« A Fourth of July Inspirational Message | Main | CunningScam »
On Patriotism
A lot has been said all over blogistan today about patriotism, what with it being the Fourth Of July and all. I finally remembered the name of the play from long ago that I saw with my father when I was a teenager and what it said about "patriotism" and all the other -isms out there. The play was Kaufman and Hart's, "You Can't Take It With You" (1938).
Funny how all of the reviews you read about it now, talk about it being a light and fluffy bit of a thing, but when I saw it, so many years ago now, it was a deeply satirical take on The Red Menace.
And in particular, this passage seems as relevant to me now as it ever has been, with regard to the misuse of the "ism":
The film's level of political sophistication is summed up in Grandpa's speech to Mrs. Sycamore (Spring Byington) advising her to keep the heroine of a play she is writing free from foreign 'isms':
'Communism --- Fascism --- voodooism --- everybody's got an "ism" these days. ... Only give her Americanism, and let her know something about Americans. John Paul Jones. Patrick Henry. Samuel Adams. Washington. Jefferson. Monroe. Lincoln. Grant. Lee. Edison. Mark Twain. When things got tough with those boys they didn't run around looking for "isms."'
Nope, no "-isms" for those fellows.
And if the groups people who run around waving the flag all day and night, both droning and shrilling unceasingly about 'Patriotism', weren't all of the same people who I find to be the least patriotic among us, and who have the least understanding of what those fellows above were talking about, I might feel inclined toward "patriotism" this day. But that's not going to happen this year it seems.
So instead, and until, my country is returned by the people, to being for the people, I think I will be proud and more than satisfied to call myself someone who believes in the Americanism that Hart and Kaufman wrote wryly about nearly seventy years ago, and the one some of these fellows wrote about two hundred and twenty-nine years ago.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts
John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
For additional information about the Declaration of Independence, see these sites:
National Archives and Records Administration: Declaration of Independence
Library of Congress: About the Declaration of Independence
nice
Ah - the Age of Enlightment
For July 4:
Three Editorial Pages, Three Views of War
By E&P Staff
NEW YORK The Seattle Times on Sunday launched an unusual project, a series of editorials on Iraq that will run five consecutive days.
“Nothing about this is easy," it explained. "Americans too often are asked to support our government through support of our military men and women. In these editorials, we attempt to separate the vivid emotions of war from policy and ask where the policy is taking us.”
Meanwhile, a newspaper far to the south with a less liberal reputation, the Huntsville (Ala.) Times, came out Sunday for a "realistic plan" to get out, while the Dallas Morning News ripped the U.S. invasion as "not wise"--but said we must stand firm for now.
In the first installment of its editorial series on Sunday, the Seattle Times declared flatly, “The time has come to begin planning an exit from Iraq. We are not wanted there, and we have no legitimate national interest in staying.
“Our original war aim, the toppling of Saddam Hussein, has been achieved. It is now apparent that we are not even close to achieving the add-on mission of creating a democratic, law-abiding Iraqi state in which Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds share power….
“Why are we there? The average American cannot clearly explain it. That may be the most telling comment of all.
“The supporters of war say, ‘Support the troops.’ We support them. We are proud of them. Our soldiers' performance in combat has been superb. If it were a matter of winning the war, the discussion would be over. Now, it is a matter of securing a peace and that is where our soldiers' civilian masters made many mistakes.
“Now that the people think of bringing the troops home, they are told we cannot because it would make America look weak. We remember that argument from Vietnam, from Somalia and other places. It is a phony argument. We can bring our troops home. We have done it before and can do it again.”
continue here~
http://199.249.170.220/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972868
Good thread header, Casey!!! :-)
I'm carrying my patriotism around in my heart for the America that existed before the Selection of 2000. If/When we get *our* America back, along with responsible journalists who print/air the truth about the Cretin's administration, maybe I'll once again take out my little flag pins and wear them. Until then, this is not my America, the administration does not represent me, and I see no reason to avow a patriotic allegiance to an administration that does not represent my ideals, values, goals of peaceful coexistence with our neighbors on this planet.
I refuse to be a "bandwagon patriot"!!!
I still find it eerie that the original Declaration of Independence echoes so much of what Americans are enduring under the George who is the Selected pResident..... The Veterans group who has issued a Declaration of Impeachment paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence almost word-for word says it all (link on previous thread).....
NonnyO
I have an Earth Flag but have never been an individual nation flag flyer and will not be.
That said, I oppose all the killing and those who are not part of the solution are part of the problem. Ignorance is no excuse. My mother has no internet, lives in a very red place, and was able to see through it. Those who support wars have the blood of the dead on their hands, same as the corporations and munitions makers.
on 7/4/05 10:59 AM, Michael wrote:
> Am I the only one noticing the LACK of appropriately themed graphics on the
> Google banner?
>
> M
-------Original Message-------
From: DiAnne
Date: 07/04/05 16:35:39
To: Michael
Subject: Re: RG: Working and Google
Mine has liberty bell & fireworks
Do you mean little flag-draped coffins or something?
------------------------------------------------
Oh man DiAnne, that was awesome. Thanks for the laugh of the day.
Sad but true eh?
Jennifer
Casey et al,
Just sent this into MSNBC about Amy Robach's suggestion this morning that protestors are un-American:
This morning, your reporter, Amy Robach, suggested that people who protest President Bush on the Iraq War are, somehow, un-American. Today is the 4th of July, a national holiday celebrating the birth of a democracy some 229 years ago.
My mind reeled back in time--to 1969, to be precise. At that time, I was in college, and protesting the Vietnam War. It was suggested by many that those of so doing were, also, un-American.
Back then, I did not mind so much, reminding those who questioned my patriotism, telling them that this country was FOUNDED by those who questioned their government. I do mind today. I mind very much. Because, you see, Ms. Robach, along with (sadly) millions of others, has not only missed the lessons of Vietnam, but of the Declaration of Independence as well. And on the 4th of July, to boot.
Here are some excerpts that I trust you will assign to Ms. Robach for further study and consideration:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world...."
**********
We are engaged in an illegal war. based on lies told to us, and your company, MSNBC, is complicit in those lies. Ms. Robach needs further education as well.
I suggest having her write on the blackboard 1000 times:
I will not encourage fascistic thinking while reporting. I will remember I live in, and profit from, a free democratic country.
Oh--and on YCTIWY, the play:
Grandpa is wise old man and I try to remember his speeches often.
Posted by: DiAnne at July 4, 2005 07:40 PM
I've had my little flag pins for at least 25-30 years, think I have two or three of them, and at least one was given to me by a friend. At least one other also has an American/Canadian flags, the another has American/Chinese flags - both in connection with one of the occupations I've had in my past. All are now in my jewelry box, and that's where they will stay unless genuine patriotism comes to this country again. I have not gotten new pins for any current "bandwagon patriotic" reasons......
Here's one I remember:
Grandpa Martin Vanderhof: Lincoln said, "With malice toward none, with charity to all." Nowadays they say, "Think the way I do or I'll bomb the daylights outta you."
NonnyO
Those are sentimental pins with a history, not knee-jerk ones bought in the faux patriotism fervor after 9/11 at which time we saw the flag's image exploited ad nauseum onto cups, towels (which would soon be marked down to 50% or less due to overexposure and flooding of the market), thus cheapening the image. (Is that long but grammatical?) I would fly the corporate flag if I had one.
You can see some flag images of mine that I just put up at: http://www.silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal/ uploaded from Seattle and the Minneapolis Independence Day contingent will be up shortly.
Karen
That letter is fantastic. Bert was just telling me over the phone that there are now over 200 posts r/t that story on Kos. That is very appropriate usage of the word "fascistic," which should be saved exclusively for such occasions, nothing milder.
Posted by: DiAnne at July 4, 2005 08:19 PM
:-) Yes, they are sentimental from a time past when the flag pins meant something, which is why I keep them. I saw no need to buy new ones that I would not have worn in any case, since I do not approve of Bu$hCo's War.... It is not my war....
Posted by: DiAnne at July 4, 2005 08:19 PM
:-) Cool Blog, DiAnne!!! :-)
Posted by: Karen at July 4, 2005 08:16 PM
Good Letter, Karen!!! :-)
Casey,
That was an excellent comparison.
To everyone who has posted the Declaration of Independence and the words our forefathers wrote, thanks you for the reminder.
Thank you all of you for your posts about patriotism.
Now, I have to go write my letter to MSNBC. Shame on them for trying to take away free thought. In a way, it's like a free lobotomy. If they successfully convince people to stop disagreeing with the pResident than they can publish their instructions in the American Medical Reference Encyclopedias, entitled: "How to perform a non-surgical lobotomy."
NonnyO
Vietnam did me in, even though I was a teen, & I never recovered. We did not learn. Sad.
I'm going to take a stab at writing to MSNBC too.
YOU GOTTA LOVE HER:
4th of July Thoughts: Is Dissent Unpatriotic?
Arianna Huffington
07.01.2005
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/featuredposts.html#a003433
As we head into the long 4th of July weekend, together with thoughts of fireworks and cookouts, my mind is turning to questions of patriotism and national pride.
Given the administration's ongoing with-us-or-against-us mindset, patriotism is a lot more complicated than it should be. The Bushies want us to believe that you can't rally around the flag while still expressing dissent over the acts being perpetrated in the name of that flag. Which, of course, you most certainly can. Far from dissent and love of country being contradictory, in many ways dissent is the most patriotic of patriotic acts. Ben Franklin was absolutely right: "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech".
The thing that got me thinking about all this was a completely under-reported exchange (thanks to blogger dhonig at Mydd for flagging the story) that took place last week when Don Rumsfeld appeared in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee and was questioned by Robert Byrd).
The money quote was delivered by Byrd, tired of Rummy's preening: "I don't mean to be discourteous," said the Senator, "but I've heard enough of your smart answers. Get off your high horse when you come up here. We represent the American people and they are asking questions. They haven't been told the truth. The administration says we're unpatriotic if we ask questions, but that's our job."
Indeed it is. It's all of our jobs to keep asking questions. And demanding answers. Even if it means causing a Roman Candle to go off in Rumsfeld's head.
So why haven't we heard more about this story? As dhonig wonders, isn't a U.S. Senator telling the Secretary of Defense "I've heard enough of your smart answers" real news?
Maybe when the media get back from Aruba, they can look into it. ++
I beleive we are the media. We are the patriots, we are the Americans that will take this Government back.
When enough people demand change, it will occur. When enough people vote for change, it will occur, and when enough people ask for investigations, they will occur.
We just cannot forget that we are the People the Declaration of independance refers too.
~from the Australian:
Are the Bushies losing Iraq?
Michael Wolff July 04, 2005
More than any other war in the history of the US, this is one man's war. The association is absolute: it's Bush's war. But now, as we start to come to the end of the Bush years, the unavoidable question is: who else wants it? Not that many, it seems. After all, it requires signing on to all that Bush family meshugas, and all those neo-con intellectual contortions, not to mention all that Bush jut-jawed toughguyness. Indeed, it's quite impossible to see this war without Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney and Rove and the rest. Once they're gone, the imperative, indeed the very nature, of the war is gone.
And, in fact, the political reality is that they'll be gone before they have actually left office. That's the inescapable second-term curse. Everybody's career is beginning to shift. Your best people have one foot out the door, or have already left. People who have supported you, because you have supported them, are suddenly a lot more iffy. You simply aren't the man you were. Indeed, you're a sinking ship. In a second term, fighting a war - a long-running, expensive, bloody, never particularly popular, largely unsuccessful war - looks almost impossible.
continue~
http://tinyurl.com/9r29t
Fe
I happened to see that on C-span when I was at my mom's. Thanks for the memory. I was thrilled!
Of course it wasn't featured anywhere else. I wonder if anyone has a film clip?
Did everyone see this?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/03/news/notes.php
WASHINGTON
Agent's name leaked by Rove, magazine says
E-mails surrendered by Time magazine to a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA agent's identity show that a top White House aide, Karl Rove, was one of the sources, Newsweek magazine reported Sunday.
Rove, who is President George W. Bush's deputy chief of staff, was named as a source by two lawyers involved in the case who asked not to be identified, Newsweek said.
However, an attorney for Rove told Newsweek that his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA."
Time agreed on Thursday to hand over the internal e-mails, which were largely correspondence between their editors and a reporter, Matt Cooper, along with his notes on reporting related to the case. (AFP)
____________
Hmm...KNOWINGLY? Sounds like Rovian speak for GUILTY! His lawyer is obviosly parsing words there. Could it be true that Karl may actually go down for this? Oh pretty please with cherries on top!!! Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
Here is more Byrd (& allies) v Rumsfeld, when authorizing the original $87 billion for Iraq.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Secretary Rumsfeld, where is the mandate from the American people to carry out the reconstruction of Iraq? Who has set the parameters for how extensive this nation- building effort should be? And when did the American people give their assent?
DONALD RUMSFELD: Thank you, Senator Byrd. The answer to your question is that in our constitutional process, the president came to the Congress, as we all know; sought a resolution, received a resolution. He recognizes that under Article I of the Constitution, the Congress controls the purse strings, and therefore, he has made this request to the Congress. And certainly the deliberations that we're currently engaged in...
SEN. ROBERT BYRD: But where is the mandate from the American people to carry out the reconstruction of Iraq and to Democratize that government?
DONALD RUMSFELD: The goal for the United States is not to stay there-- or for the coalition. It's to turn that country back over to the Iraqi people, which is, as Ambassador Bremer pointed out, a seven-point plan to do that through a constitution and elections, and then passing of sovereignty at a pace as rapidly as is reasonable.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD: But still I haven't had an answer to my question as to where the mandate comes from the American people. The American people have never been told that we're going into that country to build a new nation, to build a new government, to democratize the country and to democratize the Middle East. The American people haven't been told that. They were told we were going in there because of weapons of mass destruction.
DONALD RUMSFELD: The American people were told by the President of the United States and at the U.N. and here in the United States the reasons for going in. Once having gone in, the last thing we need to do is to turn that country over to another dictator like Saddam Hussein. The least we can do that...
SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Nobody's suggesting that.
DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, the least we can do is to attempt to put in place a process, a political process, where they can migrate towards something that will not be a threat to their neighbors, that will not repress their people, that will be representative and reflective of the people in that country.
KWAME HOLMAN: At that point Chairman Stevens stepped in.
SEN. TED STEVENS: Senator Cochran is recognized for eight minutes, Senator.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Might I respond to that?
SEN. TED STEVENS: Senator, I had-- I was talking in my own time. You'll have time later.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD: All right. Thank you. Thank you for your courtesy.
SPOKESMAN: Senator, I was courteous to you. You have seven minutes over your time.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD: Seven minutes. Think of that. On an $87 billion request.
KWAME HOLMAN: Republicans asked hard questions as well. Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: Is it realistic, Mr. Secretary, to try to structure some of this with loans from others? Or looking to the Iraqi oil, where I think it is fair to use Iraqi resources to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq. We don't want that oil. Is there some way we can offset this request in loans or IMF or World Bank?
DONALD RUMSFELD: Senator, I know that this is a subject that's been looked at very hard by the administration and by the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Treasury. The concern is that the Iraqis currently have something in the neighborhood of $200 billion of various types of obligations, whether reparations or debt.
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER: The $200 billion in debt expended by a tyrant... they're really bankrupt. I don't think we have to look toward repayment of that. We're starting anew, and it seems to me that we can appropriately, by analogy to commercial transactions, look to their assets and to the future.
KWAME HOLMAN: North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan pointed out that Iraq's largest debts are owed to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
SEN. BYRON DORGAN: Wouldn't it be the height of irony if the U.S. taxpayer is paying for the reconstruction in Iraq while Iraq oil is producing revenues so that the Iraqi people can reimburse Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for debt incurred by Saddam Hussein? That is a Byzantine construct that I personally don't support.
http://www.newshounds.us/
"We watch FOX so you don't have to"
RE: CIA Agent Name Leak
The story that Rove was behind it made my local tv newscast on Saturday or Sunday night but it was buried. It's a good sign they covered it at all but let's face it, if this was a Clinton staffer and the coverup was about a prostitute's name, it would be the lead story. Regardless, Dems need to turn up the heat on the WH now that there's some traction on this story. We cannot let this story be buried. The Repubs sure as hell wouldn't. Of course I would love for Darth Cheney and Shrub to be asked "What They Knew When" on all of this. Wouldn't THAT be sweet???
Oh--and on YCTIWY, the play:
Grandpa is wise old man and I try to remember his speeches often.
Posted by: Karen at July 4, 2005 08:12 PM
--------------
Karen,
THe one that got me, was how Grandpa prayed at the dinner table, by talking to God, not in some weird way, but just giving an update and thanks.
And the quote about the bomb was one I almost added in the header, but I wanted the header to just connect to what I think of when I think of patriotism, and why I prefer the term Americanism, because there are many things to love and to miss in this dying version of America, but there is also much to look forward to when we make the next chapter go forward.
DiAnne--ignorance is no excuse, but i also think your mother has two distinct advantages-age and intelligence. Her age gives her the ability to recognize McCarthyism and a failed war when she sees it, and her intelligence gives her the advantage of knowing the difference between BS and the truth.
For long time I have given a pass to the ignorant, because we all know how deliberately and in any number of ways in which the media corpatism has conspired to hide the facts from the people, often at the direction or with threats from the White House. B ut the time has come now, for all Americans to give up the ghost and face the truth about this failed presidency, and I am beginning to feel the smallest glimmer of hope that things are beginning to crumble in the rather elaborate farce of government we have endured for five years. In thinking about that, I can see now that it will take more than one thing happening to move the indolent America. It will take Rove being indicted, the war coming home to roost, the international community deciding at the G8 to leave America behind on the millenium and environmental goals and further isolating us. It will take these and more revelations, but they are happening.
Vigilence.
the 2 "most viewed" opinion columns currently up on Yahoo, both on Rove:
Lawrence O'Donnell:
Rove's I-did-not-inhale Defense
http://tinyurl.com/b4amt
and by Ted Rall:
KARL ROVE: WORSE THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN
http://tinyurl.com/afehk
Casey
I agree about my mom - she has the perspective of the Depression, WW2 and Vietnam plus living as a senior citizen on a fixed income & having a schizophrenic daughter & a deceased husband who had Parkinson's PLUS being a cancer survivor and having wierd kids such as me and my brothers!
So she has some perspective! It would be surprising if, at this point, as a mother & former teacher & grandmother, she would swallow the Koolaid.
I don't think ignorance is an excuse. I lived in SD in my teen years and still was able to somehow walk into a tiny Eugene McCarthy office, to read the works of the Quakers on war and to locate noncommercial music and reading matter via obscure radio stations picked up late at night or fine print in the back of magazines.
It's easier when news is all laid out, when the media and government are "transparent," but we certainly aren't the only place in the world where this ideal situation is not available. We need to think, to learn to think, to teach others to think.
Our country is relatively young, and even with the history we've had, we haven't had massive casualties on our land except for the Civil War times. We have not had a situation (even after the "war to end all wars" and the atrocity of Vietnam) where people truly internalized the idea of "never again." It's hard to understand and to face, but it seems to be where we're at.
So "education" as a goal is so appropriate, as well as "affirmation" of each other. & I do think it's great when we connect with sources and persons outside our boundaries, geographically and philosophically, to stretch and affiliate and learn.
Knowingly is the key word.
It's the exact word they'll use to try to escape the charges. Remember the prosecution has the burden of proof and they must prove "intent" which means proving he "knowingly" did this. That is why Rove may be trying to spoil the jury pool already and why his lawyer will tap dance around another four letter word: KNOW! (Ok..you thought it was ROVE, admit it!!!)
The media's been dancing around the Rove story today with:"the country's moved on and really this has no interest." Think this is "END OF STORY."...not if we have something to do about it.
I couldn't even hang a flag today...something very amiss now in the good ol U.S.A. .
We are NOT summer soldiers and sunshine patriots here!
"These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated."
Thomas Paine-- "The Crisis"
Rove + leak = 21,000 Google entries
Consider also the history of Rove's dirty tricks, chronicled by James Moore and Wayne Slater in their book "Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential."
In 1986, according to the book, Rove told reporters that someone had bugged his office where he was campaign manager for Texas gubernatorial candidate Bill Clements. On the morning of a major debate Rove called a press conference. He said, "Obviously I don't know who did this. But there is no doubt in my mind that the only ones who would benefit from this detailed, sensitive information would be the political opposition." The press quickly assumed the bugging was done by Clements' opponent, Mark White, who was leading in the polls. By election day, Rove's candidate won and the source of the bug was never found -- but many reporters later concluded that Rove himself had placed it.
Four years ago during the Bush-Gore race, the Gore camp mysteriously obtained sensitive campaign materials from the Bush campaign including a video of the Texas governor prepping for a debate and detailed campaign strategy notes. Rove soon accused the Gore campaign of secretly taping Bush. Later a former employee of a Bush campaign adviser admitted supplying the information to Gore.
In trademark fashion, Rove's role in the case was never clear. He never leaves fingerprints behind. It is known as the "Mark of Rove."
Posted by: not my president at July 5, 2005 12:07 AM
Not My President,
One of the first things I did when I got involved in learning on the blogasphere was to ask alot of questions, and follow up with reading materials in the form of books and articles. On the topic of Karl Rove, a person suggested I pick up a copy of the current (at that time - before the '04 election) of the Atlantic Monthly Journal, which featured a descriptive article about Rove, as well as the book you mentioned, Bush's Brain. I purchased them both, and would suggest Bush's Brain to anyone not real familiar with Karl Rove, his tactics, and M.O. In a lot of ways his style is unique, mostly because he (in my personal opinion)crosses the boundary of decency with his ruthlessness. In my opinion also, I think he does leave a "mark" with an ability to cause inhumane damage to people by tearing down their character, reputations, dignity, and well being, for no other reason than to win at politics, and gain power for those who don't handle it well. He has been very instrumental in building the "Empire". And he has, in the past, seemed to be very careful not to leave a trail. In my opinion, he crosses lines where others fear to tread, and I consider him a menace to society.
I think caution is the wise word of the day, until we know how implicated he is. He would love nothing more than a feeding frenzy that backfired.
I said last week, before it came out that Rove was suspected to be the leak, that it "smells like Rove to me". I hope and pray that if it is, he cannot weasle out of it. And I hope it opens some eyes.
That was wonderful, Casey! Thanks!!! I've always loved "You Can't Take It With You".
Hmmm-
1. Omitted from shrub's campaign ads-- & from the Budget:
"...the mounting costs of the war in Iraq, approximately $5 billion a month..."
Yes, PER MONTH
2. **again, from another standpoint**
The rationale described in this article for reconfiguring the military implicitly confirms that the BushCo/Rummy war "plan" was not & is not sustainable with the armed forces available to them:
__________
The Pentagon's most senior planners are challenging the longstanding strategy that requires the armed forces to be prepared to fight two major wars at a time.
~~snip~~
After years of saying American forces were sufficient for a two-war strategy, "we've come to the realization that we're not," said ...[a] ... Defense Department official involved in the deliberations, who was granted anonymity because he could not otherwise discuss the talks, which are classified. "It's coming to grips with reality."
~~snip~~
Civilian and military officials are trying to decide to what degree to acknowledge that operations like the continuing presence in Iraq - not a full-blown conventional war, but a prolonged commitment - may be such a burden that it would not be possible to also fight two full-scale campaigns elsewhere.
In effect, the unusual mission in Iraq, which could last for years, has not just taken the slot for one of the two wars; it has upended the central concept of the two-war model. It is neither a major conventional combat nor a mere peacekeeping operation. It does not require the full array of forces, especially from the Navy and the Air Force, of a conventional war, and it takes far more troops than peacekeeping ordinarily would.
~~snip~~
Whether anybody believed we could actually fight two wars at once is open to debate," one senior military officer said. "But having it in the strategy raised enough uncertainty in the minds of our opponents that it served as a deterrent. Do we want to lose that? We don't want to give any adversary the confidence that they could take advantage of us while we're engaged in one major combat operation."
______________
Pentagon Weighs Strategy Change
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/politics/05strategy.html?ei=5089&en=cbd5f62e98f10f06&ex=1278216000&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
re Rove
I would turn on the TV if the would replay clips of Bush denouncing the Plame incident & swearing that the investigation would get to the bottom of it. Too bad the independent investigator law expired when it did.
IMHO, Nixon is one up on Reagan & BushCo. Better a crook in that seat than a bunch of traitors trading arms to those they called enemies & revealing covert operatives for political gain
independent prosecutor
Our fireworks had Happy Faces.