The Pot Or The Kettle

There has been a lot of hubbub recently due to the ad taken out by MoveOn.Org in the New York Times welcoming home General Petraeus. The chickenhawks, phony patriots, and the usual assortment of right wing mouthpieces have jumped all over the ad. In their usual shrill they are claiming that because General Petraeus is a military man his credibility is unimpeachable and the ad is once again giving “aid and comfort to the enemy”.

I would whole heartedly agree with those sentiments except for a few minor details that they fail to mention in their condemnations. The first is that I am old enough to remember Vietnam, I remember the Generals back then, especially Westmoreland testifying to Congress in a manner that was not truthful. Their rosy scenario of the war did not correspond to the pictures being beamed back to American via satellite from the war zone. For many years they were given the benefit of the doubt and the respect accorded their position in the military, by doing so Congress and the American people allowed the carnage to continue in SE Asia. So for them now to say that military men are beyond reproach flies in the face of reality and our shared history. Of course many of them were too busy ignoring Vietnam to have been aware of the dishonesty that was being perpetrated against the public.

The second minor detail involves the role that General Petraeus has assumed; he is not some objective military man simply following the orders of his Commander in Chief. No, the General has taken a political position in regards to this conflict.

Fact: Shortly before the 2004 presidential election Petraeus did something that active-duty commanders should not do. In late September he wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post obviously as a favor to the Bush campaign, in which he applauded what he called major progress by the Iraqi military, Iraqi police and Iraqi leadership.

It is bad enough that the general, a smart guy who knew what he was doing, interfered in the 2004 presidential election, in effect advocating the position of the Republican candidate, the incumbent, on the number-one issue of the campaign, only weeks before the vote.

Beyond taking a political position in a way that an active-duty general should never do, which demonstrates political tendencies that in truth trouble many of the highest ranking military officers today, his forecast and analysis turned out to be almost completely, catastrophically wrong on every level.[1]

Also, the General was an advocate of the surge strategy and so he shared the goals of the Bush administration in escalating this conflict. He also signed off on the insurgency manual now being used to train US forces, again giving him a stake in the surge strategy. So you can’t have it both ways General, either you are partisan or you are objective, which is it?

The third minor detail that fails to get mentioned in the rightwing talking points is the small matter of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that labeled former Presidential Candidate John Kerry as a fraud and a coward for his service in Vietnam. Senator Kerry was a decorated war hero who for political reasons was slimed by these same right-wingers who are crying foul today for the General. I would assume that Senator Kerry would be afforded the same respect due the General.

Truth: That's the biggest lie of all. Here's the evidence. Until he suddenly resigned, Ben Ginsburg, chief attorney for the Bush campaign, was legal adviser to the Swift Boat gang. The ads were paid for by Bob Perry, big Bush contributor and buddy of Karl Rove. They were produced and marketed by the same production and advertising companies that prepared Bush's attack ads against John McCain in 2000. And, until he resigned, one veteran who appeared in the swiftboat ads also served on Bush's campaign advisery committee.[2]

The wingnuts have requested that all Democrats denounce the ad and distance themselves from MoveOn.org. I wonder where all this outcry was when Senator Kerry was falsely branded a traitor? The people at MoveOn.org have every right to question the integrity of any official testifying before Congress, it isn’t like no one has ever lied and misled them or the American people before. I am all for respecting the military and its leaders, but at the same time I support the right of people to question authority. Questioning authority used to be a valuable trait in this country before the Imperial Presidency. So which shall it be wingnuts, the pot or the kettle?

[1] http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/61390/
[2] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40169

Read more!

The Imperial Presidency Vs. Democracy

Many people believe that the Imperial Presidency is a new phenomenon, initiated by George W. Bush. However, the foundation of the Imperial Presidency was laid prior to 9/11 in a series of steps and maneuvers by several different presidents. With each new officeholder not only reinforcing the previous officeholder’s position, but also expanding it as they saw fit. But, what is an imperial president and what if anything can be done to restrain that unchecked power? Many will say the separation of powers built into the Constitution is designed to keep the president in check, but that doesn’t seem to be working out to good.

Imperialism is the policy of extending a nation’s authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations, countries, or colonies. This is either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of influencing or controlling the politics and/or economy. The rule of authority of a country is based on territory, economic establishment and political influence. The term is used to describe the policy of a nation’s dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the subjugated nation considers itself part of the empire. It is also considered the action by which one country controls another country or territory accomplished by military means to gain certain advantages. Imperialism helps one country gain power and domain over other areas.

-Wikipedia.com

When did the Imperial Presidency begin and why was it allowed to go unchecked? The beginning of this trend began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the implementation of the New Deal. FDR inherited the country in calamitous circumstances which required bold and extraordinary steps to remedy. There are many today who still decry those steps and the Congress that allowed him to execute them. Many conservative Republicans have made it their life’s work to rescind the policies and laws that define the New Deal. Prior to FDR, the president had been for the most part a caretaker who implemented the policies of Congress. The seeds of the Imperial Presidency were planted with FDR and continue to this day. The current President Bush many would argue after 9/11 inherited a country in a frightful state that required extraordinary steps to overcome the threat. It’s funny that many of the opponents of this President were curiously quiet when the extent of the threat was still being analyzed. This of course gives rise to the many conservative complaints of flip-flopping on the part of the critics.

There are four planks of the Imperial Presidency that I would like to highlight as important rungs on which the privilege is based.

1)Executive Orders – which allow the President to bypass Congress and the separation of powers, checks and balance provided for in the Constitution. These are opportunities for abuse and have been expanded to include anything the President can’t get his way on through normal channels.

2) Military Industrial Complex – warned of by Ike, these war profiteers have continued to influence our foreign policy and helped to insulate the President from the Congressional oversight mandated by the Constitution. Due to their influence many of the Presidents have felt emboldened to participate in misguided foreign entanglements.

3) Global War on Terror – what began as a response to 9/11 has now been reduced to a “bumper sticker” with no real meaning or direction. What is this thing and when and where will it end? It is this little gem that has allowed our current officeholder to usurp Congressional power (by choice) and ignore the will of the electorate. All is fair in war!

4) Spectator Citizens – this is the most important enabler of the Imperial Presidency. As long as we are more concerned with “Desperate Housewives” and “American Idol” these guys can do anything they want. These people count on our slothfulness; it is factored into their calculations. As long as all we do is complain, whine and take no action the Emperor is safe. You get the government you tolerate; this is true in the third world as much as it is in the first world. We wax poetically about the ills of other “less civilized” people and their tolerance of bad governance and yet look at our own refusal to act here at home. Get the splinter out of your own eye before you start trying to do laser surgery on the rest of the world.

The War Powers Act of 1973, was supposed to help rein in the Imperial President from just indiscriminately becoming entangled in foreign conflicts. It was designed to keep the President from committing American troops to combat without Congressional oversight. Glad we have that in place today, huh? It was suppose to restrict that ability by requiring:

1) The president has to inform Congress in writing 48 hours after he commits troops into a hostile situation.

2) Sixty days after committing troops into a hostile situation, Congress has to declare war or authorize continuous commitment. This gives Congress the power to recall the troops.

3) Congress, at any time, can pass a concurrent resolution (a resolution passed by both houses of Congress) to recall the troops. The president cannot veto this resolution.

The Congress has the power to recall troops that the President has committed to a hostile situation and does not have to stand idly by and watch the President decimate our military, our international allies and goodwill, or hold the rest of the world hostage. The reason that this is allowed to continue is that despite their protesting the majority of politicians of any ilk supports the Empire. Which can be further extrapolated to the fact that the majority of American voters support the Empire world view, too. Oh, of course not today with it going so poorly in Iraq, but the theory that we have the “Manifest Destiny” to democratize the world is prevalent, to impose our will on the uncivilized populace.

Unfortunately, the problem with the War Powers Act is that every president beginning with Nixon and including George W. Bush has claimed that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and has refused to be bound by its terms. The Supreme Court has so far refused to rule on the constitutionality of the act. So, there you have it, for the Imperial President it is a mere courtesy to inform you of his war plans and exit strategies. It is past the time for all good men and women to stand against tyranny.

Read more!

Mission Accomplished?

It was four years ago that President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier with the infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner and announced the end of major hostilities in Iraq. I remember the day exactly, I was over my folk’s house and we were discussing what the President had just done. I had hinted that it was for the upcoming election to be run as commercials with the President all decked out in his flight suit landing on the carrier. You know all the things he was suppose to do in the Guard and didn’t, but that is another story.

That was truly a Karl Rove moment. Everything appeared so rosy and bright for Iraq and for us. Unfortunately, it was exactly at the moment that we lost Iraq. It was at the height of their arrogance that the deal was sealed. Because they had not done their homework, which seems to be a recurring theme for the President, this administration believed and still does that liberation is about military force. Whoever has the most sophisticated weaponry and the most troops wins. Well, four years later we continue to pour in more sophisticated weaponry and more troops and we are no closer to accomplishing the mission.

Which leads me to a question that we should have asked four years ago, what was the mission? Was our mission to disarm Saddam of his “weapons of mass destruction”? Was our mission to enact regime change? Was our mission to liberate the Iraqi people? Was our mission to bring democracy to the Middle East? Was our mission to secure the rights to permanent military bases and oil concessions? What exactly was our mission Mr. President and what is our mission today?

Until we know what the mission is we cannot know if it has or will ever be accomplished. It appears right now that our main mission is to support our troops. Well, that to me is sort of like saying, “Do you support Iowa or Rhode Island?” The question or mission is not whether we support the troops; the question should be why our troops there are? By framing the question in patriotism this administration has framed the answer. If you want to control the answer you do it by the questions you allow to be asked.

If we really supported the troops we would want them to have a mission they can accomplish and a plan to get them home. At this time we have neither of those, but we support the troops. Because of the bullying tactics of this administration and the atmosphere of “McCarthyism” that they have created, they have in effect silenced all critics with the “unpatriotic or soft on terrorism” label. We, the people must rise above this demagoguery and foolish rhetoric and begin to hold this President accountable for this debacle. They have everyone afraid to admit that this mission is beyond our scope to repair. They say this is defeatist talk. They said the same things about Vietnam and all the rally behind the flag boys rhetoric did not change the circumstances on the ground. We are actually harming our troops and the Iraqi’s by prolonging this occupation. We cannot wait for this President to acknowledge he has made a mistake. This goes against everything he has shown us about his character. We have a better chance of pigs flying than for this President to admit he was wrong.

We are at a crossroads as a nation. We are at one of those pivotal moments in human history when we get to decide who we are as a nation and as a people. Do we believe in those principles we espouse? Continuing to support a failed policy based on lies is not patriotism, it is tyranny. Before we can teach others democracy maybe we should have a refresher course ourselves. We may not be able to save democracy in Iraq, but we can begin to save our democracy here in America. Let’s make that our mission for today.

Read more!

Are you smarter than a fifth grader?

Since 9/11 there has been much talk about the war on terror and on whether we are winning or losing. I submit that we are losing the war on terror.

How can I say we are losing after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq? How can I say that when we have had no more terrorists attacks here at home? I believe that the war on terror cannot be gauged based on those criteria alone. The goal of terrorists is not to win militarily because usually they are a lesser force, no the goal of terrorist is to get us to change how we live. How we view ourselves and each other. The reason I say we are losing this war is not based on what the terrorist are doing, but based on what we have done in response to the terrorist threat. We now have more repressive legislation at home, we have resorted to torture and imprisonment without due process, and we use fear and paranoia to justify any and all activities.

Of course it would be easy to blame an administration that used the attack to enact its agenda and justify its world view. But these things could not have been done without our acquiesce. We live in a democracy that is supposed to have checks and balances. We are four years into a failed foreign policy and we just now want to institute oversight and review. I am far removed from the civics’ class of my youth, but even then we learned that in a democracy the people are the “deciders”, not one man no matter what the justification. Are you smarter than a fifth grader? When in a democracy is having a healthy debate about the path of this country’s foreign policy “aiding and abetting the terrorists”? When in a democracy are all the citizenry guilty until proven innocent. No my friends the terrorist are winning, because America is no longer America. In a democracy there will always be opportunities for terrorist to act, that is the price of having a free society. It is not the acts of the terrorist that defines us; it is our responses to those acts that define us; if we are truly a democracy. We can respond as we have with the politics of fear and divisiveness or we can respond as a true democracy and tell the terrorists of this world that we will not live in fear and attack each other. Of course there have always been those who have used our fears to promote hatred and division. I remember from my civics days a gentleman by the name of McCarthy who made quite a name for himself hyping the fears of others.

The next administration will need to heal this land and reunite us as a nation. This will not be an easy task considering all of the damage that has been done. The first thing will be to roll-back the imperial presidency and return this country to a healthy democracy. The democracy we learned about in the fifth grade; remember the one “of the people, by the people, for the people”. It will require letting the world know that we do not have imperial aspirations on other lands. It will require us to once again take our role in the world community not as a bully, but as a leader by example. We must be a beacon of hope and freedom that the downtrodden of the world can look up to; a respecter of international law and international cooperation, and above all a nation that believes in diplomacy for solving conflict and uses force as a last resort. I believe that John Edwards can and will embody this philosophy more than the others. It is now up to us to choose what type of country we want for our children; what type of democracy we want to give them. Are you smarter than a fifth grader?

Read more!