25 May 2006
23 May 2006
What The Heck Do Democrats Run On?
*Kris just forwarded this - it's awesome.
ON THE TRAIL
By Chuck Todd
NationalJournal.com© National Journal Group Inc.
Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2006
There's a growing realization within Democratic circles that the party is facing a tough hurdle when it comes to concocting a message that's "not them" to "why us."
The "not them" part of their message is getting written by the Justice Department and the slow-to-act House GOP leadership on a nearly daily basis. And for their part, Democrats have actually done a decent job of pushing the "not them" with their "culture of corruption" refrain.
Making the case for firing a political party or elected official is easy to do in campaign politics. Making the case to hire in lieu of is much harder.
Making the case for firing a political party or an elected official is one of the easier things to do in campaign politics. Making the case to hire in lieu of is much harder.
Let's just look back at 2004 and 2005 and note the number of campaigns that were more "not them" than "why us" and how many of them actually won.
John Kerry's entire campaign was built around "not them" and that was good enough to unite the Democratic base, good enough to make the presidential race competitive, but not good enough for the swing voters (mostly white, married women) to hire Kerry.
Doug Forrester's campaign for New Jersey governor in 2005 was exclusively "not them" as it made the assumption that the voters in the state had had it when it came to political corruption. But Forrester never made a strong "why us" argument and, of course, Forrester's opponent, Jon Corzine, had the resources to develop both the "not them" and "why us" messages.
Freddy Ferrer only had a "not them" message when it came to unseating New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg; and that "not them" was solely based on Bloomberg's party affiliation.
The parties or candidates who successfully "fire" or unseat a party/incumbent from office usually have a potent combination of the two. Some recent examples:
In 2000, George W. Bush weaved his "not them" and "why us" messaging quite effectively using his "restore honor and integrity" line without talking too much about how he'd govern differently than Clinton.
In 2004, John Thune had the benefit of two years to get South Dakota voters comfortable with the "why us" message and that gave him the luxury of focusing a "not them" on Tom Daschle. Again, as far as voters were concerned, they were hearing both "not them" and "why us."
In fact, as much as we talk about the "throw the bums out" mentality that can take hold of electorates, it appears that candidates who unseat incumbent parties or elected officials usually do so because of how well they deliver their "why us" message. Sure, the "not them" is important, but the "why us" is much more so. Just ask Jim Talent in Missouri, Norm Coleman in Minnesota or Mark Pryor in Arkansas. (By the way, Bob Casey Jr. needs to take note of this; his party has the "not him" down pat in regards to Rick Santorum but Casey still needs the "why him." But we digress...)
It seems the Democrats don't have a solid "why us" message yet. At best, their "why us" can be described as "not them but like they wanted to be." Take, for instance, Al Gore's Monday speech on privacy or Harry Reid's tour of the red states talking about fiscal responsibility or Reid and Nancy Pelosi talking about some extreme ethics reform that neither would have been trumpeting back in '92.
But all of these stances seem to mirror a more Republican philosophy or campaign tactic of old that may give the Democrats difficulty in firmly selling their "why us."
What the Democrats are missing is the big "easy to grasp" issue to be "for." In '94, Republicans used "term limits" among other issues as an easy way to underscore their change message. Granted, selling change based on 40 years of control versus the 12 years Democrats are trying to stop is easy. Still, "term limits" seemed like an idea that was bigger than just the congressional election. There were ballot-initiative campaigns all over the country trying to get various state legislatures to abide by term limits.
Of course, we can debate all day about whether the term-limit system keeps politicians from becoming power-hungry or emboldens lobbyists to truly run the asylum. (For what it's worth, we think term limits are a disaster on the state legislative level, as lobbyists have taken over multiple state houses and senates for the worst, but may be necessary on the federal level to clean up this current mess.)
So what is the "big idea" or two Democrats are going to pitch? Right now, it's a party that seems to fear the "big idea" because of divisions within its own ranks. Whether it's Iraq, health care, energy or education, there seems to be nothing but caution being put forth.
But the problem isn't just the lack of a "why us" message from the Democrats but the messengers themselves.
Take, for instance, the Sam Alito hearings where Democrats trotted out too many old, liberal lions and featured virtually no one under the age of 55. There was too much Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden and Pat Leahy. And no senators elected since 2000, senators who should/could be the face of the party for years to come, like Mark Pryor, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama or Ken Salazar.
What a contrast Lindsey Graham was for the GOP compared to Kennedy. This isn't to say that the Republicans don't have their share of tired faces, particularly on the Judiciary Committee. But somehow, they also had fresh faces to feature, while the Democrats had no one fresh even though there are some dynamic Democrats ready for their closeup.
A few weeks ago, Bob Novak made a very smart observation in the lack of "new Democratic blood" residing on the House side as well. He noted how reticent House Democrats are at churning out their ranking committee members, something the Republicans do more regularly. From Charlie Rangel to John Dingell to Henry Waxman to Tom Lantos, it's hard to find a major legislative lion among House Democrats that was elected after 1996.
In fact, it was one of the few Newt Gingrich-led reforms in how the House operates that's remained largely intact on the Republican side -– i.e., the six-year committee chairmanship term limit (though there has been some tinkering). We'd argue that, for instance, had the six-year term limit enforced on committee chairmanships been applied to leadership (particularly the speaker slot), we'd have seen new blood flow into their ranks a while ago.
And that's where the Democrats find themselves at the start of this election year. They have their "not them" message down pat (it was what 2004 was largely built on), but they can't communicate their "why us" thanks to a combination of no clear issue/idea to rally around and the lack of a strong team of folks to deliver the message.
-- Chuck Todd is a NationalJournal.com contributing editor and editor in chief of The Hotline. His e-mail address is ctodd@nationaljournal.com.
Crazy Weather
So the weather here has been crazy! I still have my bikini tan lines from 2 weeks ago when it was scorching! And yet here I am freezing and have busted out my boots AGAIN! It's now become necessary to take my umbrella, sunglasses, a tank top and a coat with me at all times - do'h!
But for the funniest weatherman I have ever seen... check this out: http://www.wimp.com/weatherman/. Freakin' hilarious.
But for the funniest weatherman I have ever seen... check this out: http://www.wimp.com/weatherman/. Freakin' hilarious.
21 May 2006
In Need of a Little Help From My Friends
Alright all you politicos....
I am coming to DC in 2 weeks to do academic reseeach for my dissertation and am looking to interview both Democratic and Republican consultants, pollsters, strategists and communication staffers - basically anyone who has insight into GOP rhetoric and messaging,especially in regards to the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.
Although the trip is funded, which is great, it's happenning much earlier than I had originally scheduled and so am running extremely tight on time.
If you have any contacts that you think would be helpful I would REALLY appreciate it. They are only 25-30 minute interviews and I will be in DC May 31-June15th and am very flexible on time/location/etc.
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!
I am coming to DC in 2 weeks to do academic reseeach for my dissertation and am looking to interview both Democratic and Republican consultants, pollsters, strategists and communication staffers - basically anyone who has insight into GOP rhetoric and messaging,especially in regards to the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.
Although the trip is funded, which is great, it's happenning much earlier than I had originally scheduled and so am running extremely tight on time.
If you have any contacts that you think would be helpful I would REALLY appreciate it. They are only 25-30 minute interviews and I will be in DC May 31-June15th and am very flexible on time/location/etc.
THANK YOU SO MUCH!!!!
16 May 2006
Kerry's Cash May Buy '08 Loyalty
By Nicole Duran
Roll Call
May 1, 2006
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is doing his best to turn lemons into lemonade. He lost his bid to become president in 2004, but that campaign left him with an invaluable commodity: an e-mail list 3 million strong that he can call upon to rally support for causes and candidates -- or another presidential run.
These days Kerry has been putting it to work on behalf of Democratic candidates, party committees and affiliated groups, making him the biggest donor among potential 2008 presidential candidates this cycle.
Since losing to President Bush, Kerry's political action committee, Keeping America's Promise, has given about $1.2 million to candidates, far more than the leadership PACs of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), former Senator and Kerry's 2004 vice presidential running mate John Edwards (D-N.C.), Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), or any of the other potential White House hopefuls.
Using his federal campaign account, his old presidential primary account and his e-mail list, Kerry has donated, raised or helped Democrats collect more than $7.5 million since November 2004. "Give me five more John Kerry's," says Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). "He's a fighter, and he puts his money where his mouth is."
Kerry's efforts through March 31 have benefited 110 local, state and federal candidates and 31 party committees, according to information provided by his political aides. Of those, 40 are House incumbents, 11 are incumbent Senators, 26 are House challengers, and six are Senate hopefuls.
He has traveled to 24 states, and insists that he does at least one event for a Democratic candidate or party while on the road, according to his political aides. "He set out immediately after the 2004 election to help Democrats win in the 2005 and 2006 elections and beyond and to build grassroots support for Democratic candidates," said John Geisser, executive director of Keeping America's Promise.
He cut $1 million checks to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from funds left over from his presidential primary account shortly after losing the presidency. He gave the DCCC $500,000.
Kerry considers a number of factors. Veterans, especially of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, are a high priority for him, Geisser said. So far, the decorated Vietnam War veteran has helped nine vets launch challenges to GOP incumbents this cycle. Geisser said Kerry has also "sought to help Democratic challengers and incumbents who are in key competitive races that have the potential to determine the outcome of the national elections in November." Kerry's involvement can help land a previously low-profile House candidate on the national stage. A Kerry e-mail "has the ability to transform an election," said Jenny Backus, a Kerry consultant. "Not everyone knows who Rahm and [Senate Minority Leader Harry] Reid are; they all know who John Kerry is."
National Guard veteran Tim Walz, who is hoping to knock off Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R) in Minnesota's 1st district, which favored Bush over Kerry 51 percent to 47 percent, would have no qualms about making a public appearance with Kerry, according to his campaign. "He's very popular here," said Walz's campaign manager, Kerry Greeley. "We're talking about bringing him to the district; we certainly would like to have him come." JohnKerry.com channeled $25,000 to Walz's upstart campaign.
Kerry has assisted Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) in his tough re-election fight. Nelson's campaign manager, Chad Clanton, said Nelson would be proud to share a stage with Kerry -- even though Kerry lost the Sunshine State to Bush by about 380,000 votes. "Sen. Nelson and Sen. Kerry are colleagues and good friends, Clanton said. "We're gratified for his help."
Roll Call
May 1, 2006
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is doing his best to turn lemons into lemonade. He lost his bid to become president in 2004, but that campaign left him with an invaluable commodity: an e-mail list 3 million strong that he can call upon to rally support for causes and candidates -- or another presidential run.
These days Kerry has been putting it to work on behalf of Democratic candidates, party committees and affiliated groups, making him the biggest donor among potential 2008 presidential candidates this cycle.
Since losing to President Bush, Kerry's political action committee, Keeping America's Promise, has given about $1.2 million to candidates, far more than the leadership PACs of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), former Senator and Kerry's 2004 vice presidential running mate John Edwards (D-N.C.), Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), or any of the other potential White House hopefuls.
Using his federal campaign account, his old presidential primary account and his e-mail list, Kerry has donated, raised or helped Democrats collect more than $7.5 million since November 2004. "Give me five more John Kerry's," says Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). "He's a fighter, and he puts his money where his mouth is."
Kerry's efforts through March 31 have benefited 110 local, state and federal candidates and 31 party committees, according to information provided by his political aides. Of those, 40 are House incumbents, 11 are incumbent Senators, 26 are House challengers, and six are Senate hopefuls.
He has traveled to 24 states, and insists that he does at least one event for a Democratic candidate or party while on the road, according to his political aides. "He set out immediately after the 2004 election to help Democrats win in the 2005 and 2006 elections and beyond and to build grassroots support for Democratic candidates," said John Geisser, executive director of Keeping America's Promise.
He cut $1 million checks to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from funds left over from his presidential primary account shortly after losing the presidency. He gave the DCCC $500,000.
Kerry considers a number of factors. Veterans, especially of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, are a high priority for him, Geisser said. So far, the decorated Vietnam War veteran has helped nine vets launch challenges to GOP incumbents this cycle. Geisser said Kerry has also "sought to help Democratic challengers and incumbents who are in key competitive races that have the potential to determine the outcome of the national elections in November." Kerry's involvement can help land a previously low-profile House candidate on the national stage. A Kerry e-mail "has the ability to transform an election," said Jenny Backus, a Kerry consultant. "Not everyone knows who Rahm and [Senate Minority Leader Harry] Reid are; they all know who John Kerry is."
National Guard veteran Tim Walz, who is hoping to knock off Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R) in Minnesota's 1st district, which favored Bush over Kerry 51 percent to 47 percent, would have no qualms about making a public appearance with Kerry, according to his campaign. "He's very popular here," said Walz's campaign manager, Kerry Greeley. "We're talking about bringing him to the district; we certainly would like to have him come." JohnKerry.com channeled $25,000 to Walz's upstart campaign.
Kerry has assisted Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) in his tough re-election fight. Nelson's campaign manager, Chad Clanton, said Nelson would be proud to share a stage with Kerry -- even though Kerry lost the Sunshine State to Bush by about 380,000 votes. "Sen. Nelson and Sen. Kerry are colleagues and good friends, Clanton said. "We're gratified for his help."
End of the Year Party
Wait - what?! It's over?!
Juraj, Jane and Chris 
Me, Natalia and Jack
Mark, Me, Iwan (my professor), Iza and Angela 
Mauro, Natalia, Maria
Olivia, Alex, Simon, Simon and his girlfriend
Matt, Richard, Roberta and her boyfriend
Lola, Hannah, Chris
15 May 2006
CA-50
This is my former Congressional district and the one I represented as a Delegate at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Go Francine Busby - go!
http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/004694.html
And speaking of the California election coming up (24 days!) - where is my absentee ballot?!
http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/004694.html
And speaking of the California election coming up (24 days!) - where is my absentee ballot?!
10 May 2006
Soundbites...
"I would say the best moment of all was when I caught a 7.5 pound perch in my lake."-- President Bush, asked about his best moment in office
"Five years after President Bush said he would find Osama bin Laden, we're all glad to hear that all he's caught is an apparently harmless fish."-- DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel
"Five years after President Bush said he would find Osama bin Laden, we're all glad to hear that all he's caught is an apparently harmless fish."-- DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel
09 May 2006
Going to DC
Just bought my ticket to go to DC and super excited about it. I'll be there to interview Republican strategists for my dissertation but also looking forward to catch up with the DC crew...
I'll be there from 31 May to 15 June - right after Jack and I are off to the country to celebrate his 30th and then straight back toBelgium for some pre-World Cup celebrating/romantic weekend... looking forward to it all. As Mark said last night - 'Damn girl, you sure like your travelling!' Damn straight :)
I'll be there from 31 May to 15 June - right after Jack and I are off to the country to celebrate his 30th and then straight back toBelgium for some pre-World Cup celebrating/romantic weekend... looking forward to it all. As Mark said last night - 'Damn girl, you sure like your travelling!' Damn straight :)
07 May 2006
Oh Exams
Almost done with exams - only one more to go - yippee! Today is a study break - started with a run and then Mission Impossible III with my flat-mates. Now it's off to my boyfriend's to make mango salsa and fish and avacado salsa... this is me just PRETENDING I still live in California!
26 April 2006
Dissent
Senator John Kerry
"Dissent"
Faneuil Hall
April 22, 2006
As prepared for delivery
Thirty-five years ago today, I testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, and called for an end to the war I had returned from fighting not long before.
It was 1971 – twelve years after the first American died in what was then South Vietnam, seven years after Lyndon Johnson seized on a small and contrived incident in the Tonkin Gulf to launch a full-scale war—and three years after Richard Nixon was elected president on the promise of a secret plan for peace. We didn't know it at the time, but four more years of the War in Vietnam still lay ahead. These were years in which the Nixon administration lied and broke the law—and claimed it was prolonging war to protect our troops as they withdrew—years that ultimately ended only when politicians in Washington decided they would settle for a "decent interval" between the departure of our forces and the inevitable fall of Saigon. I know that some active duty service members, some veterans, and certainly some politicians scorned those of us who spoke out, suggesting our actions failed to "support the troops"—which to them meant continuing to support the war, or at least keeping our mouths shut. Indeed, some of those critics said the same thing just two years ago during the presidential campaign. I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong. And to affirm that it is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a President who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation. I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles. When brave patriots suffer and die on the altar of stubborn pride, because of the incompetence and self-deception of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to reclaim the moral authority misused by those entrusted with high office.
It was 1971 – twelve years after the first American died in what was then South Vietnam, seven years after Lyndon Johnson seized on a small and contrived incident in the Tonkin Gulf to launch a full-scale war—and three years after Richard Nixon was elected president on the promise of a secret plan for peace. We didn't know it at the time, but four more years of the War in Vietnam still lay ahead. These were years in which the Nixon administration lied and broke the law—and claimed it was prolonging war to protect our troops as they withdrew—years that ultimately ended only when politicians in Washington decided they would settle for a "decent interval" between the departure of our forces and the inevitable fall of Saigon.
I know that some active duty service members, some veterans, and certainly some politicians scorned those of us who spoke out, suggesting our actions failed to "support the troops"—which to them meant continuing to support the war, or at least keeping our mouths shut. Indeed, some of those critics said the same thing just two years ago during the presidential campaign.
I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong. And to affirm that it is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a President who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation.
I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles. When brave patriots suffer and die on the altar of stubborn pride, because of the incompetence and self-deception of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to reclaim the moral authority misused by those entrusted with high office.
I believed then, just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country's ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties. They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin. And that's certainly what I felt when I came home from Vietnam convinced that our political leaders were waging war simply to avoid responsibility for the mistakes that doomed our mission in the first place.
Indeed, one of the architects of the war, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, confessed in a recent book that he knew victory was no longer a possibility far earlier than 1971. By then, it was clear to me that hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen—disproportionately poor and minority Americans—were being sent into the valley of the shadow of death for an illusion privately abandoned by the very men in Washington who kept sending them there. All the horrors of a jungle war against an invisible enemy indistinguishable from the people we were supposed to be protecting—all the questions associated with quietly sanctioned violence against entire villages and regions—all the confusion and frustration that came from defending a corrupt regime in Saigon that depended on Americans to do too much of the fighting—all that cried out for dissent, demanded truth, and could not be denied by easy slogans like "peace with honor"—or by the politics of fear and smear. It was time for the truth, and time for it all to end, and my only regret in joining the anti-war movement was that it took so long to succeed—for the truth to prevail, and for America to regain confidence in our own deepest values.
I believed then, just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country's ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties. They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin. And that's certainly what I felt when I came home from Vietnam convinced that our political leaders were waging war simply to avoid responsibility for the mistakes that doomed our mission in the first place. Indeed, one of the architects of the war, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, confessed in a recent book that he knew victory was no longer a possibility far earlier than 1971.
By then, it was clear to me that hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen—disproportionately poor and minority Americans—were being sent into the valley of the shadow of death for an illusion privately abandoned by the very men in Washington who kept sending them there. All the horrors of a jungle war against an invisible enemy indistinguishable from the people we were supposed to be protecting—all the questions associated with quietly sanctioned violence against entire villages and regions—all the confusion and frustration that came from defending a corrupt regime in Saigon that depended on Americans to do too much of the fighting—all that cried out for dissent, demanded truth, and could not be denied by easy slogans like "peace with honor"—or by the politics of fear and smear. It was time for the truth, and time for it all to end, and my only regret in joining the anti-war movement was that it took so long to succeed—for the truth to prevail, and for America to regain confidence in our own deepest values.
The fissures created by Vietnam have long been stubbornly resistant to closure. But I am proud it was the dissenters—and it was our veterans' movement—and people like Judy Droz Keyes—who battled not just to end the war but to combat government secrecy and the willful amnesia of a society that did not want to remember its obligations to the soldiers who fought. We fought the forgetting and pushed our nation to confront the war's surplus of sad legacies—Agent Orange, Amer-Asian orphans, abandoned allies, exiled and imprisoned draft dodgers, doubts about whether all our POWs had come home, and honor at last for those who returned from Vietnam and those who did not. Because we spoke out, the truth was ultimately understood that the faults in Vietnam were those of the war, not the warriors.Then, and even now, there were many alarmed by dissent—many who thought that staying the course would eventually produce victory—or that admitting the mistake and ending it would embolden our enemies around the world. History disproved them before another decade was gone: Fourteen years elapsed between the first major American commitment of helicopters and pilots to Vietnam and the fall of Saigon. Fourteen years later, the Berlin Wall fell, and with it the Communist threat. You cannot tell me that withdrawing from Vietnam earlier would have changed that outcome.
The lesson here is not that some of us were right about Vietnam, and some of us were wrong. The lesson is that true patriots must defend the right of dissent, and hear the voices of dissenters, especially now, when our leaders have committed us to a pre-emptive "war of choice" that does not involve the defense of our people or our territory against aggressors. The patriotic obligation to speak out becomes even more urgent when politicians refuse to debate their policies or disclose the facts. And even more urgent when they seek, perversely, to use their own military blunders to deflect opposition and answer their own failures with more of the same. Presidents and politicians may worry about losing face, or votes, or legacy; it is time to think about young Americans and innocent civilians who are losing their lives. This is not the first time in American history when patriotism has been distorted to deflect criticism and mislead the nation. In the infancy of the Republic, in 1798, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts to smear Thomas Jefferson and accuse him of treason. Newspapers were shut down, and their editors arrested, including Benjamin Franklin's grandson. No wonder Thomas Jefferson himself said: "Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism." In the Mexican War, a young Congressman named Abraham Lincoln was driven from public life for raising doubts about official claims. And in World War I, America's values were degraded, not defended, when dissenters were jailed and the teaching of German was banned in public schools in some states. At that time it was apparently sounding German, not looking French, that got you in trouble. And it was panic and prejudice, not true patriotism, that brought the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II—a measure upheld by Supreme Court Justices who did not uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution. We are stronger today because no less a rock-ribbed conservative than Robert Taft — "Mr. Republican" himself — stood up and said at the height of the second World War that, "the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur."
Even during the Cold War—an undeclared war, and often more a war of nerves and diplomacy than of arms—even the mildest dissenters from official policy were sometimes silenced, blacklisted, or arrested, especially during the McCarthy era of the early 1950s. Indeed, it was only when Joseph McCarthy went through the gates of delirium and began accusing distinguished U.S. diplomats and military leaders of treason that the two parties in Washington and the news media realized the common stake they had in the right to dissent. They stood up to a bully and brought down McCarthyism's ugly and contrived appeals to a phony form of 100% Americanism. Dissenters are not always right, but it is always a warning sign when they are accused of unpatriotic sentiments by politicians seeking a safe harbor from debate, from accountability, or from the simple truth. Truth is the American bottom line. Truth above all is fundamental to who we are. It is no accident that among the first words of the first declaration of our national existence it is proclaimed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident…". This hall and this Commonwealth have always been at the forefront of seeking out and living out the truth in the conduct of public life. Here Massachusetts defined human rights by adopting our own Bill of Rights; here we took a stand against slavery, for women's suffrage and civil rights for all Americans. The bedrock of America's greatest advances—the foundation of what we know today are defining values—was formed not by cheering on things as they were, but by taking them on and demanding change.
And here and now we must insist again that fidelity, honor, and love of country demand untrammeled debate and open dissent. At no time is that truer than in the midst of a war rooted in deceit and justified by continuing deception. For what is at stake here is nothing less than life itself. As the statesman Edmund Burke once said: "A conscientious man should be cautious how he dealt in blood." Think about that now—in a new era that has brought old temptations and tested abiding principles. America has always embraced the best traditions of civilized conduct toward combatants and non-combatants in war. But today our leaders hold themselves above the law—in the way they not only treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib, but assert unchecked power to spy on American citizens. America has always rejected war as an instrument of raw power or naked self-interest. We fought when we had to in order to repel grave threats or advance freedom and self-determination in concert with like-minded people everywhere. But our current leadership, for all its rhetoric of freedom and democracy, behaves as though might does make right, enabling us to discard the alliances and institutions that served us so well in the past as nothing more now than impediments to the exercise of unilateral power.
America has always been stronger when we have not only proclaimed free speech, but listened to it. Yes, in every war, there have been those who demand suppression and silencing. And although no one is being jailed today for speaking out against the war in Iraq, the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily, and the habit of labeling dissenters as unpatriotic has become the common currency of the politicians currently running our country.
Dismissing dissent is not only wrong, but dangerous when America's leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion of the nation's direction, and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure, or genuine debate. In recent weeks, a number of retired high-ranking military leaders, several of whom played key combat or planning roles in Afghanistan and Iraq, have come forward publicly to call for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And across the administration, from the president on down, we've heard these calls dismissed or even attacked as acts of disloyalty, or as threats to civilian control of the armed forces. We have even heard accusations that this dissent gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That is cheap and it is shameful. And once again we have seen personal attacks on the character of those who speak out. How dare those who never wore the uniform in battle attack those who wore it all their lives—and who, retired or not, did not resign their citizenship in order to serve their country.
In recent weeks, a number of retired high-ranking military leaders, several of whom played key combat or planning roles in Afghanistan and Iraq, have come forward publicly to call for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And across the administration, from the president on down, we've heard these calls dismissed or even attacked as acts of disloyalty, or as threats to civilian control of the armed forces. We have even heard accusations that this dissent gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That is cheap and it is shameful. And once again we have seen personal attacks on the character of those who speak out. How dare those who never wore the uniform in battle attack those who wore it all their lives—and who, retired or not, did not resign their citizenship in order to serve their country.
The former top operating officer at the Pentagon, a Marine Lieutenant General, said "the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results." It is hard for a career military officer to speak those words. But at a time when the administration cannot let go of the myths and outright lies it broadcast in the rush to war in Iraq, those who know better must speak out. At a time when mistake after mistake is being compounded by the very civilian leadership in the Pentagon that ignored expert military advice in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, those who understand the price being paid for each mistake by our troops, our country, and Iraq itself must be heard. Once again we are imprisoned in a failed policy. And once again we are being told that admitting mistakes, not the mistakes themselves, will provide our enemies with an intolerable propaganda victory. Once again we are being told that we have no choice but to stay the course of a failed policy. At a time like this, those who seek to reclaim America's true character and strength must be respected.
The true defeatists today are not those who call for recognizing the facts on the ground in Iraq. The true defeatists are those who believe America is so weak that it must sacrifice its principles to the pursuit of illusory power. The true pessimists today are not those who know that America can handle the truth about the Administration's boastful claim of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. The true pessimists are those who cannot accept that America's power and prestige depend on our credibility at home and around the world. The true pessimists are those who do not understand that fidelity to our principles is as critical to national security as our military power itself. And the most dangerous defeatists, the most dispiriting pessimists, are those who invoke September 11th to argue that our traditional values are a luxury we can no longer afford. Let's call it the Bush-Cheney Doctrine. According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, alliances and international institutions are now disposable—and international institutions are dispensable or even despicable.
According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, we cannot foreswear the fool's gold of information secured by torturing prisoners or creating a shadow justice system with no rules and no transparency. According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, unwarranted secrecy and illegal spying are now absolute imperatives of our national security. According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, those who question the abuse of power question America itself. According to the Bush-Cheney doctrine, an Administration should be willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the Iraq war, but unwilling to spend a few billion dollars to secure the American ports through which nuclear materials could make their way to terrorist cells. According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, executive powers trump the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, smearing administration critics is not only permissible, but necessary—and revealing the identity of a CIA agent is an acceptable means to hide the truth.
The raw justification for abandoning so many American traditions exposes the real danger of the Bush-Cheney Doctrine. We all understand we are in a long struggle against jihadist extremism. It does represent a threat to our vital security interests and our values. Even the Bush-Cheney Administration acknowledges this is preeminently an ideological war, but that\'s why the Bush-Cheney Doctrine is so ill-equipped to fight and win it. Our enemies argue that all our claims about advancing universal principles of human rights and mutual respect disguise a raw demand for American dominance. They gain every time we tolerate or cover up abuses of human rights in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, or among sectarian militias in Iraq, and especially when we defiantly disdain the rules of international law. Our enemies argue that our invasion and occupation of Iraq reflect an obsession with oil supplies and commercial opportunities. They gain when our president and vice president, both former oil company executives, continue to pursue an oil-based energy strategy, and provide vast concessions in Iraq to their corporate friends. And so there's the crowning irony: the Bush-Cheney Doctrine holds that many of our great traditions cannot be maintained; yet the Bush-Cheney policies, by abandoning those traditions, give Osama bin Laden and his associates exactly what they want and need to reinforce their hate-filled ideology of Islamic solidarity against the western world.
The raw justification for abandoning so many American traditions exposes the real danger of the Bush-Cheney Doctrine. We all understand we are in a long struggle against jihadist extremism. It does represent a threat to our vital security interests and our values. Even the Bush-Cheney Administration acknowledges this is preeminently an ideological war, but that's why the Bush-Cheney Doctrine is so ill-equipped to fight and win it.
Our enemies argue that all our claims about advancing universal principles of human rights and mutual respect disguise a raw demand for American dominance. They gain every time we tolerate or cover up abuses of human rights in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, or among sectarian militias in Iraq, and especially when we defiantly disdain the rules of international law.
Our enemies argue that our invasion and occupation of Iraq reflect an obsession with oil supplies and commercial opportunities. They gain when our president and vice president, both former oil company executives, continue to pursue an oil-based energy strategy, and provide vast concessions in Iraq to their corporate friends.
And so there's the crowning irony: the Bush-Cheney Doctrine holds that many of our great traditions cannot be maintained; yet the Bush-Cheney policies, by abandoning those traditions, give Osama bin Laden and his associates exactly what they want and need to reinforce their hate-filled ideology of Islamic solidarity against the western world.
I understand fully that Iraq is not Vietnam, and the war on terrorism is not the Cold War. But in one very crucial respect, we are in the same place now as we were thirty five years ago. When I testified in 1971, I spoke out not just against the war itself, but the blindness and cynicism of political leaders who were sending brave young Americans to be killed or maimed for a mission the leaders themselves no longer believed in.
The War in Vietnam and the War in Iraq are now converging in too many tragic respects.
As in Vietnam, we engaged militarily in Iraq based on official deception.
As in Vietnam, we went into Iraq ostensibly to fight a larger global war under the misperception that the particular theater was just a sideshow, but we soon learned that the particular aspects of the place where we fought mattered more than anything else.
And as in Vietnam, we have stayed and fought and died even though it is time for us to go.
We are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The first was against Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction. The second was against terrorists whom, the administration said, it was better to fight over there than here. Now we find our troops in the middle of an escalating civil war.
Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion. We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it as much as we do. Our valiant soldiers can't bring democracy to Iraq if Iraq's leaders are unwilling themselves to make the compromises that democracy requires. As our generals have said, the war cannot be won militarily. It must be won politically. No American soldier should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their ethnic and political differences. Our call to action is clear. Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines—a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to hold three elections. It was the most intense 11th hour pressure that just pushed aside Prime Minister Jaafari and brought forward a more acceptable candidate. And it will demand deadline toughness to reign in Shiite militias Sunnis say are committing horrific acts of torture every day in Baghdad. So we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet. Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to deal with these intransigent issues and at last put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.
Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion. We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it as much as we do. Our valiant soldiers can't bring democracy to Iraq if Iraq's leaders are unwilling themselves to make the compromises that democracy requires.
As our generals have said, the war cannot be won militarily. It must be won politically. No American soldier should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their ethnic and political differences.
Our call to action is clear. Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines—a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to hold three elections. It was the most intense 11th hour pressure that just pushed aside Prime Minister Jaafari and brought forward a more acceptable candidate. And it will demand deadline toughness to reign in Shiite militias Sunnis say are committing horrific acts of torture every day in Baghdad.
So we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet.
Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to deal with these intransigent issues and at last put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.
If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end. Doing so will actually empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country.So now, as in 1971, we are engaged in another fight to live the truth and make our own government accountable. As in 1971, this is another moment when American patriotism demands more dissent and less complacency in the face of bland assurances from those in power. We must insist now that patriotism does not belong to those who defend a President's position—it belongs to those who defend their country. Patriotism is not love of power; it is love of country. And sometimes loving your country demands you must tell the truth to power. This is one of those times. Lives are on the line. Lives have been lost to bad decisions – not decisions that could have gone either way, but decisions that constitute basic negligence and incompetence. And lives continue to be lost because of stubbornness and pride. We support the troops—the brave men and women who have always protected us and do so today—in part by honoring their service, and in part by making sure they have everything they need both in battle and after they have borne the burden of battle.
If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end. Doing so will actually empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country.
So now, as in 1971, we are engaged in another fight to live the truth and make our own government accountable. As in 1971, this is another moment when American patriotism demands more dissent and less complacency in the face of bland assurances from those in power.
We must insist now that patriotism does not belong to those who defend a President's position—it belongs to those who defend their country. Patriotism is not love of power; it is love of country. And sometimes loving your country demands you must tell the truth to power. This is one of those times.
Lives are on the line. Lives have been lost to bad decisions – not decisions that could have gone either way, but decisions that constitute basic negligence and incompetence. And lives continue to be lost because of stubbornness and pride.
We support the troops—the brave men and women who have always protected us and do so today—in part by honoring their service, and in part by making sure they have everything they need both in battle and after they have borne the burden of battle.
But I believe now as strongly and proudly as I did thirty-five years ago that the most important way to support the troops is to tell the truth, and to ensure we do not ask young Americans to die in a cause that falls short of the ideals of this country. When we protested the war in Vietnam some would weigh in against us saying: "My country right or wrong." Our response was simple: "Yes, my country right or wrong. When right, keep it right and when wrong, make it right." And that's what we must do again today.
"Dissent"
Faneuil Hall
April 22, 2006
As prepared for delivery
Thirty-five years ago today, I testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, and called for an end to the war I had returned from fighting not long before.
It was 1971 – twelve years after the first American died in what was then South Vietnam, seven years after Lyndon Johnson seized on a small and contrived incident in the Tonkin Gulf to launch a full-scale war—and three years after Richard Nixon was elected president on the promise of a secret plan for peace. We didn't know it at the time, but four more years of the War in Vietnam still lay ahead. These were years in which the Nixon administration lied and broke the law—and claimed it was prolonging war to protect our troops as they withdrew—years that ultimately ended only when politicians in Washington decided they would settle for a "decent interval" between the departure of our forces and the inevitable fall of Saigon. I know that some active duty service members, some veterans, and certainly some politicians scorned those of us who spoke out, suggesting our actions failed to "support the troops"—which to them meant continuing to support the war, or at least keeping our mouths shut. Indeed, some of those critics said the same thing just two years ago during the presidential campaign. I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong. And to affirm that it is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a President who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation. I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles. When brave patriots suffer and die on the altar of stubborn pride, because of the incompetence and self-deception of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to reclaim the moral authority misused by those entrusted with high office.
It was 1971 – twelve years after the first American died in what was then South Vietnam, seven years after Lyndon Johnson seized on a small and contrived incident in the Tonkin Gulf to launch a full-scale war—and three years after Richard Nixon was elected president on the promise of a secret plan for peace. We didn't know it at the time, but four more years of the War in Vietnam still lay ahead. These were years in which the Nixon administration lied and broke the law—and claimed it was prolonging war to protect our troops as they withdrew—years that ultimately ended only when politicians in Washington decided they would settle for a "decent interval" between the departure of our forces and the inevitable fall of Saigon.
I know that some active duty service members, some veterans, and certainly some politicians scorned those of us who spoke out, suggesting our actions failed to "support the troops"—which to them meant continuing to support the war, or at least keeping our mouths shut. Indeed, some of those critics said the same thing just two years ago during the presidential campaign.
I have come here today to reaffirm that it was right to dissent in 1971 from a war that was wrong. And to affirm that it is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a President who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a war in Iraq that weakens the nation.
I believed then, just as I believe now, that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves our people and our principles. When brave patriots suffer and die on the altar of stubborn pride, because of the incompetence and self-deception of mere politicians, then the only patriotic choice is to reclaim the moral authority misused by those entrusted with high office.
I believed then, just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country's ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties. They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin. And that's certainly what I felt when I came home from Vietnam convinced that our political leaders were waging war simply to avoid responsibility for the mistakes that doomed our mission in the first place.
Indeed, one of the architects of the war, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, confessed in a recent book that he knew victory was no longer a possibility far earlier than 1971. By then, it was clear to me that hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen—disproportionately poor and minority Americans—were being sent into the valley of the shadow of death for an illusion privately abandoned by the very men in Washington who kept sending them there. All the horrors of a jungle war against an invisible enemy indistinguishable from the people we were supposed to be protecting—all the questions associated with quietly sanctioned violence against entire villages and regions—all the confusion and frustration that came from defending a corrupt regime in Saigon that depended on Americans to do too much of the fighting—all that cried out for dissent, demanded truth, and could not be denied by easy slogans like "peace with honor"—or by the politics of fear and smear. It was time for the truth, and time for it all to end, and my only regret in joining the anti-war movement was that it took so long to succeed—for the truth to prevail, and for America to regain confidence in our own deepest values.
I believed then, just as I believe now, that it is profoundly wrong to think that fighting for your country overseas and fighting for your country's ideals at home are contradictory or even separate duties. They are, in fact, two sides of the very same patriotic coin. And that's certainly what I felt when I came home from Vietnam convinced that our political leaders were waging war simply to avoid responsibility for the mistakes that doomed our mission in the first place. Indeed, one of the architects of the war, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, confessed in a recent book that he knew victory was no longer a possibility far earlier than 1971.
By then, it was clear to me that hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen—disproportionately poor and minority Americans—were being sent into the valley of the shadow of death for an illusion privately abandoned by the very men in Washington who kept sending them there. All the horrors of a jungle war against an invisible enemy indistinguishable from the people we were supposed to be protecting—all the questions associated with quietly sanctioned violence against entire villages and regions—all the confusion and frustration that came from defending a corrupt regime in Saigon that depended on Americans to do too much of the fighting—all that cried out for dissent, demanded truth, and could not be denied by easy slogans like "peace with honor"—or by the politics of fear and smear. It was time for the truth, and time for it all to end, and my only regret in joining the anti-war movement was that it took so long to succeed—for the truth to prevail, and for America to regain confidence in our own deepest values.
The fissures created by Vietnam have long been stubbornly resistant to closure. But I am proud it was the dissenters—and it was our veterans' movement—and people like Judy Droz Keyes—who battled not just to end the war but to combat government secrecy and the willful amnesia of a society that did not want to remember its obligations to the soldiers who fought. We fought the forgetting and pushed our nation to confront the war's surplus of sad legacies—Agent Orange, Amer-Asian orphans, abandoned allies, exiled and imprisoned draft dodgers, doubts about whether all our POWs had come home, and honor at last for those who returned from Vietnam and those who did not. Because we spoke out, the truth was ultimately understood that the faults in Vietnam were those of the war, not the warriors.Then, and even now, there were many alarmed by dissent—many who thought that staying the course would eventually produce victory—or that admitting the mistake and ending it would embolden our enemies around the world. History disproved them before another decade was gone: Fourteen years elapsed between the first major American commitment of helicopters and pilots to Vietnam and the fall of Saigon. Fourteen years later, the Berlin Wall fell, and with it the Communist threat. You cannot tell me that withdrawing from Vietnam earlier would have changed that outcome.
The lesson here is not that some of us were right about Vietnam, and some of us were wrong. The lesson is that true patriots must defend the right of dissent, and hear the voices of dissenters, especially now, when our leaders have committed us to a pre-emptive "war of choice" that does not involve the defense of our people or our territory against aggressors. The patriotic obligation to speak out becomes even more urgent when politicians refuse to debate their policies or disclose the facts. And even more urgent when they seek, perversely, to use their own military blunders to deflect opposition and answer their own failures with more of the same. Presidents and politicians may worry about losing face, or votes, or legacy; it is time to think about young Americans and innocent civilians who are losing their lives. This is not the first time in American history when patriotism has been distorted to deflect criticism and mislead the nation. In the infancy of the Republic, in 1798, Congress enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts to smear Thomas Jefferson and accuse him of treason. Newspapers were shut down, and their editors arrested, including Benjamin Franklin's grandson. No wonder Thomas Jefferson himself said: "Dissent is the greatest form of patriotism." In the Mexican War, a young Congressman named Abraham Lincoln was driven from public life for raising doubts about official claims. And in World War I, America's values were degraded, not defended, when dissenters were jailed and the teaching of German was banned in public schools in some states. At that time it was apparently sounding German, not looking French, that got you in trouble. And it was panic and prejudice, not true patriotism, that brought the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II—a measure upheld by Supreme Court Justices who did not uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution. We are stronger today because no less a rock-ribbed conservative than Robert Taft — "Mr. Republican" himself — stood up and said at the height of the second World War that, "the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur."
Even during the Cold War—an undeclared war, and often more a war of nerves and diplomacy than of arms—even the mildest dissenters from official policy were sometimes silenced, blacklisted, or arrested, especially during the McCarthy era of the early 1950s. Indeed, it was only when Joseph McCarthy went through the gates of delirium and began accusing distinguished U.S. diplomats and military leaders of treason that the two parties in Washington and the news media realized the common stake they had in the right to dissent. They stood up to a bully and brought down McCarthyism's ugly and contrived appeals to a phony form of 100% Americanism. Dissenters are not always right, but it is always a warning sign when they are accused of unpatriotic sentiments by politicians seeking a safe harbor from debate, from accountability, or from the simple truth. Truth is the American bottom line. Truth above all is fundamental to who we are. It is no accident that among the first words of the first declaration of our national existence it is proclaimed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident…". This hall and this Commonwealth have always been at the forefront of seeking out and living out the truth in the conduct of public life. Here Massachusetts defined human rights by adopting our own Bill of Rights; here we took a stand against slavery, for women's suffrage and civil rights for all Americans. The bedrock of America's greatest advances—the foundation of what we know today are defining values—was formed not by cheering on things as they were, but by taking them on and demanding change.
And here and now we must insist again that fidelity, honor, and love of country demand untrammeled debate and open dissent. At no time is that truer than in the midst of a war rooted in deceit and justified by continuing deception. For what is at stake here is nothing less than life itself. As the statesman Edmund Burke once said: "A conscientious man should be cautious how he dealt in blood." Think about that now—in a new era that has brought old temptations and tested abiding principles. America has always embraced the best traditions of civilized conduct toward combatants and non-combatants in war. But today our leaders hold themselves above the law—in the way they not only treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib, but assert unchecked power to spy on American citizens. America has always rejected war as an instrument of raw power or naked self-interest. We fought when we had to in order to repel grave threats or advance freedom and self-determination in concert with like-minded people everywhere. But our current leadership, for all its rhetoric of freedom and democracy, behaves as though might does make right, enabling us to discard the alliances and institutions that served us so well in the past as nothing more now than impediments to the exercise of unilateral power.
America has always been stronger when we have not only proclaimed free speech, but listened to it. Yes, in every war, there have been those who demand suppression and silencing. And although no one is being jailed today for speaking out against the war in Iraq, the spirit of intolerance for dissent has risen steadily, and the habit of labeling dissenters as unpatriotic has become the common currency of the politicians currently running our country.
Dismissing dissent is not only wrong, but dangerous when America's leadership is unwilling to admit mistakes, unwilling to engage in honest discussion of the nation's direction, and unwilling to hold itself accountable for the consequences of decisions made without genuine disclosure, or genuine debate. In recent weeks, a number of retired high-ranking military leaders, several of whom played key combat or planning roles in Afghanistan and Iraq, have come forward publicly to call for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And across the administration, from the president on down, we've heard these calls dismissed or even attacked as acts of disloyalty, or as threats to civilian control of the armed forces. We have even heard accusations that this dissent gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That is cheap and it is shameful. And once again we have seen personal attacks on the character of those who speak out. How dare those who never wore the uniform in battle attack those who wore it all their lives—and who, retired or not, did not resign their citizenship in order to serve their country.
In recent weeks, a number of retired high-ranking military leaders, several of whom played key combat or planning roles in Afghanistan and Iraq, have come forward publicly to call for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. And across the administration, from the president on down, we've heard these calls dismissed or even attacked as acts of disloyalty, or as threats to civilian control of the armed forces. We have even heard accusations that this dissent gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That is cheap and it is shameful. And once again we have seen personal attacks on the character of those who speak out. How dare those who never wore the uniform in battle attack those who wore it all their lives—and who, retired or not, did not resign their citizenship in order to serve their country.
The former top operating officer at the Pentagon, a Marine Lieutenant General, said "the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions--or bury the results." It is hard for a career military officer to speak those words. But at a time when the administration cannot let go of the myths and outright lies it broadcast in the rush to war in Iraq, those who know better must speak out. At a time when mistake after mistake is being compounded by the very civilian leadership in the Pentagon that ignored expert military advice in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, those who understand the price being paid for each mistake by our troops, our country, and Iraq itself must be heard. Once again we are imprisoned in a failed policy. And once again we are being told that admitting mistakes, not the mistakes themselves, will provide our enemies with an intolerable propaganda victory. Once again we are being told that we have no choice but to stay the course of a failed policy. At a time like this, those who seek to reclaim America's true character and strength must be respected.
The true defeatists today are not those who call for recognizing the facts on the ground in Iraq. The true defeatists are those who believe America is so weak that it must sacrifice its principles to the pursuit of illusory power. The true pessimists today are not those who know that America can handle the truth about the Administration's boastful claim of "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. The true pessimists are those who cannot accept that America's power and prestige depend on our credibility at home and around the world. The true pessimists are those who do not understand that fidelity to our principles is as critical to national security as our military power itself. And the most dangerous defeatists, the most dispiriting pessimists, are those who invoke September 11th to argue that our traditional values are a luxury we can no longer afford. Let's call it the Bush-Cheney Doctrine. According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, alliances and international institutions are now disposable—and international institutions are dispensable or even despicable.
According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, we cannot foreswear the fool's gold of information secured by torturing prisoners or creating a shadow justice system with no rules and no transparency. According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, unwarranted secrecy and illegal spying are now absolute imperatives of our national security. According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, those who question the abuse of power question America itself. According to the Bush-Cheney doctrine, an Administration should be willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on the Iraq war, but unwilling to spend a few billion dollars to secure the American ports through which nuclear materials could make their way to terrorist cells. According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, executive powers trump the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. According to the Bush-Cheney Doctrine, smearing administration critics is not only permissible, but necessary—and revealing the identity of a CIA agent is an acceptable means to hide the truth.
The raw justification for abandoning so many American traditions exposes the real danger of the Bush-Cheney Doctrine. We all understand we are in a long struggle against jihadist extremism. It does represent a threat to our vital security interests and our values. Even the Bush-Cheney Administration acknowledges this is preeminently an ideological war, but that\'s why the Bush-Cheney Doctrine is so ill-equipped to fight and win it. Our enemies argue that all our claims about advancing universal principles of human rights and mutual respect disguise a raw demand for American dominance. They gain every time we tolerate or cover up abuses of human rights in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, or among sectarian militias in Iraq, and especially when we defiantly disdain the rules of international law. Our enemies argue that our invasion and occupation of Iraq reflect an obsession with oil supplies and commercial opportunities. They gain when our president and vice president, both former oil company executives, continue to pursue an oil-based energy strategy, and provide vast concessions in Iraq to their corporate friends. And so there's the crowning irony: the Bush-Cheney Doctrine holds that many of our great traditions cannot be maintained; yet the Bush-Cheney policies, by abandoning those traditions, give Osama bin Laden and his associates exactly what they want and need to reinforce their hate-filled ideology of Islamic solidarity against the western world.
The raw justification for abandoning so many American traditions exposes the real danger of the Bush-Cheney Doctrine. We all understand we are in a long struggle against jihadist extremism. It does represent a threat to our vital security interests and our values. Even the Bush-Cheney Administration acknowledges this is preeminently an ideological war, but that's why the Bush-Cheney Doctrine is so ill-equipped to fight and win it.
Our enemies argue that all our claims about advancing universal principles of human rights and mutual respect disguise a raw demand for American dominance. They gain every time we tolerate or cover up abuses of human rights in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay, or among sectarian militias in Iraq, and especially when we defiantly disdain the rules of international law.
Our enemies argue that our invasion and occupation of Iraq reflect an obsession with oil supplies and commercial opportunities. They gain when our president and vice president, both former oil company executives, continue to pursue an oil-based energy strategy, and provide vast concessions in Iraq to their corporate friends.
And so there's the crowning irony: the Bush-Cheney Doctrine holds that many of our great traditions cannot be maintained; yet the Bush-Cheney policies, by abandoning those traditions, give Osama bin Laden and his associates exactly what they want and need to reinforce their hate-filled ideology of Islamic solidarity against the western world.
I understand fully that Iraq is not Vietnam, and the war on terrorism is not the Cold War. But in one very crucial respect, we are in the same place now as we were thirty five years ago. When I testified in 1971, I spoke out not just against the war itself, but the blindness and cynicism of political leaders who were sending brave young Americans to be killed or maimed for a mission the leaders themselves no longer believed in.
The War in Vietnam and the War in Iraq are now converging in too many tragic respects.
As in Vietnam, we engaged militarily in Iraq based on official deception.
As in Vietnam, we went into Iraq ostensibly to fight a larger global war under the misperception that the particular theater was just a sideshow, but we soon learned that the particular aspects of the place where we fought mattered more than anything else.
And as in Vietnam, we have stayed and fought and died even though it is time for us to go.
We are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The first was against Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction. The second was against terrorists whom, the administration said, it was better to fight over there than here. Now we find our troops in the middle of an escalating civil war.
Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion. We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it as much as we do. Our valiant soldiers can't bring democracy to Iraq if Iraq's leaders are unwilling themselves to make the compromises that democracy requires. As our generals have said, the war cannot be won militarily. It must be won politically. No American soldier should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their ethnic and political differences. Our call to action is clear. Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines—a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to hold three elections. It was the most intense 11th hour pressure that just pushed aside Prime Minister Jaafari and brought forward a more acceptable candidate. And it will demand deadline toughness to reign in Shiite militias Sunnis say are committing horrific acts of torture every day in Baghdad. So we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet. Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to deal with these intransigent issues and at last put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.
Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall died after America's leaders knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion. We want democracy in Iraq, but Iraqis must want it as much as we do. Our valiant soldiers can't bring democracy to Iraq if Iraq's leaders are unwilling themselves to make the compromises that democracy requires.
As our generals have said, the war cannot be won militarily. It must be won politically. No American soldier should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their ethnic and political differences.
Our call to action is clear. Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines—a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to hold three elections. It was the most intense 11th hour pressure that just pushed aside Prime Minister Jaafari and brought forward a more acceptable candidate. And it will demand deadline toughness to reign in Shiite militias Sunnis say are committing horrific acts of torture every day in Baghdad.
So we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet.
Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to deal with these intransigent issues and at last put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.
If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end. Doing so will actually empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country.So now, as in 1971, we are engaged in another fight to live the truth and make our own government accountable. As in 1971, this is another moment when American patriotism demands more dissent and less complacency in the face of bland assurances from those in power. We must insist now that patriotism does not belong to those who defend a President's position—it belongs to those who defend their country. Patriotism is not love of power; it is love of country. And sometimes loving your country demands you must tell the truth to power. This is one of those times. Lives are on the line. Lives have been lost to bad decisions – not decisions that could have gone either way, but decisions that constitute basic negligence and incompetence. And lives continue to be lost because of stubbornness and pride. We support the troops—the brave men and women who have always protected us and do so today—in part by honoring their service, and in part by making sure they have everything they need both in battle and after they have borne the burden of battle.
If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end. Doing so will actually empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country.
So now, as in 1971, we are engaged in another fight to live the truth and make our own government accountable. As in 1971, this is another moment when American patriotism demands more dissent and less complacency in the face of bland assurances from those in power.
We must insist now that patriotism does not belong to those who defend a President's position—it belongs to those who defend their country. Patriotism is not love of power; it is love of country. And sometimes loving your country demands you must tell the truth to power. This is one of those times.
Lives are on the line. Lives have been lost to bad decisions – not decisions that could have gone either way, but decisions that constitute basic negligence and incompetence. And lives continue to be lost because of stubbornness and pride.
We support the troops—the brave men and women who have always protected us and do so today—in part by honoring their service, and in part by making sure they have everything they need both in battle and after they have borne the burden of battle.
But I believe now as strongly and proudly as I did thirty-five years ago that the most important way to support the troops is to tell the truth, and to ensure we do not ask young Americans to die in a cause that falls short of the ideals of this country. When we protested the war in Vietnam some would weigh in against us saying: "My country right or wrong." Our response was simple: "Yes, my country right or wrong. When right, keep it right and when wrong, make it right." And that's what we must do again today.
Londres
BACK FOR GOOD! Or at least for a bit.... no big travel plans in the coming weeks at least... though heading up to Oxford to go see a UCSD professor I had give a lecture and then play with Nick and Gieg and lil Moffo who will be here for the weekend - woo hoo!
Being back feels good... made Matt and Mark smoothies for breakfast this and Matt made banana bread which was super tasty... and then the 3 of us went for a run along the canal to King's Cross... it was so cute! A little flat-mate triumvate running club!
And it's good to be back and spendting time with Jack. He just moved into a new place - so it's fun to explore a new neighborhood! Though really since getting back I have only written and turned-in my essays, gone to review sessions, done laundry and payed bills - not so exciting. Oh - and gone to the library - soooooooo exciting!
Anyway - back to cleaning my flat and studying before I go to Jack's for a homemade curry - now THAT'S exciting :)
Being back feels good... made Matt and Mark smoothies for breakfast this and Matt made banana bread which was super tasty... and then the 3 of us went for a run along the canal to King's Cross... it was so cute! A little flat-mate triumvate running club!
And it's good to be back and spendting time with Jack. He just moved into a new place - so it's fun to explore a new neighborhood! Though really since getting back I have only written and turned-in my essays, gone to review sessions, done laundry and payed bills - not so exciting. Oh - and gone to the library - soooooooo exciting!
Anyway - back to cleaning my flat and studying before I go to Jack's for a homemade curry - now THAT'S exciting :)
Reid Statement On Equal Pay Day
Washington, DC
April 25, 2006 is Equal Pay Day this year, the annual day designed to highlight the wage gap between women and men that still persists in America today. The day is observed in April to mark how far into each year a woman must work to earn as much as a man earned the previous year, and observed on a Tuesday to mark the day women’s wages finally catch up to men’s wages from the previous week.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid today issued the following statement on this unfortunate anniversary. “Each year on Equal Pay Day, we are confronted by the gap that still exists between what women and men are paid for working in America today. It’s an embarrassment, but today in our country women still earn only 76 cents for every dollar earned by men. African American women earn 60 cents for ever dollar men earn. For Hispanic women it’s 50 cents.“This wage gap doesn’t just affect women—it hurts children and punishes whole families. It means hard-working mothers can’t support their families or give their children the opportunities they deserve. In some cases it means the difference between making ends meet and just making it through the month.
“Democrats believe America can do better. We’re committed to closing the pay gap, to guaranteeing that women’s contribution to the labor force is fully and fairly recognized, and to ensuring that someday we will never need to mark the sad day again.”
HELL YEAH!
April 25, 2006 is Equal Pay Day this year, the annual day designed to highlight the wage gap between women and men that still persists in America today. The day is observed in April to mark how far into each year a woman must work to earn as much as a man earned the previous year, and observed on a Tuesday to mark the day women’s wages finally catch up to men’s wages from the previous week.
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid today issued the following statement on this unfortunate anniversary. “Each year on Equal Pay Day, we are confronted by the gap that still exists between what women and men are paid for working in America today. It’s an embarrassment, but today in our country women still earn only 76 cents for every dollar earned by men. African American women earn 60 cents for ever dollar men earn. For Hispanic women it’s 50 cents.“This wage gap doesn’t just affect women—it hurts children and punishes whole families. It means hard-working mothers can’t support their families or give their children the opportunities they deserve. In some cases it means the difference between making ends meet and just making it through the month.
“Democrats believe America can do better. We’re committed to closing the pay gap, to guaranteeing that women’s contribution to the labor force is fully and fairly recognized, and to ensuring that someday we will never need to mark the sad day again.”
HELL YEAH!
Just In Case You Were Confused...
HEALTH QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION
Q: I've heard that cardiovascular exercise can prolong life; is this true?
A: Your heart is only good for so many beats, and that's it... don't waste them on exercise. Everything wears out eventually. Speeding up your heart will not make you live longer; that's like saying you can extend the life of your car by driving it faster. Want to live longer? Take a nap.
Q: Should I cut down on meat and eat more fruits and vegetables?
A: You must grasp logistical efficiencies. What does a cow eat? Hay and corn. And what are these? Vegetables. So a steak is nothing more than an efficient mechanism of delivering vegetables to your system. Need grain? Eat chicken. Beef is also a good source of field grass (green leafy vegetable). And a pork chop can give you 100% of your recommended daily allowance of vegetable products.
Q: Should I reduce my alcohol intake?
A: No, not at all. Wine is made from fruit. Brandy is distilled wine, that means they take the water out of the fruity bit so you get even more of the goodness that way. Beer is also made out of grain. Bottoms up!
Q: How can I calculate my body/fat ratio?
A: Well, if you have a body and you have fat, your ratio is one to one. If you have two bodies, your ratio is two to one, etc.
Q: What are some of the advantages of participating in a regular exercise
A: Can't think of a single one, sorry. My philosophy is: No Pain...Good!
Q: Aren't fried foods bad for you?
A: YOU'RE NOT LISTENING!!! ... Foods are fried these days in vegetable oil. In fact, they're permeated in it. How could getting more vegetables be bad for you?
Q: Will sit-ups help prevent me from getting a little soft around the middle?
A: Definitely not! When you exercise a muscle, it gets bigger. You should only be doing sit-ups if you want a bigger stomach.
Q: Is chocolate bad for me?
A: Are you crazy? HELLO. Cocoa beans! Another vegetable!!! It's the best feel-good food around!
Q: Is swimming good for your figure?
A: If swimming is good for your figure, explain whales to me.
Q: Is getting in-shape important for my lifestyle?
A: Hey! 'Round' is a shape!
Well, I hope this has cleared up any misconceptions you may have had about food and diets.
And remember: "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride"
TREMENDOUS - now that I've just gotten back from a run I think I'll go make myself a salad....
Q: I've heard that cardiovascular exercise can prolong life; is this true?
A: Your heart is only good for so many beats, and that's it... don't waste them on exercise. Everything wears out eventually. Speeding up your heart will not make you live longer; that's like saying you can extend the life of your car by driving it faster. Want to live longer? Take a nap.
Q: Should I cut down on meat and eat more fruits and vegetables?
A: You must grasp logistical efficiencies. What does a cow eat? Hay and corn. And what are these? Vegetables. So a steak is nothing more than an efficient mechanism of delivering vegetables to your system. Need grain? Eat chicken. Beef is also a good source of field grass (green leafy vegetable). And a pork chop can give you 100% of your recommended daily allowance of vegetable products.
Q: Should I reduce my alcohol intake?
A: No, not at all. Wine is made from fruit. Brandy is distilled wine, that means they take the water out of the fruity bit so you get even more of the goodness that way. Beer is also made out of grain. Bottoms up!
Q: How can I calculate my body/fat ratio?
A: Well, if you have a body and you have fat, your ratio is one to one. If you have two bodies, your ratio is two to one, etc.
Q: What are some of the advantages of participating in a regular exercise
A: Can't think of a single one, sorry. My philosophy is: No Pain...Good!
Q: Aren't fried foods bad for you?
A: YOU'RE NOT LISTENING!!! ... Foods are fried these days in vegetable oil. In fact, they're permeated in it. How could getting more vegetables be bad for you?
Q: Will sit-ups help prevent me from getting a little soft around the middle?
A: Definitely not! When you exercise a muscle, it gets bigger. You should only be doing sit-ups if you want a bigger stomach.
Q: Is chocolate bad for me?
A: Are you crazy? HELLO. Cocoa beans! Another vegetable!!! It's the best feel-good food around!
Q: Is swimming good for your figure?
A: If swimming is good for your figure, explain whales to me.
Q: Is getting in-shape important for my lifestyle?
A: Hey! 'Round' is a shape!
Well, I hope this has cleared up any misconceptions you may have had about food and diets.
And remember: "Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride"
TREMENDOUS - now that I've just gotten back from a run I think I'll go make myself a salad....
Andrew's Brilliance - And Why I Am Proud To Be A Kings Fan
It's not at all that the Warriors don't win, it's the way that they lose. The complete lack of a plan at a top to make them even competitive. Continual bad drafts/signings. The ability to sabotage themselves at every possible moment. In the early nineties, they had a team that looked like it could contend for years to come. Then they hired and fired a succession of coaches (including one named Gary St. Jean who shouldn't even be allowed to be in an NBA arena he kills teams that bad, including Mara's beloved Kings at one point) that killed team cohesiveness, had a player choke the coach, and dumped evey player that was even worth keeping around. Now you tell me, why would anyone want to cheer for a team like that? I enjoy watching them lose now... it's comforting (especially after the year the Clippers are having). Supporting this club is like going back to the girl that slept with your best friend, supports Arsenal even though she can't name a player in the squad, and won't let you go to the pub. It's just a losing proposition.
On another note, trouble for the O's it seems. Two draws in a row isn't bad but it's not going to get them promoted. I might have to fly back over there and whip those boys in to shape (haha). Let's go you Oooooo's. Oh ya, and West Ham in the Cup Final. That's just crazy talk. I didn't get to see the game against Middle, but I heard it was ugly. Fun none the less though. If they can get by Liverpool it would be fantastic. Are you quickly becoming a Barcelona/Milan fan for one night so that they can beat Arsenal?
BRILLIANT!!!
On another note, trouble for the O's it seems. Two draws in a row isn't bad but it's not going to get them promoted. I might have to fly back over there and whip those boys in to shape (haha). Let's go you Oooooo's. Oh ya, and West Ham in the Cup Final. That's just crazy talk. I didn't get to see the game against Middle, but I heard it was ugly. Fun none the less though. If they can get by Liverpool it would be fantastic. Are you quickly becoming a Barcelona/Milan fan for one night so that they can beat Arsenal?
BRILLIANT!!!
21 April 2006
Back
In London and embarking on finishing up these pesky essays... will be totally M.I.A. until then so call me if you need anything!
Besos,
Mara
Besos,
Mara
17 April 2006
Ole Madrid
Back at another internet cafe - again with only a few minutes left and still loving Madrid. We went running in the park yesterday and are going paddle-boating today - can´t wait!
Otherwise we are going to check out the flea market, going to the last of the big 3 museums and are going clubbing tonight which should be fun now that we have rid ourselves of our Italian stalkers... yikes! Who knew you could be listening to the audio guide of Raphael´s The Cardinal and have some guy tap your shoulder that you met at a jazz acfe the night before?
Ah well - ole Madrid!
Otherwise we are going to check out the flea market, going to the last of the big 3 museums and are going clubbing tonight which should be fun now that we have rid ourselves of our Italian stalkers... yikes! Who knew you could be listening to the audio guide of Raphael´s The Cardinal and have some guy tap your shoulder that you met at a jazz acfe the night before?
Ah well - ole Madrid!
16 April 2006
Besitos de Madrid
In Madrid and loving it - I think I am almot ready to pack up my bags and move here!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
