George W. Bush, 9/30/03:
And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
Tom Delay, 7/13/05:
The law specifically says that the CIA operative, they're trained to keep them covert. That means usually they're overseas, they're not working out of Langley driving in and out of the gate, they are truly undercover, and you leak it, you're breaking the law.
That wasn't the case. That wasn't the case here. Ms. Plame was working at Langley, coming and going quite obvious she was working for the CIA and this...uh...er..this...there may be other's who leaked...uh...we'll find out when the investigation is over.
Paul Bedard, 7/3/07:
Robert Novak:
"I am sure it was not a planned leak but came out as an offhand observation."
The rest is history. Novak was investigated in the CIA spy case, slammed by fellow journalists for "outing" an agent, the subject of what he calls false stories, kicked off his regular CNN gig, and barred from Meet the Press for two years-and out $160,000 in legal fees. Still, he writes,
"Judging it on the merits, I would still write the story."
Bob Ewegen, Denver Post, 7/6/07:
I am angry at the underlying event - the fact that an American patriot whose only crime was to serve her country in a dangerous and honorable profession had her mission undercut for partisan political purposes.
I am even angrier that the vicious "outing" of Valerie Plame put her sources at risk - the men and women in foreign countries who had risked their own lives to help America in our war on terror.
In the intelligence trade, such foreign sources are called "assets." I call them heroes. And they are the ones who were put most at risk after columnist Robert Novak revealed Plame's CIA connection as part of a clumsy Bush administration effort to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had become a critic of the Iraq war.
I will never forgive anyone who willfully puts the lives of America's military or intelligence personnel or our friends abroad in danger.
And that's exactly what former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage did when he leaked Plame's identity to Novak - and what Novak did when he published the name of a covert CIA agent.
Between Armitage's dishonorable act and Novak's dishonorable act were a string of other dishonorable acts, including an executive order by President Bush empowering Vice President Cheney to declassify classified information, which Cheney did, thus allowing Libby to shop Plame's identity around in hopes of finding a journalist willing to smear Wilson through his wife. With Libby's information confirming Armitage's original tip, Novak willingly blew Plame's cover.
In so doing, he didn't put Plame at personal risk, because she was not overseas at the time. But he did irrevocably damage her mission - and put those human "assets" at risk.
You see, al-Qaeda and its ilk rarely try to kill CIA agents - or anyone else who can fight back. What these cowards do is kill people who have worked with U.S. agents.
You can imagine the conversation: "Hmm, that Valerie Plame who visited here turns out to be a CIA agent. Didn't she hang out at Hamid's coffee shop a lot?"
Next day, Hamid's body turns up, along with the bodies of his wife and family, all of whom were tortured to death before his eyes.
That's the way our enemies play the game. That's why we train brave men and women like Valerie Plame so America can fight back.
Politics, or national security?
Politics.
Politics, or the safety of our combatants and allies in the war on terror?
Politics.
Politics, or the Law?
Politics.
Politics, or common sense?
Politics.
Politics, or--
Politics.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Monday, July 9, 2007
Still think it's not a Civil War?!?
BBC, 3/21/06:
US President George W Bush has said he does not believe Iraq has descended into civil war but urged the nation's leaders to confront sectarian violence.
Bill O'Reilly, 11/29/06:
It's not a civil war as NBC News wants you to think. It has nothing to do with that.
AP, 7/9/07:
Prominent Shiite and Sunni politicians called on Iraqi civilians to take up arms to defend themselves after a weekend of violence that claimed more than 220 lives, including 60 who died yesterday in a surge of bombings and shootings around Baghdad.
During a news conference yesterday in Baghdad, Abbas al-Bayati, a Shiite Turkoman lawmaker, criticized the security situation in Armili, saying its police force had only 30 members and that the Interior Ministry had finally responded to requests for reinforcements only two days before the attack.
In the absence of enough security forces, al-Bayati said authorities should help residents "arm themselves" for their own protection.
The call for civilians to take up arms in their own defense was echoed yesterday by the country's Sunni Arab vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, who said all Iraqis must "pay the price" for terrorism.
OK kids, it's official: the presence or absence of U.S. forces in Iraq has NO IMPACT on the fact that a Civil War is currently occurring there, therefore rendering this argument completely moot:
Iraq's foreign minister warned Monday that a quick American troop withdrawal could lead to civil war and the collapse of the Iraqi state, adding that the U.S. has a responsibility to build Iraqi forces so that they take over.
And if that's not enough fun and excitement for ya, chew on this:
Iraq says Turkey has 140,000 soldiers along its border, prompting fears of an incursion against Kurdish guerrillas.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari an ethnic Kurd himself, said his government was against any breach of Iraqi sovereignty.
Turkey accuses Kurdish separatists of staging attacks from inside Iraq. It has often warned Baghdad that it is prepared to take military action.
It's time to get the Hell out RIGHT NOW. If the saber rattling in the north as detailed above doesn't abate pronto, there will be a new huge messy front in this mess that the U.S. forces will be powerless to influence except through the implementation of force through the air, the accuracy of which has already been proven over and over again as suspect, to put it gently. The only sure result of any air sorties on the part of the U.S. forces would be the killing of Kurdish and Turkish forces, resulting in the ire of both groups being focussed upon the U.S., who right now can sort of call both groups allies, or at least "not enemies".
There's no way that the oil worshiping fat cats are going to get their hands on that oil:
In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.
I suppose that the U.S. could stay and follow Gunner's advice:
One of the big problems with how we have fought this war of liberation is our unwillingness to completely exterminate the bastards. Churchill also said we should just gas the “uncivilized” fucks that give us a hard time. An American military man in Vietnam gave us a wonderful phrase for this, “destroy the village in order to save it.” That is exactly what needs to happen. And I don’t mean something small scale like 1-3 million dead Iraqis (the toll of our Indochina wars) I am thinking big. Like all males between the ages of 9-55, or something similar. That’s what it will take to win this thing, whatever that means. But the softies in the liberal media and Congress won’t go for it…
But in eliminating all the opposition, it would gravely polarize the rest of the region against the U.S. and demonize the U.S. imperialistic empire alongside such revered infamous members of the book that is world history as the Emperors and Centurions of the Roman Empire, Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes, the Vandals and Visigoths, Imperial Spain during the Inquisition, and Nazi Germany among others.
I kinda doubt that the fellas who got together in Philadelphia in 1787 had this sort of thing in mind when they drafted this:
US President George W Bush has said he does not believe Iraq has descended into civil war but urged the nation's leaders to confront sectarian violence.
Bill O'Reilly, 11/29/06:
It's not a civil war as NBC News wants you to think. It has nothing to do with that.
AP, 7/9/07:
Prominent Shiite and Sunni politicians called on Iraqi civilians to take up arms to defend themselves after a weekend of violence that claimed more than 220 lives, including 60 who died yesterday in a surge of bombings and shootings around Baghdad.
During a news conference yesterday in Baghdad, Abbas al-Bayati, a Shiite Turkoman lawmaker, criticized the security situation in Armili, saying its police force had only 30 members and that the Interior Ministry had finally responded to requests for reinforcements only two days before the attack.
In the absence of enough security forces, al-Bayati said authorities should help residents "arm themselves" for their own protection.
The call for civilians to take up arms in their own defense was echoed yesterday by the country's Sunni Arab vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, who said all Iraqis must "pay the price" for terrorism.
OK kids, it's official: the presence or absence of U.S. forces in Iraq has NO IMPACT on the fact that a Civil War is currently occurring there, therefore rendering this argument completely moot:
Iraq's foreign minister warned Monday that a quick American troop withdrawal could lead to civil war and the collapse of the Iraqi state, adding that the U.S. has a responsibility to build Iraqi forces so that they take over.
And if that's not enough fun and excitement for ya, chew on this:
Iraq says Turkey has 140,000 soldiers along its border, prompting fears of an incursion against Kurdish guerrillas.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari an ethnic Kurd himself, said his government was against any breach of Iraqi sovereignty.
Turkey accuses Kurdish separatists of staging attacks from inside Iraq. It has often warned Baghdad that it is prepared to take military action.
It's time to get the Hell out RIGHT NOW. If the saber rattling in the north as detailed above doesn't abate pronto, there will be a new huge messy front in this mess that the U.S. forces will be powerless to influence except through the implementation of force through the air, the accuracy of which has already been proven over and over again as suspect, to put it gently. The only sure result of any air sorties on the part of the U.S. forces would be the killing of Kurdish and Turkish forces, resulting in the ire of both groups being focussed upon the U.S., who right now can sort of call both groups allies, or at least "not enemies".
There's no way that the oil worshiping fat cats are going to get their hands on that oil:
In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.
I suppose that the U.S. could stay and follow Gunner's advice:
One of the big problems with how we have fought this war of liberation is our unwillingness to completely exterminate the bastards. Churchill also said we should just gas the “uncivilized” fucks that give us a hard time. An American military man in Vietnam gave us a wonderful phrase for this, “destroy the village in order to save it.” That is exactly what needs to happen. And I don’t mean something small scale like 1-3 million dead Iraqis (the toll of our Indochina wars) I am thinking big. Like all males between the ages of 9-55, or something similar. That’s what it will take to win this thing, whatever that means. But the softies in the liberal media and Congress won’t go for it…
But in eliminating all the opposition, it would gravely polarize the rest of the region against the U.S. and demonize the U.S. imperialistic empire alongside such revered infamous members of the book that is world history as the Emperors and Centurions of the Roman Empire, Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes, the Vandals and Visigoths, Imperial Spain during the Inquisition, and Nazi Germany among others.
I kinda doubt that the fellas who got together in Philadelphia in 1787 had this sort of thing in mind when they drafted this:
Saturday, July 7, 2007
"You'd have to be dead...
not to be affected by Moore's movie."
-Barclay Fitzpatrick, Vice President of Corporate Communications, Capital BlueCross
Digby:
...it made me cry and a Michael Moore film has never made cry before. I've laughed and cheered and certainly gotten enraged, but even through all of those emotions in this film --- and there were plenty of them --- I remained choked up. I just couldn't get past the idea that people could make these life-ending and life-ruining decisions about other people --- for profit. It's so fundamentally at odds with what I think of as normal human empathy that on some levels it seems akin to being a concentration camp guard or an executioner. (And from the emotional reaction from those who'd worked in the industry and had quit, it takes a toll those with empathy who are asked to perform that dirty function as well.)
There is one story in the film of a woman whose husband was denied a bone marrow transplant allegedly because it was an "experimental procedure," --- is one a thousand excuses health insurance companies use to keep from having to provide care for those whose premiums they eagerly cashed in the years before their customer got sick. But I think what got me about that particular story was the fact that this woman worked in the hospital where the board of directors of this managed care company also worked. She spoke to them personally. She wasn't just a piece of paper in an in-box. It was a real live person, a colleague and neighbor, literally begging for her husbands life ... and they said no. For profit. It makes me want to howl in pain and outrage.
Moore's movie is actually quite successful in showing that people in other first world countries with universal care live very well despite the fact that they pay higher taxes for medical care (and other things) because --- they don't have to pay for medical care and those other things. The people who live middle and upper middle class lives as professionals don't lose anything --- and the society as a whole gains tremendously because those crippling worries are removed from all, the poor and middle class alike. I don't think Americans have any idea that they are not actually living at the top of the heap --- they think what we have is a good as it can possibly be, and it just ain't true.
Take a minute and read that last paragraph again.
Yes, the tax bracket is higher for everyone with a nationalized health care program.
But one doesn't have to take into consideration while seeking employment what level of health insurance is offered above and beyond all other aspects of potential employment--like what the actual job is, whether one is qualified and/or trained for it, schedule and pay, full or part time status, etc.
What a freakin' concept, eh?
-Barclay Fitzpatrick, Vice President of Corporate Communications, Capital BlueCross
Digby:
...it made me cry and a Michael Moore film has never made cry before. I've laughed and cheered and certainly gotten enraged, but even through all of those emotions in this film --- and there were plenty of them --- I remained choked up. I just couldn't get past the idea that people could make these life-ending and life-ruining decisions about other people --- for profit. It's so fundamentally at odds with what I think of as normal human empathy that on some levels it seems akin to being a concentration camp guard or an executioner. (And from the emotional reaction from those who'd worked in the industry and had quit, it takes a toll those with empathy who are asked to perform that dirty function as well.)
There is one story in the film of a woman whose husband was denied a bone marrow transplant allegedly because it was an "experimental procedure," --- is one a thousand excuses health insurance companies use to keep from having to provide care for those whose premiums they eagerly cashed in the years before their customer got sick. But I think what got me about that particular story was the fact that this woman worked in the hospital where the board of directors of this managed care company also worked. She spoke to them personally. She wasn't just a piece of paper in an in-box. It was a real live person, a colleague and neighbor, literally begging for her husbands life ... and they said no. For profit. It makes me want to howl in pain and outrage.
Moore's movie is actually quite successful in showing that people in other first world countries with universal care live very well despite the fact that they pay higher taxes for medical care (and other things) because --- they don't have to pay for medical care and those other things. The people who live middle and upper middle class lives as professionals don't lose anything --- and the society as a whole gains tremendously because those crippling worries are removed from all, the poor and middle class alike. I don't think Americans have any idea that they are not actually living at the top of the heap --- they think what we have is a good as it can possibly be, and it just ain't true.
Take a minute and read that last paragraph again.
Yes, the tax bracket is higher for everyone with a nationalized health care program.
But one doesn't have to take into consideration while seeking employment what level of health insurance is offered above and beyond all other aspects of potential employment--like what the actual job is, whether one is qualified and/or trained for it, schedule and pay, full or part time status, etc.
What a freakin' concept, eh?
Friday, July 6, 2007
What would you spend 1.4 trillion on?
Noah Shachtman:
Additional war costs for the next 10 years could total about $472 billion if troop levels fall to 30,000 by 2010, or $919 billion if troop levels fall to 70,000 by about 2013. If these estimates are added to already appropriated amounts, total funding about $980 billion to $1.4 trillion by 2017.
Ummmmm, maybe some Universal Health Care of some kind or another?
NHS services are largely "free at the point of delivery", paid for by taxes; the NHS's budget for 2007-08 is £104($208) billion.
Or maybe rebuilding New Orleans...ten times over?
Hugh Kaufman, senior policy analyst for emergency response at the Environmental Protection Agency, said New Orleans may need one of the largest public building programmes ever seen in the US at a cost of $80-100bn - approximately the same as the yearly cost of the war in Iraq.(yearly cost of the war before the infamous surge...)
How about revamping the education system in this country?
The vast majority of students (up to 70 percent) lack the financial resources to pay tuition up front and must rely on student loans and scholarships from their university, the federal government, or a private lender.
Or research into altenative energy?
Consider the U.S. is spending $67 billion annually on the war on terror vs. $3.4 billion on energy research, according to the National Science Foundation.
What would you spend it on?
Additional war costs for the next 10 years could total about $472 billion if troop levels fall to 30,000 by 2010, or $919 billion if troop levels fall to 70,000 by about 2013. If these estimates are added to already appropriated amounts, total funding about $980 billion to $1.4 trillion by 2017.
Ummmmm, maybe some Universal Health Care of some kind or another?
NHS services are largely "free at the point of delivery", paid for by taxes; the NHS's budget for 2007-08 is £104($208) billion.
Or maybe rebuilding New Orleans...ten times over?
Hugh Kaufman, senior policy analyst for emergency response at the Environmental Protection Agency, said New Orleans may need one of the largest public building programmes ever seen in the US at a cost of $80-100bn - approximately the same as the yearly cost of the war in Iraq.(yearly cost of the war before the infamous surge...)
How about revamping the education system in this country?
The vast majority of students (up to 70 percent) lack the financial resources to pay tuition up front and must rely on student loans and scholarships from their university, the federal government, or a private lender.
Or research into altenative energy?
Consider the U.S. is spending $67 billion annually on the war on terror vs. $3.4 billion on energy research, according to the National Science Foundation.
What would you spend it on?
Thursday, July 5, 2007
I think he may know what he's talking about...
Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
If the Democrats truly want to succeed in forcing President Bush to begin withdrawing from Iraq, the first step is to redefine "supporting the troops" as withdrawing them, citing the mass of accumulating evidence of the psychological as well as the physical damage that the president is forcing them to endure because he did not raise adequate forces. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress could confirm this evidence and lay the blame for "not supporting the troops" where it really belongs – on the president. And they could rightly claim to the public that they are supporting the troops by cutting off the funds that he uses to keep U.S. forces in Iraq.
No U.S. forces have ever been compelled to stay in sustained combat conditions for as long as the Army units have in Iraq. In World War II, soldiers were considered combat-exhausted after about 180 days in the line. They were withdrawn for rest periods. Moreover, for weeks at a time, large sectors of the front were quiet, giving them time for both physical and psychological rehabilitation. During some periods of the Korean War, units had to fight steadily for fairly long periods but not for a year at a time. In Vietnam, tours were one year in length, and combat was intermittent with significant break periods.
Of course, no U.S. forces have found themselves being used a literal pawns in a colossal power and resource grab that the occupation of Iraq has become.
If the Democrats truly want to succeed in forcing President Bush to begin withdrawing from Iraq, the first step is to redefine "supporting the troops" as withdrawing them, citing the mass of accumulating evidence of the psychological as well as the physical damage that the president is forcing them to endure because he did not raise adequate forces. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress could confirm this evidence and lay the blame for "not supporting the troops" where it really belongs – on the president. And they could rightly claim to the public that they are supporting the troops by cutting off the funds that he uses to keep U.S. forces in Iraq.
No U.S. forces have ever been compelled to stay in sustained combat conditions for as long as the Army units have in Iraq. In World War II, soldiers were considered combat-exhausted after about 180 days in the line. They were withdrawn for rest periods. Moreover, for weeks at a time, large sectors of the front were quiet, giving them time for both physical and psychological rehabilitation. During some periods of the Korean War, units had to fight steadily for fairly long periods but not for a year at a time. In Vietnam, tours were one year in length, and combat was intermittent with significant break periods.
Of course, no U.S. forces have found themselves being used a literal pawns in a colossal power and resource grab that the occupation of Iraq has become.
Oh, spiders, what beautiful webs you weave...
My head is seriously hurting after reading this:
Before entering government, Libby was a private attorney who represented billionaire international commodities trader Marc Rich.
Rich was indicted in 1983 by then-U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani on charges of tax evasion and illegal dealing with Iran during the American hostage crisis.
Rich fled to Switzerland. He also occupied a spot on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.
Giuliani, former mayor of New York, is now a leading Republican presidential candidate. He endorsed Bush's decision to spare Libby jail time even though he had tried to put Libby's client behind bars.
Ears...Bleeding...
"After evaluating the facts, the president came to a reasonable decision, and I believe the decision was correct," Giuliani said in a written statement Monday evening.
Rich's fugitive days ended when former President Clinton pardoned him in January 2001, a move that prompted a congratulatory call from Libby to Rich.
**Nervously twitching**
Clinton, of course, is married to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is the Democratic front-runner for the White House.
She blasted Bush's decision on Libby, leaving out any mention of Libby's connection to Rich -- or Rich at all, for that matter.
OOooooo, look at all the pretty strands in the sunlight...
Before entering government, Libby was a private attorney who represented billionaire international commodities trader Marc Rich.
Rich was indicted in 1983 by then-U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani on charges of tax evasion and illegal dealing with Iran during the American hostage crisis.
Rich fled to Switzerland. He also occupied a spot on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.
Giuliani, former mayor of New York, is now a leading Republican presidential candidate. He endorsed Bush's decision to spare Libby jail time even though he had tried to put Libby's client behind bars.
Ears...Bleeding...
"After evaluating the facts, the president came to a reasonable decision, and I believe the decision was correct," Giuliani said in a written statement Monday evening.
Rich's fugitive days ended when former President Clinton pardoned him in January 2001, a move that prompted a congratulatory call from Libby to Rich.
**Nervously twitching**
Clinton, of course, is married to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is the Democratic front-runner for the White House.
She blasted Bush's decision on Libby, leaving out any mention of Libby's connection to Rich -- or Rich at all, for that matter.
OOooooo, look at all the pretty strands in the sunlight...
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
And President George Bush threw it all away...
Robert J. Elisberg:
There's a singular moment that stands out in Michael Moore's new film, SiCKO. The moment bursts your heart with joy and gnashes your teeth with fury. That's a tough trick to pull off.
The moment in question comes during the highly-publicized sequence when Moore has brought a boatload of seriously-ill 9/11 rescue volunteers to Gitmo for treatment. Unable to land, they put ashore instead at Cuba. But the specific moment isn't about any of that, isn't about health care at all.
Just before Moore and his companions are set to leave Cuba, they're told that a local fire department has heard there are 9/11 rescue heroes and would like to meet them. When the Moore group arrives at the station, there are the firefighters standing at full-salute attention. The Cubans explain they wish they could have joined the Americans to help out on 9/11, but add that all firefighters are brothers, all rescue volunteers are honored.
As the Americans movingly head down the line to shake hands with the Cuban firefighters, suddenly they all break into hugs.
It's a glorious, emotional scene, that swells the heart with the sense of decency from both sides. The Cubans nobly reaching out, and the Americans who nobly risked their lives.
When I lived in PA, I was a volunteer firefighter with the local department for a few years in high school and college. I've often thought about it for the past five and a half years, knowing that hundreds or maybe even thousands of individual volunteers like I was during that time in my life rushed up to lower Manhattan and offered to do whatever needed to be done. Seeing these few folks in the film and hearing additional testimony from the in their appearance on Democracy Now! made me ponder the fact that I most likely would have gone up there myself if I hadn't have turned the page to this current chapter of my life here on the gulf coast, and most likely would have been in the same dire straits as Reggie and John.
But Mr. Elisberg uses the example of solidarity between emergency workers across physical and ideological barriers to springboard to a larger theme on squandered opportunities and potential global solidarity in favor of power and resource grabbing:
After 9/11, as horrific as that day was, there was an apparent thought in the air: that through tragedy, the world had come together. The entire world. Friends and enemies alike all over the globe were holding vigils for the stricken-America, knowing that in this disaster, everyone was connected. If there was to be a fight against terrorists, here was the world opening its door and its heart to America. United, the world had a chance to connect and work together to achieve whatever heights it wanted.
And President George Bush threw it all away.
He not only lost the rarest chance of uniting the entire world, but did the unimaginable: he got the world -- ready to support America -- to distrust, even in-part hate the United States to depths this country has never known.
There was our enemy, Cuba -- a nation we've been at conflict with for half a century, a nation off-limits to Americans without special permission -- standing at ready-salute to the heroic men and women who risked themselves in the 9/11 attack. Five years later, still swelling with honor towards them. Not just any nation, but Cuba. Our bitter enemy. Hugging Americans in support for 9/11. Still standing by us, five years later.
And President George Bush threw this all away.
On the Fourth of July, we turn our thoughts to the Statue of Liberty, standing tall in the harbor, welcoming immigrants from around the world to the freedom of our shores. For 232 years, we have been a beacon to all such people and such hopes, and those around the world have looked at that Statue with arm raised and flame held high to stand for all that is good, noble, glorious and important about America.
And President George Bush threw all that away.
The Democrats and even some Republicans who are finally recognizing the antics of this administration for what they are--a shameless grab at as much power, wealth and control as absolutely possible, consequences and repercussions be damned--keep invoking the moniker of Richard Nixon, as in Nixonian Stonewalling, but this goes far beyond what Tricky Dicky tried to get away with. He was content to spy on political rivals and lie to the American people about the escalation of an unpopular war. The Shrub and the Shooter (or is it the other way around?), not to be outdone, have raised the bar to almost unfathomable heights (or depths) by adding torture, kidnapping, illegal and covert wars on non belligerent nations, and the blatant disregard for established international institutions such as the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The damage that has already been wrought and may be additionally wrought in the next 17 months is staggering and hard to comprehend. What's even harder to comprehend is how the damage can be repaired after January 20, 2009.
There's a singular moment that stands out in Michael Moore's new film, SiCKO. The moment bursts your heart with joy and gnashes your teeth with fury. That's a tough trick to pull off.
The moment in question comes during the highly-publicized sequence when Moore has brought a boatload of seriously-ill 9/11 rescue volunteers to Gitmo for treatment. Unable to land, they put ashore instead at Cuba. But the specific moment isn't about any of that, isn't about health care at all.
Just before Moore and his companions are set to leave Cuba, they're told that a local fire department has heard there are 9/11 rescue heroes and would like to meet them. When the Moore group arrives at the station, there are the firefighters standing at full-salute attention. The Cubans explain they wish they could have joined the Americans to help out on 9/11, but add that all firefighters are brothers, all rescue volunteers are honored.
As the Americans movingly head down the line to shake hands with the Cuban firefighters, suddenly they all break into hugs.
It's a glorious, emotional scene, that swells the heart with the sense of decency from both sides. The Cubans nobly reaching out, and the Americans who nobly risked their lives.
When I lived in PA, I was a volunteer firefighter with the local department for a few years in high school and college. I've often thought about it for the past five and a half years, knowing that hundreds or maybe even thousands of individual volunteers like I was during that time in my life rushed up to lower Manhattan and offered to do whatever needed to be done. Seeing these few folks in the film and hearing additional testimony from the in their appearance on Democracy Now! made me ponder the fact that I most likely would have gone up there myself if I hadn't have turned the page to this current chapter of my life here on the gulf coast, and most likely would have been in the same dire straits as Reggie and John.
But Mr. Elisberg uses the example of solidarity between emergency workers across physical and ideological barriers to springboard to a larger theme on squandered opportunities and potential global solidarity in favor of power and resource grabbing:
After 9/11, as horrific as that day was, there was an apparent thought in the air: that through tragedy, the world had come together. The entire world. Friends and enemies alike all over the globe were holding vigils for the stricken-America, knowing that in this disaster, everyone was connected. If there was to be a fight against terrorists, here was the world opening its door and its heart to America. United, the world had a chance to connect and work together to achieve whatever heights it wanted.
And President George Bush threw it all away.
He not only lost the rarest chance of uniting the entire world, but did the unimaginable: he got the world -- ready to support America -- to distrust, even in-part hate the United States to depths this country has never known.
There was our enemy, Cuba -- a nation we've been at conflict with for half a century, a nation off-limits to Americans without special permission -- standing at ready-salute to the heroic men and women who risked themselves in the 9/11 attack. Five years later, still swelling with honor towards them. Not just any nation, but Cuba. Our bitter enemy. Hugging Americans in support for 9/11. Still standing by us, five years later.
And President George Bush threw this all away.
On the Fourth of July, we turn our thoughts to the Statue of Liberty, standing tall in the harbor, welcoming immigrants from around the world to the freedom of our shores. For 232 years, we have been a beacon to all such people and such hopes, and those around the world have looked at that Statue with arm raised and flame held high to stand for all that is good, noble, glorious and important about America.
And President George Bush threw all that away.
The Democrats and even some Republicans who are finally recognizing the antics of this administration for what they are--a shameless grab at as much power, wealth and control as absolutely possible, consequences and repercussions be damned--keep invoking the moniker of Richard Nixon, as in Nixonian Stonewalling, but this goes far beyond what Tricky Dicky tried to get away with. He was content to spy on political rivals and lie to the American people about the escalation of an unpopular war. The Shrub and the Shooter (or is it the other way around?), not to be outdone, have raised the bar to almost unfathomable heights (or depths) by adding torture, kidnapping, illegal and covert wars on non belligerent nations, and the blatant disregard for established international institutions such as the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The damage that has already been wrought and may be additionally wrought in the next 17 months is staggering and hard to comprehend. What's even harder to comprehend is how the damage can be repaired after January 20, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)