bright colors of truth. They are, in the final analysis not journalist at all; they do not seek the truth, nor do they wish to entertain an opinion contrary to their own. They have a Right Wing Republican Party agenda and will do anything, including twisting the truth and outright lie to prove their points. Much like Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the Conservative political pendants who have little or no real journalism experience, they are in the end, arrogant, loudmouthed bullies and talking heads; mouth pieces of the Republican Party. O’Reilly is especially grating to the sensibilities. Other may find him entertaining, I find him obnoxious and insufferable.
The sort of behaviors exhibited by Fox News on-air personalities would not tolerated nor considered creditable on ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, or CNN, so why do the American people tolerate it here?
For those would cannot do without their nightly dose of Fox News and claim to love their country, Outfoxed is a documentary well worth their time to watch. And for those of us who think that truly “fair and balanced” news reporting is essential to the proper functioning of our American Republic, Outfoxed is an education in what can happen when the People and the government agency charged with the stewardship of the airwave—the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)—stop paying attention and allow cancers like Fox News to infest the very heart of our democratic process. I, for one, do not like being subtly manipulated by those with interests other then the welfare of the American people and nation in mind. Do you?
I do not regularly watch Fox News, because of three overriding reasons; 1). their slant on the news is decidedly biased towards the right; 2). the O’Reilly Factor with Bill O’Reilly, and; 3). Hannity & Colmes with Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes. I consider both O’Reilly and Hannity liars and bullies in the worst tradition of elementary School playground childhood interaction, and the rest of the major Fox News on-air personalities are not far behind.
It is an open secret that Fox News is neither “fair” or “balanced.” How can it be when Hannity opens his show with a countdown to how many days it will be until Bush is reelected, and O’Reilly regularly and habitually bullies his guest, and yells at them the shut-up, and when they don’t, has their microphones cut? I am left wondering: is this the Jerry Springer Show or a place where the issues are debated fairly and without an agenda by the host(s)? The later is true of course, O’Reilly, Hannity, Brit Hume (whom I used to respect), Geraldo Rivera (who I have never thought mush of ), and the entire Fox News organization have an agenda, and that is to be the 24-hour mouthpiece of the Republican Party and its ever increasing lean to the right of center. It is almost as if the term fair and balanced is used to mock those gullible enough to watch the news channel.
The documentary Outfoxed examines Fox News from a number of different angles, starting with its owner, openly right leaning, naturalized American citizen Rupert Murdoch owner of international News Corporation. But the documentary is not content to examine Fox News from the outside; it delves into the meat of the network, interviewing a number of former Fox News producers, and news reporters/local news anchormen, in order to get their perspective. And it dissects the methods Fox News uses to get their slanted message out to the public at large. But what I found most enlightening is how deeply entrenched Fox News is the Republican Party ethos to the exclusion of any other view point. As Outfoxed shows in glaring detail, Fox News is, once again, nothing more then the 24 hour mouth piece of the Republican Party, the same Party that regular reminds the American people that the “liberal” press is lying to us! How ironic.
The documentary points out that what Fox News is doing is worse than the old Soviet propaganda machine, because at least one knew what the Soviet government was up to: it was suppressing all other view points except its own in a bid to control the populace. What Fox News and the Republican Party are doing is far more insidious and underhanded because it clothes it right wing propaganda in the American flag and calls it news. News that heralds itself as “fair and balanced” however is anything but, even to the most causal observer who cares to pay attention to the world around them.
The most disturbing part of the documentary is when Outfoxed delves into the coverage of election night, 2000 in which Fox News network was the first to call the election in Bush’s favor despite the fact that Florida was still in contention. Fox’s declaration forced the other news organizations to follow suit in very short order, and the documentary points out that this and not the contentious court case to follow, or the war of words, nor the endless debate over counting ballots, was the main reason Bush became President. Why you might ask? Because the declaration set up an expectation, an air of finality that swayed public opinion in Bush’s direction; it is an argument that is hard to refute.
Outfoxed also goes the great lengths to paint Hannity and O’Reilly (especially O’Reilly) with a brush of reality that colors their shows with the bright colors of truth. They are, in the final analysis not journalist at all; they do not seek the truth, nor do they wish to entertain an opinion contrary to their own. They have a Right Wing Republican Party agenda and will do anything, including twisting the truth and outright lie to prove their points. Much like Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the Conservative political pendants who have little or no real journalism experience, they are in the end, arrogant, loudmouthed bullies and talking heads; mouth pieces of the Republican Party. O’Reilly is especially grating to the sensibilities. Other may find him entertaining, I find him obnoxious and insufferable.
The sort of behaviors exhibited by Fox News on-air personalities would not tolerated nor considered creditable on ABC, CBS, CNN, PBS, or CNN, so why do the American people tolerate it here?
For those would cannot do without their nightly dose of Fox News and claim to love their country, Outfoxed is a documentary well worth their time to watch. And for those of us who think that truly “fair and balanced” news reporting is essential to the proper functioning of our American Republic, Outfoxed is an education in what can happen when the People and the government agency charged with the stewardship of the airwave—the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)—stop paying attention and allow cancers like Fox News to infest the very heart of our democratic process. I, for one, do not like being subtly manipulated by those with interests other then the welfare of the American people and nation in mind. Do you?
Saturday, August 14, 2004
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Talks collapse in Iraqi holy city
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Talks collapse in Iraqi holy city Perhaps we will let the Army and Marines finsh the job this time!!
Monday, August 09, 2004
The Carpetbagger Has Landed
Keyes fires up GOP faithfulSaid Allen Keyes on Fox News on March 17, 2000:
I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn't imitate it.But that statement of principles didn’t stop Keyes, a resident of the state of Maryland, from announcing this weekend that he would run for the Senate in the state of Illinois.
When asked about this apparent hypocritical stance, Keyes explained that he was not being a hypocrite, nor violating his stated principles, because unlike Mrs. Clinton, he was “invited” to run in the state by the Republican leadership. A leadership spurned on in large part by my Congressman Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. Keyes also stated,
[w]e must continue to assert and stand tall to defend the great principles of God's authority and unalienable rights on which this nation is founded…[I]f, indeed, that land is still Illinois, then I have lived in the Land of Lincoln all my life . . . and I will be proud to call Illinois my home."
I suppose this was a weak attempt by Keyes to further justify his violation of his own principles. How can I trust a man who can so easily violate his own principles, and then invoke God’s name in his misdeed?
Now I have lived in the state of Illinois since 1995, and I have yet to visit the state south of the capitol Springfield, and I am just learning the ins and outs of the city of Chicago. How can Alan Keyes possibly get to know my state, its people, and its concerns in less then three months? He can’t and demonstrated as much this morning when addressing the Republican rally; he asked…”[w]hat do I need to know?” Shouldn’t my Senator already know what issues affect the state? Obama, who has practiced law in the state and who has been a sitting state senator for seven years, is clearly the choice for me and the citizens of the state of Illinois.
Keyes ended his speech on Sunday stating that he believed he was “duty-bound” to protect the moral principles upon which the nation was founded. And he invited the states citizens to join him because "the victory is for God." I have to wonder why God would care one way or the other whether or not Alan Keyes sits in the chambers of the United States Senate. I dare say he has much more weighty concerns on his universal mind.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Alan Keyes Picked to Run for Senate in Illinois Violating Federalist Principles
The Illinois Republican Party in a bid that speaks volumes about the level of desperation to field any candidate to run against the Democratic Party’s golden child Barack Obama, in the upcoming November general election, picked arch-conservative Alan Keyes from (gasp) the state of Maryland late last night! Keyes, if he decided to run, would challenge Obama for Illinois’s soon to be vacant junior U.S. Senate seat.
First of all it is extremely doubtful that Keyes—who has made two failed bids for the Whitehouse and advocates replacing income tax with a national sales tax among other far-fetched ideas—has any chance at winning in Illinois, a state firmly in the blue. Second, I find it amusing and very disingenuous—not to mention exceedingly hypocritical of Mr. Keyes to even consider to possibility of running in a state he is not a resident of. After all, he heaped nothing but scorn on Hillary Clinton when she ran for the open New York Senate state seat back in 2000. Said Keyes on Fox News (that bastion of fair, unbiased, and balanced reporting) on March 17, 2000,
However, Mr. Keyes, seems to believe that it might be okay him to represent the people of Illinois, (I guess Federalism is no longer in danger) even though it might not be a good idea. Keyes stated yesterday,
He went on to state,
Are we being subjected to more Republican do as I say and not as I do leadership? Is it okay to violate Federalism in the name of Republican Party prestige and pride?
First of all it is extremely doubtful that Keyes—who has made two failed bids for the Whitehouse and advocates replacing income tax with a national sales tax among other far-fetched ideas—has any chance at winning in Illinois, a state firmly in the blue. Second, I find it amusing and very disingenuous—not to mention exceedingly hypocritical of Mr. Keyes to even consider to possibility of running in a state he is not a resident of. After all, he heaped nothing but scorn on Hillary Clinton when she ran for the open New York Senate state seat back in 2000. Said Keyes on Fox News (that bastion of fair, unbiased, and balanced reporting) on March 17, 2000,
I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there. So I certainly wouldn't imitate it.
However, Mr. Keyes, seems to believe that it might be okay him to represent the people of Illinois, (I guess Federalism is no longer in danger) even though it might not be a good idea. Keyes stated yesterday,
I do not take it for granted that it's a good idea to parachute into a state and go into a Senate race…[a]s a matter of principle, I don't think it's a good idea.
He went on to state,
I think they have thrown down a gauntlet of national challenge to the Republican Party of the state of Illinois.
Are we being subjected to more Republican do as I say and not as I do leadership? Is it okay to violate Federalism in the name of Republican Party prestige and pride?
Saturday, July 31, 2004
U.S. Shifts Stance on Nuclear Treaty (washingtonpost.com)
U.S. Shifts Stance on Nuclear Treaty (washingtonpost.com) And the arrogant disregard for the wishes of other (inferior) nations by the Bush Administration continues apace. According to the Washington Post,
How much lower does American prestige have to fall before Bush gets it? We are not alone; the United States as powerful as it is still depends on the goodwill of other nations. And the Bush Administration’s stance on this issue makes little sense even under the dim light of a Yankee Candle. What good is a nuclear proliferation treaty that cannot be verified by inspections?
It has taken ten years to negotiate this treaty, and the Bush Administration would make it all but worthless by refusing to support the inspection and verification process. They—the Bush Administration—site cost as the primary reason they wish to dump the inspection and verification process.
Since it is the U.N. that will be conducting the inspections, shouldn’t that body concern itself about the cost of the inspections? And what exactly would cost so much; the monitoring equipment, the cameras, the SUV’s, the white paint needed to cover the U.N. vehicles, the black pained needed to adorn the U.N. moniker on the doors of the vehicles, the salary of the inspectors, what? And it seems to me that the continued security of the U.S. and its allies (the ones we have left) against the continual and very real threat of nuclear proliferation would be worth any cost. Or perhaps I am being naive…perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…
…the Bush administration declared this week that it will oppose provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty that would ban production of nuclear weapons materials.
How much lower does American prestige have to fall before Bush gets it? We are not alone; the United States as powerful as it is still depends on the goodwill of other nations. And the Bush Administration’s stance on this issue makes little sense even under the dim light of a Yankee Candle. What good is a nuclear proliferation treaty that cannot be verified by inspections?
It has taken ten years to negotiate this treaty, and the Bush Administration would make it all but worthless by refusing to support the inspection and verification process. They—the Bush Administration—site cost as the primary reason they wish to dump the inspection and verification process.
Since it is the U.N. that will be conducting the inspections, shouldn’t that body concern itself about the cost of the inspections? And what exactly would cost so much; the monitoring equipment, the cameras, the SUV’s, the white paint needed to cover the U.N. vehicles, the black pained needed to adorn the U.N. moniker on the doors of the vehicles, the salary of the inspectors, what? And it seems to me that the continued security of the U.S. and its allies (the ones we have left) against the continual and very real threat of nuclear proliferation would be worth any cost. Or perhaps I am being naive…perhaps, perhaps, perhaps…
Friday, July 30, 2004
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Pouting Bush Shuns the NAACP for Fourth Straight Year
George W. Bush proves once again that he is a man of the people, a President who strives to embrace all of the American people, no matter their color or political affiliation, unless of course if you call him names, then all bets are off. This is the basis for George W. Bush’s refusal to speak at the recent annual convention of the NAACP in Philadelphia. Bush, speaking of the NAACP leadership recently told reporter,
Excuse me, but aren’t you an adult Mr. Bush? Don’t you claim to be a leader? Are these the actions of an effective leader? Is this the way the President of an increasingly multicultural nation should act? Refusing to speak in front of the NAACP because Chairman Julian Bond rightly has called for your ouster is to summarily dismiss the thoughts—and votes—of some 500,000 NAACP members nationwide, and millions more (black & white, Asian & Latino) who support their cause.
The White House in a bid to prove a how gullible the American people are, at first attributed Bush's decision not to accept the invitation to speak at the NAACP annual convention to a scheduling conflict. Only later did Bush confirm what we all already know: that the leadership of the NAACP has little love for Bush because of his policies and track record to date on civil rights. Then candidate Bush’s visit to the openly racist campus of Bob Jones University during the election campaign of 2000; the Bush Administration’s announced support of the litigants in the Michigan Law School reverse discrimination case on Martin Luther King’s birthday, and a host of other questionable actions certainly do nothing to endear him to Black Americans as a whole. And his refusal to even meet with the Congressional Black Caucus speaks volumes about his stance on the Black American leadership in Congress. Message: you Congressional Black Caucus) don’t matter, your causes are not mine, nor my bases to embrace or consider, and the people you represent don’t matter!
Granted some of the things that Julian Bond and President of the NAACP Mr. Kweisi Mfume have been harsh, but were they deserved, are they the truth, and did they need to be said? I say yes, but of course each American will have to make up their own mind based on the Principles this nation is supposed to hold dear, you know, liberty and justice for all.
In his defense Mr. Mfume told reporters that,
But Bush has continually stated that the Republican Party is the Party of inclusion, not exclusion. So why miss a chance to spread the love to the members of the nation’s foremost civil rights organization and let action speak louder then mere words? The message sent by Bush is undeniably clear: you (Black Americans) don’t matter, and the people you represent don’t matter, I don’t need your vote; you are insignificant, once again second class citizens whose core concerns need not be addressed by my administration.
Thank you Mr. Bush; you have further solidified my position in opposition of you and your Party of inclusion. We have no use for each other.
“[y]ou've heard the rhetoric and the names they've called me."
Excuse me, but aren’t you an adult Mr. Bush? Don’t you claim to be a leader? Are these the actions of an effective leader? Is this the way the President of an increasingly multicultural nation should act? Refusing to speak in front of the NAACP because Chairman Julian Bond rightly has called for your ouster is to summarily dismiss the thoughts—and votes—of some 500,000 NAACP members nationwide, and millions more (black & white, Asian & Latino) who support their cause.
The White House in a bid to prove a how gullible the American people are, at first attributed Bush's decision not to accept the invitation to speak at the NAACP annual convention to a scheduling conflict. Only later did Bush confirm what we all already know: that the leadership of the NAACP has little love for Bush because of his policies and track record to date on civil rights. Then candidate Bush’s visit to the openly racist campus of Bob Jones University during the election campaign of 2000; the Bush Administration’s announced support of the litigants in the Michigan Law School reverse discrimination case on Martin Luther King’s birthday, and a host of other questionable actions certainly do nothing to endear him to Black Americans as a whole. And his refusal to even meet with the Congressional Black Caucus speaks volumes about his stance on the Black American leadership in Congress. Message: you Congressional Black Caucus) don’t matter, your causes are not mine, nor my bases to embrace or consider, and the people you represent don’t matter!
Granted some of the things that Julian Bond and President of the NAACP Mr. Kweisi Mfume have been harsh, but were they deserved, are they the truth, and did they need to be said? I say yes, but of course each American will have to make up their own mind based on the Principles this nation is supposed to hold dear, you know, liberty and justice for all.
In his defense Mr. Mfume told reporters that,
“he has reached out to Bush numerous times in hopes of meeting with him…[t]he president never wrote me back," he stated. "I always got a letter from someone else in the White House stating his schedule did not permit such a meeting and they would get back with me ... and they never did.”
But Bush has continually stated that the Republican Party is the Party of inclusion, not exclusion. So why miss a chance to spread the love to the members of the nation’s foremost civil rights organization and let action speak louder then mere words? The message sent by Bush is undeniably clear: you (Black Americans) don’t matter, and the people you represent don’t matter, I don’t need your vote; you are insignificant, once again second class citizens whose core concerns need not be addressed by my administration.
Thank you Mr. Bush; you have further solidified my position in opposition of you and your Party of inclusion. We have no use for each other.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
And Dubya Fiddled While the U.S. Army Burned
What will it take? What will it take before the continuing failure of leadership from the Bush Administration, and Bush personally as Command-n-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, falls upon the American people and U.S. Army and Guard & Reserve like a hurricane? A strong category 5 monster building in the South Atlantic, threatening, but then lingering, then threatening, then finally making landfall, spreading chaos and destruction in wide unrelenting swaths across an innocent land. Is that the magnitude of disaster it would take before America wakes up and rids itself of this embarrassingly incompetent Republican Administration?
Members of Congress (mostly democrats) and military experts within and without Pentagon are troubled by the increasingly clear fact that the U.S. Army is being strained by extended tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than half of the Army's 33 active duty combat brigades are serving in those countries (mostly in Iraq) or preparing to deploy there (see NPR.org / Morning Edition for a lengthy and interesting piece on this subject). They point to a looming crisis within the nation’s largest armed force and its reserve component. And yet the Bush Administration failing the leadership test again, declines to act decisively to avert certain disaster. Instead of making the hard choices—like growing the Army by at least two or more divisions—the Bush Administration calls in the Marines to perform a mission they are not designed to do; institutes morale-busting stop-loss measures; calls upon the inactive ready reserve; and continues to disrupt the lives of reservists in ever increasing numbers, pushing that institution to the breaking point. Despite all these measures designed to put more boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, the civilian leadership (and I use the term very loosely) at the Pentagon foolishly clings to the notion that there is no need to grow the standing Army.
It is doubtful, even at a cursory glance, that the U.S. Army could fight another major conflict, as called for in long standing U.S. military doctrine, with active duty troop strengths at its current level. I am left wondering, where is the disconnect? Why the resistance to doing what is right? Politics? Shame on Bush! Is it so hard for the Republican led Administration to admit that it was wrong to try and fight two conflicts without growing the Army in a substantial way? Is Rumsfled so hell-bent on proving his concept(s) of concentric warfare that he is willing to break the U.S. Army to do it? And are we, the American people so blinded by Administration political spin and fear-mongering that we are willing to stand by and let it happen?
I know it’s a dirty word for those who would love to continue to embrace the fantasy of a leaner, smaller Army of One to combat the “new” threat of the 21st century and beyond, but the draft is the only sensible way to alleviate the impending implosion of the U.S. Army and the Guard & Reserve system while fighting this set of wars. I roundly reject the notion that conscripts would be useless on the battlefield. Such an argument is an insult to all American men (and women), and paints them with a cloth of cowardice that is unwarranted and unsubstantiated. Will they not receive the same training as all Army soldiers? Conscripted or not, put a man in harms way and he will fight.
As a Veteran I am incensed that the once proud U.S. Army has been brought to this point by a civilian leadership that fails to lead with intelligence, wisdom, and foresight. This is clear failure of leadership. And once again Nero (Dubya) is fiddling while Rome burns and no one around him has the courage to tell the Emperor he has no clothes. Will we, the American people have the courage and wisdom to do so come November 2nd?
Members of Congress (mostly democrats) and military experts within and without Pentagon are troubled by the increasingly clear fact that the U.S. Army is being strained by extended tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than half of the Army's 33 active duty combat brigades are serving in those countries (mostly in Iraq) or preparing to deploy there (see NPR.org / Morning Edition for a lengthy and interesting piece on this subject). They point to a looming crisis within the nation’s largest armed force and its reserve component. And yet the Bush Administration failing the leadership test again, declines to act decisively to avert certain disaster. Instead of making the hard choices—like growing the Army by at least two or more divisions—the Bush Administration calls in the Marines to perform a mission they are not designed to do; institutes morale-busting stop-loss measures; calls upon the inactive ready reserve; and continues to disrupt the lives of reservists in ever increasing numbers, pushing that institution to the breaking point. Despite all these measures designed to put more boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, the civilian leadership (and I use the term very loosely) at the Pentagon foolishly clings to the notion that there is no need to grow the standing Army.
It is doubtful, even at a cursory glance, that the U.S. Army could fight another major conflict, as called for in long standing U.S. military doctrine, with active duty troop strengths at its current level. I am left wondering, where is the disconnect? Why the resistance to doing what is right? Politics? Shame on Bush! Is it so hard for the Republican led Administration to admit that it was wrong to try and fight two conflicts without growing the Army in a substantial way? Is Rumsfled so hell-bent on proving his concept(s) of concentric warfare that he is willing to break the U.S. Army to do it? And are we, the American people so blinded by Administration political spin and fear-mongering that we are willing to stand by and let it happen?
I know it’s a dirty word for those who would love to continue to embrace the fantasy of a leaner, smaller Army of One to combat the “new” threat of the 21st century and beyond, but the draft is the only sensible way to alleviate the impending implosion of the U.S. Army and the Guard & Reserve system while fighting this set of wars. I roundly reject the notion that conscripts would be useless on the battlefield. Such an argument is an insult to all American men (and women), and paints them with a cloth of cowardice that is unwarranted and unsubstantiated. Will they not receive the same training as all Army soldiers? Conscripted or not, put a man in harms way and he will fight.
As a Veteran I am incensed that the once proud U.S. Army has been brought to this point by a civilian leadership that fails to lead with intelligence, wisdom, and foresight. This is clear failure of leadership. And once again Nero (Dubya) is fiddling while Rome burns and no one around him has the courage to tell the Emperor he has no clothes. Will we, the American people have the courage and wisdom to do so come November 2nd?
Saturday, July 03, 2004
Supreme Court Restores Balance to Our American Republic
The American people: 2, President Bush: 0. So the headlines should have read across the nation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decisions in (Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld and Rasul et al. v. Bush et al), which limited the President’s power to confine not only American citizens, but foreign nationals as well, without due process of law.
Although the high court supported the Bush Administration’s right to seize U.S. citizens, ruling in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld that
Congress gave President Bush the authority in its arguably overarching Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which empowered the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force” against “nations, organizations, or persons” that he determines “planned, authorized, committed, or aided” in the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks,the Court ruled that the President’s power was not absolute. The Court further held that the “due process” concerns of those labeled enemy combatants, be they American citizens or foreign nationals, must be addressed by the administration, stating:
although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful oppor¬tunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision maker.
The Court further concluded that:
Hamdi’s detention is unauthorized…and that on remand Hamdi should have a meaningful opportunity to offer evidence that he is not an enemy combatant.
It was stunning to me that the Bush Administration took the unprecedented unilateral step of holding American citizens branded “Enemy Combatants,” without affording them access to the courts to begin with. Claiming that the constitutional status of Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces gave him special fiat to conduct the war on terrorism as he saw fit, the President in effect, suspended the 14th Amendment guarantee of due process before the law and the right of Writ of Habeas Corpus. One right—due process of law—cannot be taken from American citizens, and the other—Habeas Corpus—can only be suspended by Congress in extreme cases, to wit:
[t]he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. US CONST, Art I, § 9, Cl. 2.
Though the Supreme Court attested to the fact that the United States is at War, it flatly rejected the President’s claim that his power and discretion in conducting that war were absolute. The majority ruled in effect that the President is not above the Constitutional latticework that defines governmental actions and protects citizens from tyrannical and oppressive behavior, and that they—the Supreme Court, and indeed the judicial branch—cannot be frozen out of the process, because they are a co-equal branch of the government. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the 6-3 majority in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, stated,
"As critical as the government's interest may be in detaining those who actually pose an immediate threat to the national security of the United States during ongoing international conflict, history and common sense teach us that an unchecked system of detention carries the potential to become a means for oppression and abuse of others who do not present that sort of threat."
More important however—at least in my mind—the Court restored access to the federal courts for not only American citizens but the foreign nationals being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in so doing reaffirmed the supremacy of our Republican form of governance and the preeminence of the rule of law over all other concerns.
In seeking to deny the rights of those it declared enemy combatants, the Bush Administration assured their access to U.S. courts by trumpeting a power it did not have, and could not constitutionally sustain. Many conservative critics of the Court’s rulings have complained that now our enemies can sue us—the United States—in court for shooting at them. That is an absurd notion on its face. If the Bush Administration had not tried to circumvent the rules of War (yes, I know as grotesque as it sounds there are rules in warfare); i.e. the Geneva Conventions, and declared the foreign fighters Prisoners of War, there never would have been a case. Yes, we were attacked, but we cannot continue to hold ourselves above the community of nations, claiming ourselves supreme and expect the world to go along quietly like children chasing the piper’s heel. Newsflash: foreign citizens have natural rights endowed by the creator, as well. And why the Administration did not seek to charge both Hamdi and Padilla with treason is a question that begs a rational answer. Is it because they knew, given the high threshold for proving treason (two witnesses who saw the treasonous act taking place) would be problematic since only one witness, a shadowy CIA operative is the Administration’s sole source?
Opposition to the rulings on the Court was predictable with Associate Justice’s Clarence Thomas—who continues to disappoint—and Antonin Scalia both dissenting. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the dynamic duo in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, join the dissent in Rasul et al. v. Bush et al. Thomas to me is an enigma as are Black conservatives. Here is a man who grew up in the Civil Rights movement, and should well know the pain and stain of oppression, and yet his arch conservatism reminds me of the days when the Supreme Court fully embraced the doctrine of Separate but Equal. One has to wonder if indeed his version of the Constitution is stained red, soaked with the blood of the innocent he would condemn to tyranny, oppression, and injustice at his pen, and narrow interpretation of the Constitution. He wrote in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld that
[t]his detention falls squarely within the federal government's war powers, and we lack the expertise and capacity to second-guess that decision…
Excuse me, but isn’t that your job as a member of the Court? Isn’t that what the checks and balances system built into our system of governance is all about? I lack the capacity and expertise to fully understand the tax code, but that does not absolve me of the responsibility to pay my taxes, or file a return every April 15th. As a Justice of the Supreme Court I would think the rule of law would be the most important consideration in each case, no matter its content.
Would he have the judicial branch vacate their role of judicial oversight at the mere mention of War and defer to the executive branch for all matters? Isn’t the bending and flaunting of the rule of British law one of the paramount reasons we broke away from British rule and began this nation? And as many have agreed, the so-called War on Terror is not a declared war by Congress as called for under the Constitution, but an Executive Branch creation, which could drone on long into the foreseeable future. Should the American people be subjected to the whims of the President without proper access to the courts for redress of grievances as called for under the first Amendment? To argue such, is to turn a blind eye to the lesson of history, and violate not only the spirit of our founding, but the letter of our long standing laws.
In the final analysis, Justices Thomas and Scalia notwithstanding, the American system has once again proved it metal, and its place among the world’s finest system of governance. Though justice wasn’t swift—it took two years for these cases to wiggle their way through the court system—it was decisive and just. And a message has been sent to all future Presidents: even in War, the Constitution and the rule of law hold sway, indeed they are supreme and cannot be set aside at the President’s whim. The Executive cannot seek to impose tyranny and oppression at home while championing freedom and democracy around the world. It is my hope that come November the American people say no to a President who so callously attempted to trample their rights.
Monday, June 21, 2004
Rowland to Resign
Update: It would appear as though the prospect of being compelled to testify in front of the Connecticut legislative committee convened to investigate his alleged wrong doings, coupled with federal investigations and growing calls for him to step-down, have prompted embattled Connecticut governor John Rowland to resign his post. He will announce same later tonight. He will not be missed.
Saturday, June 19, 2004
Rowland Should be Impeached
I am following—with barley disguised amusement—the trails and tribulations of Connecticut Republican governor John G. Rowland who is under investigation for accepting gifts from friends, state contractors and employees, for favors, and then—and here a shocker—lying about it. I say amusement because the Republican Party is the self proclaimed Party of integrity and honor. Question is, where is Rowland’s, and better still, where is Bush/Cheney’s?
The investigation by a Connecticut Bi-partisan legislative committee convened to consider impeaching Rowland; the three-term governor is also under investigation from the Justice Department federal for corruption. Rowland claims he has provided nothing in return for the gifts and has not compromised his office, but the evidence thus far speaks otherwise.
In the latest volley in this debacle in which the embattled governor refuses to step down, and unsurprisingly refuses to admit any wrong–doing despite the fact that he has admitted to lying, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Friday that Gov. John G. Rowland must testify before a committee considering his impeachment. The ruling—a 5-2 decision—makes Rowland the first sitting chief executive in U.S. history ordered to appear before a legislative body. How fitting that the distinction should go to a Republican. The Connecticut Supreme Court in its decision ruled that Rowland must testify before the committee investigating his wrong doings, setting aside the governor arguments that the Connecticut Legislature was violating the constitutionally mandated and historical separation of powers.
I have never believed that a chief executive should be immune to the oversight authority of the legislative branch of government, they are after all the people’s representatives, and our chief executives are not Kings and Queens. What I find onerous is the arrogance of the man in refusing to step aside for the good of his state. But like the Republican administration currently occupying the White House, Rowland refuses to admit that he could have done something wrong; you know made a mistake. There is no disgrace in graceful disengagement after having the integrity to admit a mistake. However, special derision should be reserved for those who refuse to see the error of their ways and put the good of the people before their own selfish, blind ambitions. I hope enough of use remember that come November and replace the man who can do no wrong in the White House.
The investigation by a Connecticut Bi-partisan legislative committee convened to consider impeaching Rowland; the three-term governor is also under investigation from the Justice Department federal for corruption. Rowland claims he has provided nothing in return for the gifts and has not compromised his office, but the evidence thus far speaks otherwise.
In the latest volley in this debacle in which the embattled governor refuses to step down, and unsurprisingly refuses to admit any wrong–doing despite the fact that he has admitted to lying, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Friday that Gov. John G. Rowland must testify before a committee considering his impeachment. The ruling—a 5-2 decision—makes Rowland the first sitting chief executive in U.S. history ordered to appear before a legislative body. How fitting that the distinction should go to a Republican. The Connecticut Supreme Court in its decision ruled that Rowland must testify before the committee investigating his wrong doings, setting aside the governor arguments that the Connecticut Legislature was violating the constitutionally mandated and historical separation of powers.
I have never believed that a chief executive should be immune to the oversight authority of the legislative branch of government, they are after all the people’s representatives, and our chief executives are not Kings and Queens. What I find onerous is the arrogance of the man in refusing to step aside for the good of his state. But like the Republican administration currently occupying the White House, Rowland refuses to admit that he could have done something wrong; you know made a mistake. There is no disgrace in graceful disengagement after having the integrity to admit a mistake. However, special derision should be reserved for those who refuse to see the error of their ways and put the good of the people before their own selfish, blind ambitions. I hope enough of use remember that come November and replace the man who can do no wrong in the White House.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Saturday, June 12, 2004
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Are We Crowning The New American Caesar?
The President of the United States is abusing his office and in the name of partisan politics the Republican controlled Congress is allowing it to happen. The release of the legal memorandums from various legal departments in the executive branch detailing how the President is, in effect, above the law (international and national) sent chills down this writer’s spine, and is just the latest revelation that something is rotten at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Where does it end? How much power should the other branches cede to the Executive in his role a Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces in war time? Are we as a nation morphing, broken law-by-broken law, abuse-by-abuse, subversion-by-subversion, into a totalitarian state where the President makes, enforces, and interprets American and international law, but has the power to ignore the same at will? The various memos certainly seem to suggest that the President in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief can do whatever it takes to defend the United State including flouting laws he does not agree with. Is the Office of the President to have no real limit to its wartime power?
Constitutionally, the power of the Executive is limited, held in check by the other two branches of government. Wartime Presidential powers are not clearly defined in the constitution, the document only states that:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States—US CONT, art. II, § 2, cl. 1.Nowhere does the constitution state that Congress should relinquish its power to check Executive even in times of War. How then is the Bush Administration now inferring the broad inference that the Executive has virtually unfettered power in times of War? The Federal Courts have weighed in and put certain breaks on the Administration, but the linchpin is the Supreme Court.
In hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, June 8, 2004 in which John Ashcroft testified on the memos but refused to produce them, Senator Edward Kennedy (D), Massachusetts cited one of the memorandums that concluded
President Bush was not bound either by international treaties prohibiting torture or by federal anti-torture law because as commander-in-chief Mr. Bush was responsible for protecting the nation.And Ashcroft said several times during his testimony that “that critics consistently failed to take into account that the United States was at war.”
The deep irony is that the United States is not in a declared war; only Congress has the constitutional power to declare war and it hasn’t. And if we accept the precept that the War on Terror is real and that America will be fighting it well into the foreseeable future, where does Presidential power end; how long will the President hold these wartime powers, and how will their exercise affect the American Republic? And who defines when the War on Terror is over? Congress, with the passage of the law authorizing the President to take actions deemed necessary to defend the nation, seems to have left that determination up to the Executive. Where are the checks and balances?
One light at the end of the tunnel however, might be the Supreme Court which has yet to decisively weigh in on several vexing cases before it dealing with the limits of Executive power in Wartime. But the High Court could conceivably rule either way, and if it rules in Bush’s favor, what of us—the American citizens? Will we—the American people—in the tradition of totalitarian states throughout history, be subject to random search and seizures, interrogations without right to counsel, after a label of enemy combatant is etched into our foreheads by a President whose power is now unchecked? What of the Bill of Rights, not to mention the rest of the Constitution, after such a ruling?
I, for one, see a threat to the American state not from without, but from within as the Executive in the name of security is destroying the very thing that made America great: respect for the rule of law. And I for one will do my part in November to send Bush and his scary bunch of cronies back to Texas. I, for one, do not want to live in a country that could even entertain the notion of crowning the next Caesar, do you?
Sunday, June 06, 2004
My Letter to CBS News Concerning War Dead...
CBS Evening News
New York, NY
Re: FALLEN HERO’S SEGMENT ON CBS EVENING NEWS
To Whom It May Concern:
As a Veteran of some fifteen years in the U.S. Armed Forces now retired, I am gratified that you have chosen to spend every evening newscast paying homage to the nation’s fallen men and women in uniform. However, after watching this segment for some three weeks, one could come to the conclusion that only white soldiers have given their lives in the defense of our nation performing their sworn duty.
It is a well know and documented fact that more then 50% of the United States Army is made up of minorities of all suasions serving side-by-side, and indeed dying side-by-side their white brethren. So as a black Veteran I am astonished, appalled, outraged and gravely offended that none of the men profiled have been black. Surely, CBS is not trying to send a message that only white soldiers are dying in the defense of their nation; that only the stories of white soldiers are fit enough to be showcased on air.
It is these continuing subtle signs of exclusion that cause blacks and other minorities to wonder if we will ever be treated as equal members of this society that so many of us have given our lives for. It is these little digs at our dignity that continually keeps us looking around ever hedge and over every wall for racisms call. It would be nice to find at home what so many are dying for overseas; equality, respect, and freedom from bigotry.
Vincent E. Martin
CTT1(SS), USN (Ret)
Aurora, IL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)