Wednesday, March 19, 2008


"Today, I Weep for My Country"

As we pass into the sixth year of the catastrophe that is still the odds-on favorite to reduce this nation to utter chaos, let's remember that yes, many people did foresee this five long years ago.

One of them is the venerable Senator from West Virgina, Robert Byrd. And on March 19, 2003, he stood in the well of the United States Senate and spoke what today sounds like Prophecy, but which even then was only the simple and obvious truth. This is what he said:

I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.

But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat U.N. Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split. After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.

The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.

There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, al-Qaida, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.

The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.

But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.

The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home? A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.

What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?

Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?

War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.

Salon commenter angeldog reminds us that in April 2005 Senator Byrd - "A Great Man Amongst Fools" - published a collection of his many speeches pleading with his colleagues to stop Cheney and Bush from destroying our country. The book is "Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant President." Angeldog recommends "We should all carry this book around, and quote it to those who say "Who could have known?"

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.




There's more: ""Today, I Weep for My Country"" >>

Friday, October 26, 2007


Tough vs. Strong

Smirky threatening air strikes against Iran.

Rudy-the-Perv singing the praises of torture.

Hillary the War Slut promising to maintain the Permanent War On A Noun.

As the tough-guy rhetoric heats up and pushes us ever closer to the brink of nuclear war, let's step back for a minute and remember that tough is the opposite of strong.

Salon commenter Taliesan put it best a few weeks ago:


Tough Vs Strong

The really strong don't just weather the storm, they build a house so they can weather it in comfort.

The tough stand out in the rain.

The really strong stop and think about their actions, and when their actions prove futile, change tactics.

The tough act first and stick to it especially when those actions prove futile.

The strong lead their countries, the tough lead their parties.

The rightwing is obsessed with being tough, and that is all you need to know about their policies on war, peace, poverty and wealth.

The leftwing would much rather be strong.


Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.




There's more: "Tough vs. Strong" >>

Wednesday, July 25, 2007


Why Hillary Has To Convince You Barack Is A Foreign Policy Waif

As we all know Hillary is currently challenging Barack Obama as being naive and not having the foreign policy chops to lead America. Hillary, on the other hand, is selling herself as being a foreign policy wonk. She is an expert who is surrounded by experts. She is ready to lead America.

As I mentioned in my post examining the YouTube debate Barack Obama directly challenged Hillary Clinton's failure to ask about an exit strategy prior to the invasion of Iraq. Everybody knows that Barack was opposed to the Iraq war from the get go. What most people don't know is that his opposition doesn't appear to have been based on mere instinct. What follows is a clip of a 2002 pre-invasion Obama interview. It sounds down right prophetic.



After watching the clip, two things jump into my mind. First, Obama is a pretty smart dude for not having much foreign policy experience. Hillary's attack rings a little hollow.

Second, why the hell wasn't Hillary asking the same questions about a post-invasion Iraq? Didn't her foreign policy wonk buddies warn her of the dangers of an extended occupation? Didn't her own instincts give her the same warning? She doesn't seem any smarter than a whole lot of people who were fooled. If she was warned or she did have an uneasy feeling, why wasn't she asking the right questions? Maybe she did. Could somebody give me a link?

I think that we are going to hear a lot more from Hillary's camp attacking Obama as being naive and inexperienced. We are going to hear it very soon, and it is going to be loud. She has to convince everybody that he is a foreign policy waif.

At the same time he is going to keep attacking her foreign policy credentials. Just because she ate dinner with a lot of heads of state doesn't mean she knows anything about foreign policy.

We are about 4 months early, but it is more fun to watch a fight than the candidates singing each other's praises.




There's more: "Why Hillary Has To Convince You Barack Is A Foreign Policy Waif" >>