Today President Bush announced that Republican Congressman Christopher Cox would be replacing outgoing SEC Chairman William Donaldson pending approval by the Senate. Reuters and many others report:
President Bush on Thursday named Rep. Christopher Cox — a champion of curbing investor lawsuits — as the White House’s choice to head the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, prompting academics to predict a major shift in the market-regulating agency’s focus.
Rep. Cox’s current job is as Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. The House Republican leadership has not yet announced who will take over Cox’s empty seat. Bobby Jindal is part of the House Committee on Homeland Security. He is in fact Vice Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attacks. Now I am not ready to think that the Republican leadership would consider offering the chairmanship of the full committee to a freshman Congressman, but if John Linder of Georgia gets promoted to fill Cox’s seat then it could well end up that Jindal would take over chairmanship of the Subcommittee. Imagine that: A brown guy in charge of overseeing efforts to prevent nuclear and biological attacks against the U.S.
Abhi originally said that Bobby Jindal might replace Chris Cox as chair of the Homeland Security committee
Nope. That’s not what I said. Take another look. My scenario won’t play out of King gets Cox’s chair though.
What Robbins is basically saying in the NRO is that Bush MAY have fixed intelligence, but no one can prove it because we don’t have an audio tape of Bush and Cheney smoking cigars, maniacally planning the war in Iraq – ala Nixon and Halderman. He knows there won’t be an investigation into what Dearlove actually meant because there isn’s a Democratic majority with subpoena power – what a sleazy way to get out of dealing with the truth.
Is that the BEST he can do? This is the ultimate in “depends on what your definition of “is” is…
Following the logic of Robbins we should release almost all criminals in prison because we have don’t have audio taped evidence of them either.
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Two U.S. Army analysts whose work was cited as part of a key intelligence failure on Iraq have received job performance awards for the past three years, The Washington Post reported on Saturday.
The civilian analysts work at the Army’s National Ground Intelligence Center, an agency criticized by President Bush’s commission investigating U.S. intelligence.”
So what’s that about then Rohan? Why have all the people who gave us “bad intelligence,” been promoted or given Medals of Freedom?
The INTELLIGENCE was FIXED around the policy, the whole nation was LIED to, including the SENATORS who voted for this WAR – and 1700 soldiers are dead + countless of civilians. It was WRONG when Clinton bombed the shit out of Iraq in the 90s, and it’s even more wrong now because American soldiers are being killed and maimed for nothing.
And the people who still support this war do so from the air conditioned comfort of their cublicles, parsing language like a Johnny Cochran – while real people die.
Bringing it back to Jindal – why isn’t his brilliant ass, with the rest of guys at NRO (K-Lo, Goldberg, etc), signing up to go fight if they support this war so much?
What about you Rohan, we all know the military could use bright guys like yourself…
And the rest of my Desi brothers out there who support Bush and Iraq…you and me look like the enemy, we could blend right in, provide some real solid intel for our Great leader from behind enemy lines. Let’s lose our legs for FREEDOM.
Because his JOB is a that of a legislator. The JOB of a Soldier,Marine,Airman,Sailor is to fight. They choose their particular profession not because they agree/disagree with a particular agenda, but they do so in placing trust in the citizens of the country.
All one can do is ask said person to do their job.
a) Those guys were not given a promotion or medal, it was a performance award.
b) For those of you who lack knowledge on what a “Job Performance Award” is – Such ‘awards’ are minimal, on the order of a couple hundred bucks (before taxes are deducted) and are given performance based upon the supervisor’s discrection and concurrance with his/her boss. They are generally given as recognition for going above and beyond their duties in helping the organization/project. Example: If you worked your ass of for a particular project beyond what as called for, and your boss saw your contribution, you may get the award. Sometimes organizations give blanket performance awards to spread the money around. Again, not much.
c) Your logic is flawed. the statement reads:
It does not say they were given awards for THAT particular piece of intelligence. It simply says the analysts recieved performance awards. They could have given an analysis that may have saved someone, or found other terrorists, etc. But WE will never know because if the job was done correctly, no one really ever hears about it (rightly so)
The issue is not “If you support the war, then you go fight it”. It is everyone doing their jobs correctly and providing the information necessary for the people who excute the strategy to be successful: The troops.
Being a trooper is a skillset also, it is not something anyone can jump into and go guns blazing. Give some respect to the profession of Soldiering without demeaning them by saying “XYZ, you can go fight too”. No it is not that easy, it is a certain personality that goes into the military and it takes a certain skillset.
Not everyone can be a judge, CEO, doctor, lawyer, engineer, pilot, etc… you have to have a certain apptitude for it.
So wait, hypothetically speaking, if a war existed that EVERYONE and their mother thought was worth fighting, it would be OK to sit in air conditioned comfort parsing language like Johnny Cochran? Just because YOU disagree with the war, a citizen who does not is an ungrateful bastard who sits in the peanut gallery and throws crap? Well then, the only way to get people to understand then would be to foricibly order them to fight…wait… that was the draft and it was deemed to be a bad thing.
It is called a VOLUNTEER force for a reason. Talking someone down because they chose not to fight is simply wrong. You can support a cause an show your support in many other ways than simply picking up a gun.
Lets leave such logic at the doorstep.
So you’re saying that men who made fundamental errors on information analysis that led to us engaging in WAR, might have fucked that up, but did a great job everywhere else – so they got a bonus? Do you SERIOUSLY believe that? Their asses should have been fired, Tenet should be on trial – but I don’t believe Tenet was at fault, he was simply taking orders from Bush/Cheney. If there seriously tried to make him accountable, he’d talk and blow the whole scam.
Bush, who you may recall, said leading up to Iraq, that he was “doing everything possible to prevent war.”
These soldiers put their trust in LEADERS to tell them the TRUTH about something as serious as WAR – their government has lied to them. So now we are seeing a rapid decrease in those that are willing to sign up and fight this War.
Let’s continue this debate this Friday (10th) after 5pm EST when all news that makes the Administration/Pentagon look bad is released. This Friday will cover recruiting numbers – very likely they will be down.
So we will need soliders. I nominate Jindal and rest of the people who support this war. What about you GujuDUDE, what are you busy doing?
BTW, If we had a WAR that everyone supported, then we would have enough people signing up for the military and fighting. We wouldn’t have aggressive recruting tactics taking place in poor rural and inner city neighborhoods. This discussion would be moot.
Why are the lives of brown people in poor neigborhoods more or less valuable than our upper middle class Indo-American ones?
Let’s have a draft and see how fast support for this War drops. The Pentagon and War companies (Lockheed, Boeing, Halliburton etc) are well aware of this…they’d have a fit because the free flow of taxpayer dollars into their coffers would abruptly stop.
If you personally wouldn’t sign up to fight a war you believe in, why should someone else go in your place?
Oh, how I wish I could really partake in this discussion, but, then, who would oppress my workers if not me? They don’t oppress themselves, you know…. (I stole that from someone, can’t remember who, though).
TRUTHMISSILE: Yes, I am very familiar with the polls that showed Bush voters had certain misconceptions, but I find it sort of cute that you think I wouldn’t know these things. There are polls that show that Bush voters are more likely to know certain things that Kerry voters don’t: it all depends on the questions you ask. For instance, who was the main supplier of arms to Saddam? Kerry voters were more likely to say the United States (Germany and Russia, more like….)
From the Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq:
“….In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, thought there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will continue to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American Security…”
Oh, the rest of it is just a work of art. A work of art. A perfect encapsulation of Clintonion have-it-all-ways. And I say that with admiration. Basically, her statement can be used any way she wishes when she runs for president: I voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war with Iraq, but only after he has exhausted all options, gone to the UN so that war is less likely, engaged our allies, and I trust that he will do all these things. Oh, no! I shouldn’t have trusted him. I voted yes, but I didn’t mean it….really, politicians are just a piece of work, aren’t they? Right and left, both.
Also, as a woman, how should I take your comments that I should have no opinion on war without knowing combat (since women are currently barred from certain types of military service)? With that kind of logic, a woman should not be commander-in-chief. Personally, I’d like to see a Hillary vs. Condaleeza election, but, alas, only in my dreams….
PS: I have a copy of the Threatining Storm in my bookcase – the rot runs deep; even Ted Koppel’s son-in-law was in on the action. That darn CIA….
siddhartha, I agree with you and am no longer responding to Rohan’s comments to mine for the reasons I stated above because it’s not worth it. I responded in the first place because I don’t like to silence people without first giving them a chance because that happens to me in other contexts when I disagree with majority opinion and I don’t like being ignored. Plus, I like to argue 🙂
Rep. Charles Rangel answered this best. Here’s an excerpt:
Saurav – perhaps some of the ‘elite’ colleges could allow military recruiters back on campus, if we are so concerned about such inequities?
Hey speaking of Hillary:
For the first and only time on SM, I think I agree with many points that the right-wingers in this string have been making and disagree with the left-wingers. Don’t get me wrong, I as much as anyone want to kick Republicans to the curb but there is a right correct way and there is a wrong way. Like many Democrat guerrilas (see Carville) I am now thinking about the means to our ends instead of fighting Republicans with the same type of nonsensical rhetoric that they always throw at us.
Charles Rangel, huh? I thought it was the Republicans who were planning to bring back the draft. That’s what the Kerry campaign said….
The fact that who gave Saddam the most weapons has nothing to do with the misconceptions people have about WHY we went there. MD, why do these misconceptions exist? The questions are pretty straight forward – was Saddam working with Al Queda, have WMDs been found – why would Kerry voters have said no, and Bush voters said yes? Who could have possibly led them to these erroneous conclusions?
Let’s go through the rest of what Hillary said: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html “…Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible…”
“My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.”
“So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him – use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein – this is your last chance – disarm or be disarmed.”
BTW, this speech was dated October 10, 2002 – FOUR months after MI-6’s Dearlove concluded about Bush’s intentions that “intelligence was being fixed around the POLICY.” – the intelligence that Clinton and other read to come to the conclusion on this vote. The Uranium tubes, the yellowcake from Niger, the biological weapons, etc – all fake, all fraudulent.
And so then you had Negroponte strong arm the Security Council that winter, Bolton was there behind the scenes getting rid of Jose Bustani and anyone who might be an impedence to War… http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/1238/1/32/
then you have Bush’s State address in January citing on Uranium from Niger…16 words etc – you have a boycott of French fries when Chirac advises against the war, Powell’s address to the UN, you have Hans Blix going into Iraq to support the UN resolution saying this at the time:
“In an interview on Wednesday, Dr Blix, the United Nations chief weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the United States’ campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein.
“Whatever we say will be used by some,” Dr Blix said, adding that he had strived to be “as factual and conscientious” as possible. “I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place.”
Dr Blix took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.
Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to other countries to prevent them from being interviewed.
Nor had he any reason to believe, as President George Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists, or that his inspection agency had been penetrated by Iraqi agents and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad.
Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda. “There are other states where there appear to be stronger links,” http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804520548.html?oneclick=true
It was all an orchestrated lie – a scandal so big it’s difficult for us as nation to even comprehend.
And I don’t give a shit if as a woman you have an opinion on War, the military will take you too…
1-800-GO-GUARD
I’m not really sure what this means or what I said in this thread that was nonsensical. Activists outside of politics and people trying to run for office need to engage politics in different ways; I’m not really interested in kicking the Republicans to the curb as much as having politics be about ideas that make sense to me (for example, not pushing the US towards financial bankruptcy, misprioritizing resources, having more local power, supporting human rights, reducing violence of all kinds, supporting the welfare and rights of disempowered people like poor people, Black people, etc.); it’s a long term goal. It obviously makes sense for Hillary Clinton to play to what is now the center (and she seems to be doing it in a smart way, rather than the idiotic way that people like Lieberman do it). But that has nothing to do with my long term goals. There’s a division of labor that ideally would be coordinated to play defense in the short term and transform the political landscape in the long term.
Seriously, you are all over the place.
Calling me out with a “what are YOU doing” is not relevant to the logic of this discussion. In any case, your line of questioning would be moot because I am doing something about it, even if it isn’t on the battle field.
Your nominations mean diddly squat. You nor anyone else has that power or importance to make personal decisions on that level for anyone. Again, joining the military is a decision not to be taken lightly nor in vain.
Your analysis lacks depth. Yes, the recruitment numbers are down and the administration should be held liable for that. Plenty of mistakes have been made under ‘top heavy’ decisions. Instead of letting the people whose job it is to run a war call the shots, the SECDEF has micromanaged and used a minimalist strategy and decided to reorganize portions of the military in a time of need, which produces confusion and inefficiency (the opposite of what his intentions were). The PR and Pulicity has been horribly mismanged also.
Recruiters have always done what you said. Ever since the Military has gone to a volunteer system, they have been aggressive and lied at times. Not that I am saying it is right, but they have always done that. It isn’t something Bush came up with.
Also, for many of these inner city kids and poor rural kids, the military has afforded them an opportunity to go to college, gain valuable skills, and open doors for their future.
There are those who piggyback on such issues, and those people are despicable. However, to “nominate” people for war only highlights your own inflated sense of righteousness. IF you are in the military, then I have no complaints against your rants. If you have walked the walk and talked the talk (served), you are in a position to call people out.
NO, what I am saying is you were spinning the news article. The implied connection you made there was they got an award for messing up. Plus I was educating you on what these ‘awards’ are, what their purpose is, and how they are given. They are not given on the basis of evaluating your overall job performace. They are more specific. If they are not going to be fired, then they will be continually evaluated as all other employees are. What is the point of keeping people around if you have already decided they are unfit? Bottom line, we don’t have any information on those people or the circumstance/details that went into the creation of their faulty analytical position.
Because Soldiering is a profession that has requirements. Many people including myself have skills that are better utilized in a support role. You are also assuming that just because a campaign may be right, that everyone WILL sign up. More people may, but not everyone. Many people cannot sever the attachments they have made in life. Plenty are in a position to conduct change via other conduits, many simply have greater responsibilities, others are handcuffed by circumstances in life.
They are not. Problem is people in middle class Indo-American or not (in this case, American because this is an national issue, it has nothing to do with being Indo-American) don’t really volunteer to sign up for the military in the first place. A sizeable portion comes from the economcially depressed because they do see it as a way out, and for many it has. Now, is it fair they have beared the burden of it? No, but this is what the current system in place for the last 30 odd years has been. The Military directly competes with the commercial market for people.
There was a reason the draft was dropped and it was a darn good one. No need to rehash an old system that FORCED people against THEIR will to partake in the armed forces. The best thing to happen to the Military was turning it into a volunteer force.
Jindal is an elected politician, debate the issues that he has control or influence over. Not coming up with yahoo challenges that asks him to serve in the military. I DONT want Bobby Jindal fighting, I would rather leave that to someone who has the skills to do so.
MD,
I assume you were being tongue-in-cheek about elite colleges, but I think your comment points to the reality of the makeup of the army and the function it serves in society. People who have other opportunities usually don’t choose to risk their lives for abstract ideas like “patriotism.” Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. In any case, here’s the army’s demographic information. I’ll leave out any snide remarks about people who went to elite colleges and somehow managed to avoid active combat while the draft was going on and later participated in tarring other people as unpatriotic for now 🙂
As for Rangel–I think it’s fairly self-evident what he was trying to in raising the issue of the draft–to point out the extreme disconnect between those who serve and those who send them to die and to play good politics; if there were a serious prospect of a draft, it’s hard to imagine him supporting it.
I, however, am at the point that if I were in office, I would explore some sort of compulsory military service as Israel has (and which includes women). Perversely, that might be the only way that American policymakers and their fellow travelers outside of politics (including me, sometimes) might start being a little more circumspect in their decisions to inflict violence and death.
I like this quote from n + 1:
“Extraordinary that people can discuss war without saying to themselves, over and over: ‘we will kill people, we will maim, we will destroy flesh, we will burn and harm. That is what we are planning to do.'”
Extraordinary as it is to engage in that kind of discussion, I actually consented to this war at one point (I think because I’m stupid and was going through an emotionally turbulent part of my life); I later wrote an apology for doing so. I don’t understand why other people don’t do the same.
On an aside, I appreciate that you brought up how you react as a woman to this discussion.
Eh, now I’m a troll. I’ve given my real email address in all posts, I’ve given real links with real facts comprised of real numbers, and this is trolling? Siddhartha, are you just annoyed that I didn’t officially respond to your request that I read that book? Fine, I’ll add “The Colonizer and the Colonized” to my reading list. Are you happy?
As for Saurav, whether or not you respond, let’s address this quote:
“However, there is a very distinct agenda being pushed by the current Republican leadership and its lead supporters who collectively making up a “rightwing” movement in politics, the media, the not-profit world, think tanks, etc. That agenda prizes consolidation of political power above fairness and in some cases the rule of law (e.g. Tom Delay–but by no means only him), which seeks to manipulate process and the press in order to get policy or political results that they want”
I’ve already presented data on whether or not the administration controls the media, and have yet to see anyone post anything remotely refuting those very real numbers. I’ll gladly read it if you can dig them up. If you want to use Fox News as a glaring example, fine. Do it while showing me Fox News’ viewership compared to the viewership of network news, readership of the the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, and so on. Give me a weighted average.
You decry the rise of conservative think tanks as well, while making no mention of groups like MoveOn, mass entertainment distributors like Michael Moore, and only mention Soros in passing, despite the scores of millions he devoted to the cause in a very headline-grabbing way last year. Is Fox News a brainchild of the administration as well or addressing a completely unserved market that was inundated with the likes of Rather, Jennings, and CNN?
You know, I could repeat your exact same phrase above to describe the Clinton administration. But your contention is that those eight years were simple retaliation for Reagan? Here’s what I think: I think Reagan chose his battles, knew what he could and couldn’t win, and achieved only those few goals which he wanted: end communism, end inflation, and boost the economy. He did all of that. He also appreciated the concept of “lesser of two evils,” a policy approach to which I suspect you’d never subscribe. Just so happens that I do.
If we want to discuss basic ideology, fine. Modern liberalism supposedly has its roots in Rousseau’s contention that human nature is intrinsically good, that evil can be countered by negotiation and “understanding.” I find that whole notion laughable. Entirely. I have infinite admiration for Gandhi, but his appeal to the Jews to use non-violent resistance to combat Hitler was not one of the guy’s best moments. Hitler = barbarian. Churchill = not a barbarian.
So with that in mind, I’m able to overlook those things which I consider indiscretions – not the myriad things which you and others of your ilk do – and vote for the Republican party.
i’m not annoyed at anything, brother. i was at peace before, and i still am.
i’m certainly honored you intend to follow up on my suggestion. and once you’ve read it, i’d be happy to chat about it. i’m working with a real name and contact info here too.
peace
Short answer: “I’d rather put someone else’s (poor) ass on the line.”
Put up or shut up, I always say.
I’m pretty sure they do allow recruiters since federal funding is at stake.
I am not saying it is right, BUT…
Logically speaking, throwing a but after that statement necessarily implies that there is some sort of redeeming or mitigating circumstance to unfair/illegal recruiting practices. There isn’t. You are an apologist, plain and simple, as evidenced by the fact that you drag yourself along party lines on ever facet of this issue.
Rohan,
I’m writing this short response because it seems like you want one from me, for whatever reason. In my opinion, from 1964 through the present, there has been a building, large alliance of social and pro-business conservatives. This movement has transformed the media, the basic political discourse, and other things, and now controls both houses of Congress and the Presidency; it will shortly essentially control the entire judiciary (once a few Supreme Court appointments are made in the next couple of years). I agree that what you consider the other side (MoveOn, grassroots organizing groups, etc.) have started to finally generate a response of their own, although thus far it’s only in the formative stages, not on equal footing–unfortunately for me, there is no “vast leftwing conspiracy”–in fact, we don’t even work together very well and you could make an argument that there isn’t really a left in the U.S.
One part of this history is the set of extraordinarily manipulative and borderline illegal tactics that the Bush Administration has pursued, including widespread use of propaganda segments passed off as news, secrecy in important government issues, conflation of Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein to justify war, and many other things. Reagan pursued similar tactics. To me, these are closer to facts than highly contentious arguments, although I could obviously be wrong.
But to really contextualize all this (regardless of your current political views), you need to engage these issues with an understanding of the “Southern Strategy, “new federalism”, and the use of “states rights”, of why one might think the filibuster, the way the Senate is composed, and the electoral college are undemocratic, of why one might think overreliance on the U.S. Constitution could be problematic in solving problems that have changed or emerged since 1787, of the intentional use of budget deficits and tax cuts to starve social spending, triangulation, that Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, etc. have had a larger effect than you can tell just by measuring their circumlation, that there’s a difference between a news outlet that’s more interested in partisanship than news reporting and a news outlet (like the New York Times) that seeks to be objective but still reflects the preconceptions of its staff, and many, many other things.
As someone not holding office, I see the root conflict is not between Democrats and Republicans or Clinton and Bush (although as I said above, there are differences), but whether or not people act from values that are rooted in civility (in a political sense), healthy political competition, transparency, equitable distribution of power and resources, the importance of community, accountability, free press, and other things which to me mean “democracy.” That’s why I would give my soul to OSI before I ever gave it to the Democratic Party.
But, as I said, you’re obviously unreceptive to looking into the veracity of my overall analysis, so read Richard Clarke’s or Christie Todd Whitman’s books because they’ll agree with most of your preconceptions while implying (and agreeing with me) that you made the wrong choice in validating the Bush Administration.
Short answer: I do not have the capablity to be a Soldier. By the way, whenever you deem a fight worth fighting, I will be waiting to see you in your chosen Military career.
Wrong again. I was setting the record straight. I interpreted from Truthmissle’s comments that this administration was the one who set the aggressive tactics recruiters use. My comment was made to rectify that and say they have ALWAYS used those tactics, especially since the military went all voltunteer. And you are right, there is no redeeming value in recruiters lying.
Riiigggghhhtt. Look who is talking. You most definitely are a shining beacon of bi-partisan thought and discourse. I would have to be a Republican first to be an apologist for them. Moderates tend to take it from both sides since we actually think the other side’s argument may have merit at times.
Today’s Left: How can you even consider a republican…ewwwwwww. Damn war monger, baby killing imperialist!
Today’s Right: Did you just say a Democrat has morals and wait, they actually have brass balls? You spineless blasphemous sinner!
Saurav – I wasn’t being tongue in cheek. Some military recruiters complain that they are not given the same access as other recruiters – don’t ask, don’t tell will go away faster I believe if people are recruited from a more diverse environment (and given the attitude to the military of many professors on said campuses, why would people join? As for compulsory service, I go back and forth on that one due to my libertarian principles. In general, I am not into coercion, but I admit I am on the fence on this one). By the way, I read a lot of military blogs (go to Mudvillegazette.com where he has a link of hundreds of milibloggers) and they don’t seem to think they are the dupes you think they are. Perhaps you could go to their blogs and enlighten them?
Anyway Saurav, thanks for your reasoned response : ) But I always get that from you…..
TRUTHMISSILE: Firm civilian control over the military is a very important concept and one of the bedrocks of our nation; to suggest that only those that have served should have a say in political or military affairs is anti-democratic. There are societies that have the privilege of being run by the military and ceding all to the military culture – I believe Pakistan has had issues with that. I think we have a better system, don’t you? Anyway, it’s a silly rhetorical point – I might as well ask why you don’t go to Iraq to serve as a human shield. Why haven’t you?
Guju Dude: yes, moderates do have a harder time of it in the ideological tempest in a teapot known as blog comment sections – I mention I have voted for both a Clinton and a Bush, and yet I am the closed minded one? LOL.
*It’s non of your business, ya’ll, but I am above the age cut-off, and due to a certain chronic illness, wouldn’t pass the physical. And I think TRUTH MISSILE didn’t get my point – Hillary Clinton did not serve, and quite likely she will be the next president. By your logic, she should be disqualified from being commander in chief of the armed forces. And, yes, I read the rest of her statement. It says everything and basically passes the buck. She authorizes the use of force but has the nerve to say that she isn’t really going to take responsibility for this use of force because it is up to Bush to use his good judgement. Is she, and all the others who said Saddam had WMD (which includes Chirac, Putin, Blair, Aznar, Howard, etc) also dupes? By the way, I supported the war because of a nexus of issues: to stop him from procuring weapons and possibly passing them on to a variety of actors, to show the world that UN resolutions mean something and that the world community is capable of policing the likes of Saddam, to remove a tyrant, to jump start democracy in a region that has evolved a toxic political culture that has metastasized and wreaked great havoc in many parts of the globe. You and I will never agree on this, I know, but I appreciate the discussion.
And when did it become a point of pride in the left to feel nothing when a dictator is deposed? Some of the most prominent supporters of the Iraq war were long time anti-Saddam crusaders from the left who held their noses and went along with the Bush administration because they wanted him gone. I’m glad Saddam is gone, I’m glad the changes in the Mideast are happening, I’m glad the discussion in the political realm is now about democracy and opposing dictators – the left and right can unite by pushing the real-politik types of both parties to stop the status quo, to push the Saudis, to push Putin, to push Musharraf, to leverage the money given to the Palestinians and Egyptians to real democratic reforms, and to pressure the Israelis to pull out, to push the Chinese on the North Koreans and to push the Chinese toward democratic reform. We should be on the same side.
Anyway, thanks for playing. I think I’m going to e-mail some of the military bloggers I read a lot and see what they think about TRUTHMISSILES point about service (I am curious to know) – if I have a time I’ll give a followup 🙂
My point is simple. If you believe in a War, you should be willing to fight in it. Otherwise, it’s just an intellectual exercise. What qualifications did Lindey Englad, Jessica Lynch, or Shoshana Johnson for joing the military anyways?
For me, I’ve met with many Vets from various wars, and to me it’s not a left/right issue. War stays with people for the rest of their lives. I met a man who took his men in transport vessels, on the beaches of Tarawa – he let them off into the water and watched them die. The pain never left him, he cried and suffered well into his 70s. During WW2, people like us would particularly be drawn into a draft system just because of the color of our skin. Most vets will tell you they support a draft, it puts the cost of the war on the entire society – not just the voiceless.
I believe in human rights and the rule of law. I’m sure you do as well.
So why is a War that is violating the human rights of people, and deemed illegal in hindsight as it was based on total lies still worthy of support?
“…to stop him from procuring weapons and possibly passing them on to a variety of actors”
Saddam never had the weapons, that’s why we went in the first place. People like Scott Ritter prior to the War were well aware of this fact. I suspect the Administration was well aware of this, that’s why they had to manipulate the intelligence.
“…to show the world that UN resolutions mean something.”
You mean the resolution we essentially violated by going into Iraq after Blix deemed they had no weapons?
“…and that the world community is capable of policing the likes of Saddam, to remove a tyrant, to jump start democracy in a region that has evolved a toxic political culture that has metastasized and wreaked great havoc in many parts of the globe.”
All the SAID reasons for this war are lies. We are not there for democracy or any humanitarian concern. It’s about control of resources and, the unabated contination of taxpayer money for the War Industry. The Military-Industrial complex. Just follow where the money is going – that’s what this is all about.
And in ten years, when we look back on this period, it will be with a sense of frustration – how much we had squandered for the wealth of a few, at the expense of so many.
Ditto.
Actually, working with military and hearing their comments, I would disagree again. Most active duty and vets I have dealt with don’t want a draft because they want to fight alongside people who want to be there in the first place (signed up as volunteers). They don’t want sombody who was forced into the fight for “covering their six”.
Opinions do exist all over the spectrum as this forum demonstrates and I can see the rationale behind some wanting a draft, even though I don’t agree with it.
Yeah, and I complain about a lot of things too, but that doesn’t mean they’re all legitimate 🙂 The military recruiters already have the benefit of the federal government trying to force educational institutions to provide a scary amount of access through tie-ins to funding like No Child Left Behind and this piece of $hit legislation targeting universities.
Getting rid of “don’t act, don’t tell” honestly isn’t high on my list of priorities; at least if it involves promoting militarism and getting more of my brothers and sisters killed.
Hahaha. If I don’t think I have a chance of convincing dogmatic Republicans about President Bush, what makes you think I would want to go to a military serviceperson’s blog to talk about U.S. imperialism? 🙂 In any case, I don’t think it’s simply a matter of being “duped” (although there’s a fair amount of that going on in general)–I’ve heard the military described as an “affirmative action” program for poor kids. That’s a really sick situation for a society to be in, when the best means of advancement for a substantial part of the population is to sign up to learn skills and go kill other people.
Do you all have any idea how much money gets spent on the military? This article cites the Commerce Department saying 2004 defense spending was at 548 billion (both within and outside the Defense Department). And, as they point out, that doesn’t include debt or interest incurred by that spending. In contrast, the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget from that year was 7.6 billion dollars (by their own numbers pdf).
Thanks for your warmth 🙂
I think this editorial says it all…it really covers the REAL economic policy in the past few decades…
“With all of the debate about taxes, the economy and domestic spending, it is hard to imagine anyone supporting the notion of taking money from programs like Medicaid and college-tuition assistance, increasing the tax burden of the vast majority of working Americans, sending the country into crushing debt – and giving the proceeds to people who are so fantastically rich that they don’t know what to do with the money they already have. Yet that is just what is happening under the Bush administration. Forget the middle class and the upper-middle class. Even the merely wealthy are being left behind in the dust by the small slice of super-rich Americans.
In last Sunday’s Times, David Cay Johnston reported that from 1980 to 2002, the latest year of available data, the share of total income earned by the top 0.1 percent of earners more than doubled, while the share earned by everyone else in the top 10 percent rose far less. The share of the bottom 90 percent declined…”
“President Bush did not create the income gap. But the unheralded effect of his tax policy is its unequal impact on the modestly well to do. By 2015, those making between $80,000 and $400,000 will pay as much as 13.9 percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $400,000, assuming the tax cuts are made permanent. Below $80,000, most taxpayers will see their share of taxes rise slightly or stay the same…”
“There is something deeply wrong about a system that calls into question a comfortable retirement or a top-notch education for people who have broken into the top 20 percent of income earners. It starts to seem politically explosive when you consider that in a decade, those making between $100,000 and $200,000 will pay about five to nine percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $1 million, assuming the Bush tax cuts are made permanent.
This is not about giving wealthy people more money to invest back into the economy. At this level, it’s really about giving more money to those who have nothing to do with it except amass enormous estates for their heirs. Fixing the problem will require members of Congress to summon the courage to say no to a president who wants more for the richest of the rich at the expense of everyone else. We’re not holding our breath.” http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/07/opinion/07tues1.html?pagewanted=print
Where does Jindal stand on this policy? I’m friends with the son of a billionaire, they couldn’t be happier with the current policies, and for good reason. They know it’s not fair, but what would you do if your family was rich enough to buy tax policy?
To Saurav and the all other Indo brothers and sisters…
The best documentary on the Military Industrial complex can be seen here… http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/03/1729118.php
“Why We Fight” by Eugene Jarecki
It’s something you really must watch, as chances are someone in your family, as mine, has worked within this system. The fact that I was born in this country is basically because of the Military Industrial complex. What’s interesting is that John McCain and Richard Perle are in it, saying things they could never say on American TV – and this movie won prize for BEST DOCUMENTARY at Sundance this year – but it will never air in America, or get distribution for that matter. The article Saurav links to above explains what that is.
It will really open your eyes.
Scratch that – it just got distribution by Sony Pictures last week…but you can see it for free here:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/03/1729118.php
http://www.indiewire.com/biz/biz_050525wwf.html
Sony Pictures Classics has announced its acquisition of North American rights to Eugene Jarecki’s “Why We Fight,” winner of the Documentary Grand Jury Prize at this year’s Sundance Film Festival. The company is planning a release later this year that will include what filmmaker Jarecki calls a “robust, grassroots educational campaign.”
Describing the film as a “an unflinching look at the anatomy of the American war machine,” Sony Classics and filmmaker Jarecki, director of “The Trials of Henry Kissinger,” are emphasizing that the picture is a non-partisan exploration of the rise of United States militarism since Dwight Eisenhower’s famous farewell speech in which he used the phrase “military industrial complex” and warned that it would threaten this country.
Citing Sony Classics’ release of Errol Morris’ “Fog of War,” Jarecki told indieWIRE yesterday (Tuesday) that Sony Pictures Classics is “uniquely well-suited to take a film like ours out to a wide audience.” And he touted the companies sensitivity in dealing with the release,
“We consider our subject of desperate importance,” Jarecki told indieWIRE, “This is not a film about the Bush administration, it is a film about the evolution of America since World War II.” He reiterated that the film is non-partisan and said if anything it may appeal more to Republicans.
“The film was made in the spirit of trying to reach across party lines,” explained Jarecki, “To ignore the aisle and to say these are issues that mean something to all of us.”
In a joint statement, Michael Barker and Tom Bernard, Co-Presidents of Sony Pictures Classics said, “This is an extraordinary film about the evolution of the power of the military industrial complex. The revelation that Republican President Dwight Eisenhower in 1960 warned the United States and predicted the type of war we are facing today in Iraq and elsewhere is one of many reasons Americans of every political persuasion must see this film.”
The film was written and directed by Jarecki, features Sen. John McCain, author Gore Vidal, William Kristol from Project for the New American Century, former Bush administration adviser Richard Perle and others. It was executive produced by Roy Ackerman, Nick Fraser and Hans Robert Eisenhauer, produced by Susannah Shipman and Eugene Jarecki, with cinematography by Etienne Sauret and May Ying Welsh. It was edited by Nancy Kennedy and composed by Robert Miller.
Can’t WWII finished a long time ago.
I don’t follow party or administration lines unlike you and your ilk. I routinely disagree with the Democrats, and did so during Clinton’s administration. You’re right about one thing, I don’t follow the “bi-partisan” outlook in framing my views. There is more out there.
And you accuse me of giving a cop out answer?
My ilk? Who would those be?
I routinely agree/disagree with Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. But apparently you have figured a way to peer deep in our minds and pass judgement out. Me and my ‘ilk’ are mindless morons who have been brainwashed “A Clock Work Orange Style”.
Or maybe my ilk constitutes zombies in the control of an all powerful sorcerer…..
EXT. A small Egyptian gulley, nightime.
Brendan Fraiser and his crew are surrounded by Zombies in the control of all powerful Imhotep.
ZOMBIES IIIMMMMHHHOOOOOOTEP! IIIIIIIIMMMMMMMHOOOOOTEP!
The world must be ending, I actually agree with you on this one. Despite your excellent ability to communite your thoughs via the written word, your debates (and your ilk’s, those are the people who start passing down holy judgements) eventually start attacking people quite personally instead of putting forth a position, debating its merits, and allowing an interesting discussion to continue. Sadly, you and some others have drawn me into such contests.
I apologize if I’ve attacked/judged any people here personally rather than the opinions presented.
I have no clue who you are, what you do, or what you really even stand for. The only thing that permeates through YOUR conversations here is that you have constantly attacked folks in the comments section in a quite demeaning manner at times, rather than skillfully dissect arguments and positions.
I’m done here. As Vulcans say,”Long live and proser”.
actually, vurdlife seems to be one of the most savvy around here in terms of understanding how power operates. go on, vurd, keep on doin’ the damn thing.
i’ve been hanging round these parts for a little while, and read a bunch of threads that end up more or less like this one. interestingly, although the side that doesn’t like expressions like “house negroes” makes a lot of self-righteous noise about how folks won’t engage in civilized discourse, i notice that those who reject power-based critiques of the current state of affairs NEVER offer a defense of, say, the economic policy of the Bush administration, or even some other kind of “right” policy framework. (if there has been prior to my arrival, apologies to the author. holla back.)
saurav, truth, and any number of others deploy clear information and make simple, common-sense argument. in response there are noises about partisanship and refusal to argue. absurd, no?
come on, y’all — especially those who consider themselves on the right — throw some good stuff at us! where my libertarians at? where my cato institute people at? where my old-school classical economics people at? there are lots of ways to oppose the social and economic agenda of the democrats or of the left — ways that might actually advance the debate! useful ways!
as for “house negroes,” it may be an offensive term, but it sure does capture a reality. anyone want to discuss that reality, we can certainly do that without using the “HN” term. but ya gotta want to discuss. the idea didn’t just fall out of the sky.
peace
Hey no hard feelings buddy. I do think you had listed a long litany of excuses for various administration tactics, but it doesnt have anything to do with me or you or Egyptian zombies (that was a funny reference though)
Also, sorry for saying “you’re an apologist”, I should have said “I feel the view/opinion you expressed is consistent with that of an apologist, although you yourself may or may not be”. It was shorthand but I accept your criticism.