The Heterodox for a Socialist America

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode LXV

Vide.

(Thanks, Michelle.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 12/23/03 09:08:14 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode.

Howard Dean Replies to the Washington Post

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode LXIV

Dr. Dean replies to last week's WaPo editorial.

The Post's Dec. 18 editorial discussing my recent foreign policy speech ["Beyond the Mainstream"] badly misrepresents both my position and the central argument in the coming election on how best to strengthen America's security.

To start: The Post repeatedly misstates my views. For example, I support missile defense efforts that make us more secure; I oppose deployment of any system not yet proven to work. I favor active talks with North Korea, backed by the threat of force, rather than a stubborn refusal to engage that has allowed the situation to become more dangerous by the day. And the role I support for the National Guard is hardly "radical"; it was endorsed by the bipartisan Hart-Rudman commission and in fact is enshrined in our Constitution (Section 8, Clause 15).

More important, The Post's editorial comes close to equating the Bush administration's foreign policy — including its signature doctrine of "preemptive war" — with the American foreign policy mainstream. In fact, the Bush agenda represents a radical departure from decades of bipartisan consensus on the appropriate use of U.S. power and our leadership in the world community.

From its derisive treatment of allies to its rejection of important global agreements, this administration has favored a go-it-alone approach and a determination to use force as its weapon of first resort. Its approach has alienated friends and bolstered foes. Its agenda isolates the United States, placing responsibility for all the world's problems in our hands, and runs counter to America's traditions as a republic.

By contrast, my national security policy reflects the best of our mainstream tradition. I believe the United States must exercise leadership by working with allies and partners to advance common interests, rather than advancing our power unilaterally.

My program is clear. First, we must strengthen our military and intelligence, ensure that our troops have the best training and equipment and keep our promises about pay and benefits.

Second, we must rebuild our alliances, badly damaged by the current administration. Every president since World War II, until now, has worked effectively with our allies and partners, because each believed this was the best way to safeguard security. Established alliances, which train and plan together over decades, are better at waging combat and building peace than makeshift coalitions of the willing.

Third, we must make our top priorities defeating the terrorists who have attacked America and preventing the most deadly weapons of all — nuclear, chemical and biological — from falling into their hands. We must bolster these priorities with improved Special Forces, better intelligence coordination and dramatically enhanced homeland security.

We need a global alliance to defeat terrorism that will draw on the strengths of allies and partners to destroy terrorist networks. And I will build, with our allies, a $60 billion global fund to combat weapons of mass destruction.

Fourth, advancing American interests requires greater engagement with developing nations on investment, trade, aid and public health.

This is a national security policy that honors the best of America's traditions. It is a clear contrast to a policy centered on the misguided doctrine of unilateral preemption.

The reasons I opposed the war in Iraq are clear. In the fall of 2002, Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat to America. The administration had not (and still has not) presented clear evidence that Hussein was on the verge of attacking his neighbors or threatening the United States or the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction or supporting al Qaeda. The administration's failures to mobilize allies and plan effectively for the war's aftermath suggested difficulties ahead.

It is just as important that this president failed to level with the American people about the costs or potential consequences or about the nature of the threat. Our democratic tradition, our mainstream values, demand that government be open and honest with its governed. The consequences of the war are becoming clear, even beyond the loss of life, even beyond the $150 billion price tag — so far. Our resources — military, intelligence, diplomatic — are strained. Our alliances are frayed. Around the world, too many are now under the false impression that the American people are bent on global domination and war against Islam.

A critical presidential campaign is now underway. Americans face a choice between two very different views of our role in the world. My agenda returns security policy to its fundamental course: protecting Americans and advancing our values and interests — democracy, freedom, opportunity and peace — through effective partnerships and global leadership, as well as military strength.

The current administration strays wildly from this course and from the time-honored manner of pursuing it. In the end, I believe it will be clear who is in the mainstream and who is swimming against the tide of history.

The writer, a former governor of Vermont, seeks the Democratic nomination for president.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

I wonder who really wrote that.

(Thanks, Ken.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 12/23/03 08:50:13 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Political.

Howard Dean Lies About His Brother

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode LXIII

Dr. Dean lied about his brother having been in the military, according to the Quad-City (Iowa) Times, today:

.... The candidates were asked to complete this sentence: My closest living relative in the armed services is...?

Dean's reply: "...my brother is a POW/MIA in Laos, but is almost certainly dead."

Dean's truthful answer provided an inaccurate response. His brother was never a member of the armed services.

In an interview Friday with the Times editorial board, Dean said he believed the question was meant to get at his personal understanding of the military.

That definitely was the intent of our question.

We wanted to know the intent of his answer.

Dean said he visited Vietnam with veterans and military personnel and participated in digs to unearth enlisted men's remains.

That experienced created a strong affinity for men and women in uniform....

The U.S. Department of Defense classified Charlie Dean as Missing in Action, meaning that he was among those officially sought by our government. He wasn't the only civilian with such a classification.

But he was a civilian, not a member of the armed services.

Charlie Dean's capture and death in Southeast Asia certainly shaped his brother's opinions about the American military.

Knowing that story tells us something about the candidate.

So does inaccurately implying a direct family connection to the armed services for the 72,000 Quad-Citians who received Sunday's newspaper.

Dr. Dean needs to get himself into the Internet age: lie to a little newspaper, and the rest of the known universe will find out about it. All the candidates had better learn right quick, too, that they aren't going to be able to continue positioning themselves differently to different audiences: any remarks quoted in the local paper or on the local TV or radio are almost immediately available anywhere else, everywhere else.

Yeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaa. :-)

The illustrious (of course, I jest) New York Times has deigned to take notice:

.... His answer to the newspaper's question, published on Dec. 14 as part of a regular feature on The Quad-City Times's editorial page in which the Democratic presidential candidates respond to questions intended to probe their persona, drew complaints from readers and a rebuke from the newspaper's editorial board on Sunday. The editorial was circulated to a handful of reporters on Monday by a rival campaign.

Dr. Dean was asked about his answer by a reporter after a town hall meeting here on a day when he took aim at President Bush for what he called a "callous" refusal to press Congress for an extension of unemployment benefits.

"The way I read the question was that they wanted to know if I knew anything about the armed services from a personal level," he said. "I don't think it was inaccurate or misleading if anybody knew what the history was, and I assumed that most people knew what the history was. Anybody who wanted to write about this could have looked through the 23-year history to see that I've always acknowledged my brother's a civilian, was a civilian."

Mark Ridolfi, editor of the paper's editorial page, noted that the question had specifically asked about the armed services and said of Dr. Dean's reply, "It certainly is not an accurate response."

Mr. Ridolfi said the question, one of 20 that the candidates answered in writing in August, was intended to get at candidates' personal connections to the military. "When you have a family member currently involved in the military," he said, "you think of things differently."

After hearing Dr. Dean's explanation during a meeting at the newspaper's office on Friday, Mr. Ridolfi ran an editorial in Sunday's editions describing Dr. Dean's original answer as "unusually revealing." ....

Unusually revealing? Only if you aren't paying attention to everything else he says, too.

(Thanks, Bryan.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 12/23/03 08:41:31 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Political.

"You Have Not Lived Until You Tell a Man He Is Free and Feel His Joy"

Matthew Hoy blogs, yesterday, a remarkable "e-mail that has been making the rounds in military circles from SSgt. Parker Gyokeres".

.... When I left for Iraq I was ready to see a quagmire. A black hole of lost money, misguided efforts, a hostile populace, and broken morale. In short, I expected Vietnam. I haven't been able to find it, and I was looking. Every day I have been here, this country has gotten better for its people. And it's gotten safer too, for us, and them. We are welcome here as the people who are making a real difference. They know we aren't staying. In a month alone the difference has been staggering. And this was all before we found the guy painted on every public wall hiding like a bitch in a tiny hole, too scared for only his own skin to even fight back even with the gun in his hands. The Iraqis saw then that the "supreme leader" was, in their own words, "a shivering coward". They laughed at him publicly in their new free press. That's what I'm talking about. On that wonderful day, and I can't say it enough, everything changed.

There are many here who couldn't even mention his name. When we say it, all the locals cringe instinctively, like they had been struck, they then look furtively about them to see who else around them heard us blaspheme against the devil. It's not an amusing thing to terrify a grown man with a single word. It makes one feel horrible. For us that word is one of scorn and disgust, for them it could get you and your family killed by nightfall, and I'm not kidding. You just vanished. 30 years of that terror will change the psyche of a nation. It's going to take some pain to fix it. That process started with a hairy man in a rat hole being led away in handcuffs.

So for me, the realization that this was, and is, the right thing to do hit me like a lightning bolt; the second I saw our interpreter begin to cry tears of joy at the news that "we got him". He said one thing, hesitantly and very quietly, with a mixture of barely hidden fear and childish hope in his voice. "Are you sure?" I took him by the shoulders, and with a huge smile on my face and the excitement of a child, said; "Yes, Osama, its him! We got him!" He hugged me briefly and stepped back, didn't say a word, and a single tear rolled down his face. Then he took a deep shuddering breath, like a terrible weight had been lifted off his shoulders, and grinned broadly, the smile of a man looking at his bride coming down the isle, a smile of pure joy. At that second, Osama knew that he couldn't be punished for working with us. At that second, I knew that we could leave this country to freedom loving Iraqis, and not worry about our new friends being ok. We both knew it was almost over.

You have not lived until you tell a man he is free and feel his joy....

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 12/23/03 10:02:20 AM
Categorized as War.

"Bush Marriage Stance Not 'Clear'"

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode LXII

WaTi reports, Dec. 18, on reactions to the president's recent remarks on "gay" "marriage" and "civil" "unions":

.... The Democratic Party is opposed to an amendment, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said Mr. Bush's support "has now made it clear that he and his party are indeed uninterested in demonstrating compassion towards gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender American families."

Most polls show more than 50 percent of Americans oppose both civil unions and homosexual "marriages," while support is at or just below 40 percent.

But amendment opponents point to other polls showing that while about one-third of Americans support homosexual "marriage" and one-third oppose it, another third say the issue just isn't important to them.

"People certainly in this country are split on equal marriage rights, but whatever they may believe about that, they overwhelmingly believe the Constitution should not be amended to do something so overwhelmingly unfair," said Judith E. Schaeffer, deputy legal director at People for the American Way, a liberal interest group....

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 12/23/03 07:18:15 AM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Political.

Ellen Goodman Says USA No Better Than Afghanistan or Iraq

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode LXI

An hilarious mish-mash from a columnist highly respected amongst America's liberals, in the Boston Globe, Dec. 14.

ANYONE WHO'S SPENT a lot of time white-water rafting down the river of social change gets to see a lot of ironies washed up on the banks. But these are beauties.

About 21 years ago, the Equal Rights Amendment crashed against a handful of legislators in North Carolina, Illinois, and Florida. The opponents had listed three horrible fates that would follow if we added women's equality to the Constitution.

If there were an ERA, we would have (1) unisex toilets, (2) women in combat, and (3) gay marriage.

The fearful specter of unisex toilets was always my favorite. A natural-born radical, my house already had coed bathrooms. But in the intervening years, the integrated john became a hip accessory in Ally McBeal's office and fairly common in colleges.

As for women in combat, there are now 33 women generals, 212,000 women in the military, and everyone routinely talks about men and women in Iraq. There never was a law against women in combat zones and, as Jessica Lynch could tell you, it has gotten harder to tell the front lines from the sidelines.

And now, the third in this trilogy: gay marriage. In the 1970s I don't think even Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum really believed in something as far-fetched as gay marriage. Now gay marriage may be fetched in Massachusetts, and gay almost-marriage already exists in Vermont.

So, there you are. In 2003, we have unisex toilets, women in combat, and gay marriage. The only thing we don't have is, ta da, the Equal Rights Amendment.

In fact, here's another irony to toss on the riverbank of social change. In "Why We Lost the ERA," political scientist Jane Mansbridge wrote, "The campaign against the ERA succeeded because it shifted debate away from equal rights and focused it on the possibility that the ERA might bring substantive changes in women's roles and behavior." Well, we got a lot of substantive changes -- a majority of mothers in the workplace -- but no constitutional status.

The flow of change always takes some odd turns. But a quick look at the modern scenery would make any woman dizzy.

We also have the dubious equality of powerful female role models in movies such as "Kill Bill." But we have only 14 women in the Senate. Wal-Mart is selling a brand new NRA magazine for gun-toting women. But it still refuses to sell the morning-after pill. We narrowed the wage gap. But much of that is due to men's shrinking paychecks. We talk as if men and women are equal. But we've stopped talking about what true equality would look like at home or in public.

How come we got the side effects without the full effects? And how come the ERA is still hibernating?

For one thing, many of the more radical feminists, including some law professors, started to emphasize gender differences over equality. At the same time the National Organization for Women, which once led the ERA struggle, switched to something called the Constitutional Equality Amendment, which would not only ban the "subordination of women to men" but calls for the end of discrimination on everything from marital status to "indigence." Indigence? Earth to NOW, are you serious?

The only folks carrying the traditional ERA banner in this millennium are the stalwarts who have loyally reintroduced it in Illinois, Florida, and Missouri. As for the opponents, today they've gone from saying it's too radical to saying it's superfluous. In Illinois last spring Phyllis -- blast from the past -- Schlafly testified that an ERA would force the Girl and Boy Scouts to merge. Does that portend a unisex Scout meeting before any amendment?

And while we are counting ironies, right-wing culture warriors who opposed changing the Constitution to include women now want to change it to exclude gay marriages.

The absence of equal rights puts us in some awkward positions. Our country is one of a handful that hasn't signed the UN treaty on women's rights. And it's touchy, to put it mildly, to push for greater equality in Iraq or Afghanistan if we're not there yet in America.

While an ERA wouldn't change the average woman's life overnight, words matter. As Mansbridge says, "A simple declaration of equality is the right thing. It deserves to be in the Constitution." At the very least, a discussion would jumpstart the dormant debate about a stalled movement.

In the meantime, we're left steering through this social change with a question: Is it possible that equality between the sexes is actually a more radical idea than marriage within a sex?

Ellen Goodman's e-mail address is ellengoodman@globe.com.

© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

I think this kind of column is what results when somebody decides to write about something but really has nothing worthwhile whatever to say about it. But I'm sure this was a big hit with Goodman's college-educated, automobile-driving, twice- or thrice-married, six-figure-annual-income female acquaintances who would never-in-a-million-years even-think-of-voting for a Republican Neanderthal.

Beauties of irony they are indeed.

By the way, Goodman is arguing for a stamp of approval on social change, and a stimulus to further such change, to be put into the federal constitution, isn't she? But... but... but... I thought the liberal line is that "to amend the Constitution for social issues is a very bad idea".

(Thanks, John.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 12/23/03 07:05:36 AM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Political.

"Jackson Lee Says Mind Unchanged About War in Iraq"

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode LX

That would be Sheila Jackson Lee, as reported in the Houston Chronicle, Dec. 16.

U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, said Monday that the capture of Saddam Hussein does nothing to change her opposition to the war in Iraq.

"I believe we should have had a congressional vote before declaring war, and we should have allowed U.N. inspectors time to finish their work," Jackson Lee said during a news conference at Bush Intercontinental Airport. "As to WMDs (weapons of mass destruction), the fact they have not been found I believe shows I was right."

One of the more outspoken congressional critics of the war in Iraq, Jackson Lee returned to Houston from a recent terrorism fact-finding mission to Europe and the Middle East. She and nine other members of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security met with officials in Spain, Italy, Syria and Israel, she said.

She praised troops from the 4th Infantry Division based at Fort Hood for catching the former Iraqi dictator Saturday in an underground hide-out at a farmhouse south of Tikrit. She said Saddam's capture presents an opportunity for the United States to form a broader international coalition to implement and maintain a peaceful government in Iraq. She also called for international participation in Saddam's trial.

Jackson Lee said she was so impressed with Syrian President Bashar Assad during her visit that she invited him to speak in Texas, even though his country is designated by the United States as a rogue state and a sponsor of terrorism.

"I'm sure someone will write a headline, `Congresswoman invites a terrorist'," Jackson Lee said. "But that's not what I'm trying to do."

She said Assad showed his willingness to negotiate by meeting despite President Bush's signing on Friday of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, which could impose sanctions on Syria.

"He's a 39-year-old president who even gave us a picture of him and his children," Jackson Lee said. "Let's see what he can do. He's not his father," a reference to Hafez Assad, who ruled Syria with an iron grip for 30 years before his death in 2000.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Tue. 12/23/03 06:56:18 AM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Political.