Selling the American People Short

Here is an analysis of a position Governor Mitt Romney expressed in the New Hampshire debate on January 7, 2012.

The Republicans held their 629th debate last night in New Hampshire and, for the most part, it revealed nothing new about the candidates or their positions. OK, they are against gay marriage and they think Obama is a socialist. We get it. However there was a moment with the inevitable nominee, Mitt Romney, that was disturbing, if not revealing.

I find it amazing that we have troops in harm's way around the world - in Afghanistan right now, in Iraq the first three years of this president's term. He doesn't go on TV every month and talk to the American people about the sacrifice being made by these men and women. I find it extraordinary that a very few number of families are paying the price of freedom in America. The hurdle to actually putting our troops in harm's way is very, very high, and the test is America's interests. Our security interests. And they have to be involved in a very significant way to deploy our troops.

First of all, what president has ever gone on TV every month to talk about war? Only someone who is not paying attention, or is being deliberately dishonest, could accuse President Obama of not speaking up enough on behalf of the troops.

More importantly, how can Romney, who evaded the draft in his youth by going on a Mormon missionary trip that he spent in a palace in France, and took a couple of educational deferments to attend Brigham Young University and Harvard Business School, now grumble that too few families are "paying the price of freedom."

And what of Romney's family? He has five sons who were of age to serve in the military during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but here is how he described their contribution to freedom's cost during his 2008 campaign:

Romney: It's remarkable how we can show our support for our nation, and one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected, because they think I'd be a great president. My son, Josh, bought the family Winnebago and has visited 99 counties, most of them with his three kids and his wife. And I respect that and respect all of those in the way they serve this great country.

So traveling around the United States in a custom painted luxury RV, touting their father for president, is somehow analogous to risking one's life in the harsh deserts and mountains of the Middle East? This is how the Romney boys sacrificed on behalf their country:

Yep. That's the "Five Brothers Mitt Mobile" and Mitt's boy Craig cavorting with dangerous cheerleading insurgents.

For Romney to complain that "a very few number of families are paying the price of freedom," is extraordinarily callous and hypocritical considering that his own family is conspicuously welching on the debt. It exemplifies the aloofness and privilege of a multimillionaire who clearly regards himself as superior to the masses. This soundbite from last night's debate should get extra attention because it appears to be one of the only positions that Romney has held consistently for several years.

Romney doesn't seem to know anything about "paying the price of freedom in America. Maybe he thinks he can just buy freedom. He could be wrong!

If You Can't Blame Obama, Then Blame The Women

Is CNN contributor Erick Erickson a Rush Limbaugh wannabe? This is what he said on his radio show earlier this week (h/t Media Matters for America):

By the way, it's the women's fault. … It's, apparently, the women in the Obama administration who have decided we needed to go to war in Libya. … This is typical. This is so typ-- i'm mean, I'm going to bring my inner sexist out I'm afraid tonight, some of you are going to be very upset with me. But this is like women drivers. We're going to war in Libya, we have no plan, we have no map, even if we have a map of war, um, it wasn't going to get read, they were going to pull over and ask the French apparently for help, or at least make the guy pull over and ask the French for help. This is crazy....

This is just silly. I mean, back-seat driving by the women, and they're gonna get Barack Obama lost. What is it with Barack Obama caving to the women? I mean, now we know who rules his personal life. I guess Michelle is firmly in charge as well, if Barack Obama is going to cave that easy to three women in his administration over what to do with Libya....

It took the women to get him involved, and the women apparently went in without a clear plan. No shopping list.

(Added emphasis)

Listen to his comments during the March 21st broadcast of his radio show.

CNN's Erickson isn't the only man criticizing the women in Obama's administration. The Nation's Katha Pollitt critiqued the sexist rhetoric used by her fellow Nation blogger Robert Dreyfuss.

In a post originally titled "Obama's Women," Dreyfuss argued that Obama administration advisers Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Hillary Clinton (to quote Pollitt) "are a 'troika,' a 'trio' who 'rode roughshod over the realists in the administration' (all men) and 'pushed Obama to war.'"

A number of the comments on Pollitt's piece made this basic argument: "Dreyfuss' post isn't evidence of widespread misogyny; he's just one misguided blogger who chose his words poorly." As much as all of us in the progressive sphere would love for that to be true -- for sexist language and attitudes to be outliers, rather than epidemic -- that just isn't the case. Pollitt was writing specifically about the prevalence of misogyny in left-leaning media outlets, but, of course, the problem is everywhere. And the women of the Obama Administration, in particular, have been frequent targets of that misogyny of late.

Feminist blogger Echidne finds this attitude to be prevalent.

[W]e now live in a post-feminist world? When honor killings exist? When the United States has never had a female president? When the Erick Ericksons of this world can proudly compare the US Secretary of State to bad women drivers? When work-life balance is just yet another women's issue? When I can watch a week of Japanese television about the earthquake-tsunami-nuclear-disaster combination and not see one female expert or politician interviewed, when all those rooms of power are full of only men? When the US Republican Party has declared an all-out war on women, and few notice this?....

Gender equality is not something that is taken seriously, in general. That's why Erickson can present his contempt of women as a joke and that's why we don't all riot when we are told that women should cut back on higher education so as to leave more space for men which they then could marry. We are uncomfortable with taking the topic seriously because we are still living the neolithic era of gender relationships.

Being politically correct is a figment of the past. Talking heads, political pundits, Faux News and now CNN are taking the Howard Stern reins of the political scene.

Your WTF Moment!

Republican video activist James O'Keefe on FoxNews, 01/26/10. (image: FoxNews)

John Cory shows the incongruity of too many situations.

The issue of Justice!

I guess if you live long enough you'll get to see it all.

On Thursday a federal judge gave James O'Keefe a stern talking to about his deception in entering a US Senator's office and trying to vandalize and muck about with the telephones. What could have been felony charges were reduced to misdemeanors by influential GOP lawyers previously and after the stern talking to - O'Keefe avoided trial.

Meanwhile in Georgia, a 14-year-old autistic boy with the mental function of a third-grader will face felony charges of terrorism for drawing a stick figure with a gun aimed at another stick figure with a teacher's name above it.

Sounds about right.

The issue of Money!

A guy named Rand Paul and another guy named John Stossel both agree that civil rights should not be forced upon private businesses because a free market is more effective than legislation. A free market is about freedom and freedom is about everyone having the freedom not to be free or making other people less free. Oh, both these guys think the minimum wage is a bad thing and will drive business - out of business - because paying workers a decent wage is not profitable.

Well, that makes sense.

The issue of Politics!

A CBS news crew tried to film oil hitting Louisiana shores but got stopped by BP contractors and the Coast Guard and were told BP had not given permission to be there and film. BP = British Petroleum told an American News Organization that they did not have permission to land and film on American soil. But not to worry, I read somewhere that President Obama had harsh words and a stern warning to BP to get this oil disaster taken care of - ASAP!

I guess that will teach them, eh!

The issue of Corporate Finance!

The corporations that caused the greatest financial disaster in American history have faced no criminal charges and no real changes in how they pay bonuses and perks to their executives. In fact, perks are rising. And remember that commission, looking into AIG? They said to move along now, nothing to see.

But I understand President Obama is forming a commission to look into BP about that oil disaster so that should even things out. Right? I wonder if he had to get permission from BP or Sarah Palin to do that?

I almost forgot, financial stocks rose on news of the Senate passing Financial Reform on to conference. If Wall Street likes it, how bad could it be? Like Healthcare? No.

The issue of War!

President Obama gave a commencement speech to West Point. You should read it because frankly it chilled me to the bone to hear how the wars all started, why they continue and what is ahead on the horizon - more of the same but not as much.

I don't get it.

We need a signal for distress?

How upside down is this country?

I mean, come on folks. Chris Matthews is considered a leading liberal? The guy who ranted and railed against Clinton and Gore, who fell in love with George Bush's flight suit macho package only to turn around with a thrill up his leg for Obama and now he's a liberal? The only thing liberal about Matthews is the amount of wine he pours himself on the veranda of his multi-million dollar Nantucket house.

We are literally drowning Louisiana and the Gulf Coast in oil with very little action to stop it. We got pissed at George Bush for letting New Orleans drown during Katrina and now President Obama appears reluctant to interfere with the free market of Big Oil.

This has to be your moment of: WTF, over?

We are making sure teenagers go to jail but people of privilege skate.

Corporations are god and citizens as worker bees for the greater greed.

If you want freedom, start a business. If you want civil rights, stick with your own kind. Party like it's 1951!

And be sure to thank CNN for warning us about the new Miss America with that great headline: Miss USA: Muslim Trailblazer or Hezbollah Spy?

Apparently BP hates Arizona because the free market of Big Oil hires these folks in Florida. I'm sure it has nothing to do with minimum wage or regulations or big government impeding the free market or...?

We used to hang Old Glory upside down as a signal for distress.

No need for that these days.

The only reason to hang the flag upside down is to match America.

All together now, WTF!!!!

Collateral Murder

If you haven't seen this, you should. "A stark and painful reminder of why military suppression of a sovereign civilian population does not work."

An Overview

5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".

Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.

WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.

WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.

Short Version



Full Version

How To Handle Terrorism...or Not

Since 9/11 there have been many politicians who have spewed a message of fear-mongering. According to Daniel Klaidman at Newsweek, this is a GOP assault that may backfire. In his article, Terror Begins at Home, Klaidman compares the GOP scare rhetoric with the current administration's antiterror policy.

Fearmongering politicians are scoring cheap political points at the expense of the American people.

Jostling before the midterms has begun, and so too has the GOP's ritualistic hazing of Democrats on national security. At every turn Republicans are hammering the Obama administration for "capitulating" in the fight against terrorism. But their macho rhetoric actually sends a message of weakness: we can't try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the same civilian courts that have convicted dozens of other international terrorists because Al Qaeda might attack New York. (When since 9/11 has New York not been a target of Al Qaeda?) Our criminal-justice system can't deal with a failed underwear bomber. The GOP assault may be smart politics, but in the long run it damages U.S. security by undermining our confidence and resiliency in the face of certain attacks to come.

By contrast, much of the current administration's antiterror policy seems aimed at strengthening the American spirit in the face of a diffuse but determined enemy. After Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to bring down Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day, President Obama waited 72 hours before appearing in front of the cameras to make a statement. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) immediately cruised the cable circuit lambasting Obama for his lapse in "leadership" in the wake of what he claimed could have been "one of the greatest tragedies in the history of our country." The president should have stepped forward "to give a sense of confidence to the country." But it was precisely the president's deliberate restraint that conveyed confidence, not King's hysterical overreaction. When Obama did address the public, his response was measured and proportionate. "This incident," he said, "demonstrates that an alert and courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated extremist."

Those words may have been dismissed as boilerplate, but Obama aides tell me they reflected a core conviction of the president's. In fact, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has also made encouraging "resiliency"—in government institutions as well as people—a priority. In surprisingly blunt language, the recently released Quadrennial Homeland Security Review says Americans will need to be "psychologically prepared to withstand" terrorism and other disasters, "and grow stronger over time."

The effect of fear mongering behavior.

The next time a prophet of doom warns of impending disaster, think how our behavior compares with that of other countries that have been attacked since 9/11. After the 7/7 attack on the London Underground, which killed 52 people, Londoners, recalling their pluck during the Blitz, gamely showed up en masse the next morning for their daily commute. The Israelis make a point of rebuilding blown-up cafés in a matter of days after an attack; similarly, they return to targeted bus lines the day after a bombing. The message is clear: we're not going to let terrorists break our spirit. Had America rebuilt the Twin Towers in the first years after 9/11, they would be standing tall today as symbols of defiance. Instead, when I drive by Ground Zero, still a gaping pit, I wonder how we would react if New York were hit again.

Even the administration's emphasis on resiliency isn't enough on its own, says homeland-security expert Stephen Flynn, who has done more than anyone to promote the concept. "The hard part is converting the rhetoric into reality," he says, complaining that the White House has not put forward the necessary funds to train ordinary citizens to handle disasters and terror attacks.

Having the opposite effect.

Americans are historically a tough lot. But the policies and rhetoric of the Bush-Cheney years, which set the tone for the current GOP attacks, are infantilizing: be very afraid, we're told, and let the government take care of you. The tough-guy bluster has led to a permanent state of anxiety—and a slew of counterproductive policies, from harsh visa restrictions to waterboarding. Our politicians rail about apocalyptic threats while TSA officers pat down toddlers at the airport. The irony is that many potentially lethal terror attacks—from United Flight 93 to Richard Reid to the underwear bomber—have been foiled by regular citizens. The aim of terrorists is to make people feel powerless and afraid. Un-fortunately, not every plot will be foiled. But if that's the standard we and our leaders set for ourselves, we are doomed to perpetuate dumb policies that flow from irrational fears. Just what the terrorists want.

It is time to be tough but not traumatized.

"What are we making Weapons for?

"What are we making Weapons for?" is the sub-title for the song written by John denver, "Let us Begin".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgMRrqeXe5A

We all know the answer!

Liz Cheney, The Defender of Lies

Lawrence O'Donnell tears into Liz Cheney for her remarks criticizing President Obama for his visit to Dover AFB. Liz Cheney lies again. Chip off the old block.

Via Crooks and Liars:

O'DONNELL: When President Obama honored our Afghanistan war dead by taking part in a military ritual at Dover Air Force Base yesterday, it was easily predictable that a Republican would criticize him for it. And in our fourth story on the Countdown, the former Vice President's pet attack dog, his daughter Liz Cheney, has now done just that. And once again, she wasn't going to let the facts get in the way.

On the John Gibson radio show yesterday, Ms. Cheney was rehashing her father's fact-free critique of President Obama's war in Afghanistan, and then Mr. Gibson asked her about the President's appearance at Dover Air Force Base.

LIZ CHENEY (RADIO AUDIO): I don't know why he went to Dover. I mean, I think that clearly it is very important for a commander-in-chief, whenever he can in whatever way it possible, to pay tribute to our fallen soldiers, our fallen military folks. But, I think, you know, what President Bush used to do was to it without the cameras, and I don't understand sort of showing up with the White House Press Pool with photographers and asking the family if you can take pictures. I just... that's really hard for me to get my head around—I think it's an honorable and important thing for us to pay tribute. There's no greater sacrifice people make to the nation. But, it was a surprising way for the President to choose to do it.

O'DONNELL: As we mentioned yesterday, President Bush never went to Dover Air Force Base to honor dead American soldiers on their final journey. And Vice President Cheney... never did either.

Hey Liz, have you ever lost a relative in battle? I have. My cousin Johnny, West Point graduate like his father before him. I wish the President or the Vice President had met his casket on the way home.

You know what 'never' means, Liz? It means zero. It means that in over seven years of two wars, your dad never left the comfort of his White House office or the Vice President's mansion and got himself up to Dover to bear witness to how his warmongering fell on families of dead American soldiers. Never, not once.

Liz, don't let your dad do this to you. Don't let him parade you onto the stage to defend the indefensible. Let him suffer the full weight of the shame that we know he must feel when he watches Barack Obama do what he never had the decency to do.

President Bush did meet with grieving military families in private, and he went to military hospitals to visit the wounded. As for Ms. Cheney's reference to cameras, the policy of banning media coverage of coffins continued unaltered throughout the Bush administration. Thus, even families that wanted media coverage of their loved one's ceremony were not given any choice in the matter.

Furthermore, President Obama did not make any special requests to any of yesterday's eighteen families as Ms. Cheney implies, I mean lies. The vast majority of those families had already made their individual decisions about media coverage under the current policy before the notification that President Obama would be part of the ceremony.

As for Dick Cheney, when he was Vice President, he sometimes met with the war wounded, but like President Bush, he never went to Dover, either. Never.

And a reminder, Mr. Cheney successfully sought out five deferments from the draft to avoid having to serve his country in the Vietnam War. Mr. Cheney's fifth and final deferment a result of his wife's becoming pregnant with Liz. Mr. Cheney was granted a 3A status, the hardship exemption by his draft board, which was available to men with children at that time.

Wake Up President Obama!

Afghanistan?

A Different Way to Look at War

Today on CBS Sunday Morning, Charles Osgood had a story about two U.S. Vietnam veterans and a Vietnam pilot who met after the war and became friends. These men had a connection because they were fighter pilots who had engaged in air-to-air combat and lived to tell the tale.

Making Peace-Vietnam Vets

For many of us, the Vietnam War seems like the distant past. But for two American airmen and their one-time enemy, a North Vietnamese fighter pilot, reliving that war and the pain it inflicted on them has been a constant in their lives -- at least until earlier this year, when the three pilots, who first encountered each other more than four decades ago in air-to-air combat, met face-to-face for the first time.

At the end of this story, a definition of war was offered.

War: A disagreement between friends who just haven't had a chance to meet.

It is Time to Accept Responsibility

The Astounding Costs of the Iraq Occupation

Bush's War Totals

We are now able to estimate the number of Iraqis who have died in the war instigated by the Bush administration.

About 1 Million Killed,
4.5 Million Displaced,
1-2 Million Widows,
5 Million Orphans

The availability of healthcare, clean water, functioning schools, jobs and so forth remains elusive. According to Unicef, many provinces report that less than 40 percent of households have access to clean water. More than 40 percent of children in Basra, and more than 70 percent in Baghdad, cannot attend school.

If You Haven't Figured it Out.....

WAR SUCKS!!!

Russia Targets Georgia's Capital In Expanded Bombing Blitz