Don't be too harsh on "Blame America First"

There seems to be a large segment of a particular political party that enjoys employing a series of what they consider cleaver phrases to the point where those phrases become nothing more than cliché` and overly tired arguments. “Stay the Course,” “Mission Accomplished,” and most recently, “Blame America first crowd” have all surpassed the status of cleaver phrase and crossed over to the realm of tired, hollow arguments against those who disagree with the current deployment of our troops in Iraq.

“Blame America first” is an interesting non-argument because it provides greater understanding and perhaps a bit of sympathy to those who are against any plan to withdraw from Iraq either strategically or otherwise. It is also an interesting catchphrase because despite it’s vagueness, its initial message is not difficult to understand.

It can best be described as a reactionary phrase. It is a reaction to the frustration of the realization that the United States is very likely responsible for the mess in Iraq. It is made in denial of that fact, but its not necessarily made in attempt to mislead those who are unaware of the facts in Iraq. It is a common form of denial, similar to the denial of the death of a loved one. This form of denial is one of the stages of dealing with a loss, and we as a nation are certainly dealing with loss. We have lost many loved troops abroad. The world has lost many loved citizens who were unjustly and unfortunately caught in the crossfire, both literal and figurative, of this war. We as a nation are dealing with our loss of credibility and our loss of faith in a leader whom we feel we should be able to place more trust in.

Unfortunately, denial in this case has increased the degree of polarization between those who are pro-war and those who are anti-war. This initial stage of dealing with loss is detrimental to society yet necessary for those who are coming to terms with the fact that the United States is waging an illegal war against Iraq, and that the United States is committing the same sorts of atrocities in Iraq that it has sworn to protect against.

This stage of denial, however, also beckons the potential for hope. If enough those who are in denial about the truths of the Iraq war proceed through the stages of loss quickly enough, their shift in perspective on the war will hopefully contribute to the positive resolution in Iraq and the decrease in polarization among the citizens of the United States. This does not require a shift of political parties to accomplish. Rather, it requires the recognition of injustice and the desire to rectify those injustices. Instead of an area of policy that causes divisions between members of political parties, the war in Iraq can easily turn to greater unification of political parties on the grounds that atrocities against humanity should be rectified. Already we are beginning to see Republican and Democratic Senators unifying on this position as house and senate members push to end the war on Iraq .

Hopefully, the era of political unification on this important issue is near. Until then, it is important that those against the war in Iraq not be too critical of those who are partaking in the “blame America first” argument. Instead of being relentless in argument, calmly state your position, refuse to get frustrated at any non-argument they provide against you, and be prepared to assist with the grieving process they are likely undergoing.

FOX News Blames Democrats For Iran Captives

Commenting on FOX news usually holds little to no interest for me, but since it's spring break, I'm feeling lazy. I also feel I must update this thing at least once a month.

Apparently, Rosie O’Donnell has made some rather interesting comments (yet again) on the view. She spoke first about Iranian portrayal in the United States media, something I agree with (Oh God, I'm agreeing with Rosie). There are those who believe that the entire Iranian population, not only it's government officials, are "unable to do anything ethical." It's an unfortunate (but thankfully not universal) mindset in the US. (Her comments were in regards to the current Iranian hostage situation, which I am unfortunately not keeping up on due to laziness on my part).

She then starts talking about how she thinks 9/11 was a setup by the US Government (Her position that "fire doesn't melt steel" is ridiculous; fire doesn't melt steel, but the conditions in the building allowed for extreme temperatures) before mentioning FOX News. When I say mentioning, I mean less than a sentence devoted to FOX. Heck, FOX News wasn't even the subject of the sentence.

Of course, FOX felt obligated to respond with a 6 and 3/4 minute response on the popular "Hannity and Colmes." Most interesting was their guest, Bill Cunningham, especially regarding some of the comments he made, then being hailed as a "great American" by Hannity. Literally one of the first things out of his mouth: "She has no right to speak."

Ironically, this so called "great American" is arguing against one of the very cornerstones of democracy, which is the open forum of ideas. He has every right to disagree with Rosie, but to go as far as saying she has no right to speak... forgive me for saying so, but that sounds just a little fascist to me. Wow, Hannity, you sure do know great Americans when you see them.

He then continued to argue against her by calling her a "fat slob" and a "gay rights activist" (what a horrible thing to be!). Colmes, in one of his FEW displays of argumentative intelligence, tells Cunningham he isn't advancing any argument through name calling, but Cunningham seems to disagree. "I'm right, though," he says. "She describes her self that way." And be that as it may, it hasn't persuaded me to believe that Rosie "has no right to speak."

Colmes continues the discussion with a Democratic analysis in which they disagree with exactly what Rosie said (pretty humorous in my mind).

Hannity decides to get in on the action by speaking with Cunningham. It never ceases to amaze me how skilled he is at incriminating complete nations of people. "[She] rushes to the side of our enemies [Iran]..." The conversation quickly turns into what can best be described as a (forgive me in advance) circle-jerk in which they fail to ask or answer any questions with each other and merely respond to hateful speech with more hate speech until Cunningham groups her statements with supposedly similar statements by Clinton, Kerry, and Durban (whom he misquotes), then uses that piece of brilliant logic to link their alleged positions of "anti-Americanism" and "f**k the troops" with those of the mainstream liberal. He then accuses those "liberals" who don't agree with those positions of refusing to recognize the anti-American mainstream message "liberals" are trying to get across.

The main point of this is that I thought this sort of though was confined to FOX news, but recently, I've come up with people who nonsensically make the same sorts of arguments. When responding to their "rhetoric" with any response that takes more than a few seconds of though, I am received with more nonsensical statements that both dodge any questions my arguments provoke and more lazy arguments. So seriously, if somebody wants to condemn Rosie's right to free speech, please do so. If you have any sort of cognitive argument as to why that woman should not be allowed to speak (other than that she's a loon, in which I would be compelled yet unable to agree with) please comment.

Fighting Terror On the Home Front

The Fifth Amendment guarantees United States Citizens that they will not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Throughout history, the United States has a strong tradition of upholding the Fifth Amendment by granting due process of law to every United States citizen apprehended under suspicion of terrorist activities.

That tradition ended June 9^th, 2002, with the apprehension of Jose Padillia.

After his plane landed in Chicago, police apprehended Padillia on suspicion of planning to detonate a “dirty bomb” in a crowded public area, and took him into custody. Upon hearing about the apprehension, President Bush gave Padillia the status of “enemy combatant” and had him transferred to a military prison.

For twenty-one months, Padillia was denied access to legal council. For more than three years, Padillia sat in prison with no charges against him. During his detention, Padillia’s condition of treatment could be best described as sub-humane.

The fact that Padillia, a United States citizen, was held without any charges filed against him is atrocious. The President’s ability to bypass the Fifth Amendment by merely attaching the label of “enemy combatant” to any detainee gives the President powers that no individual branch, let alone actor, should be endowed with.

More than the alleged threat that Iraq presented the United States with, more than the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, this is the greatest threat presented to the American people. This is the single greatest act of terrorism towards the American way of life. While the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center deprived thousands of Americans of their lives, the assertions of power made by the executive administration maintain a constant threat to the American people.

The actions of the president of the United States are nothing short of tyrannical.

It could be true that Padillia is in fact a threat to the United States, that he was making contact with and receiving training from terrorist cells, and that he planned to detonate a “dirty bomb.” It may be possible that he deserves the type of treatment he is receiving. This is irrelevant. What is relevant is that as an American citizen, he has the right to an attorney, starting from the time he is apprehended. What is relevant is that he has the right to a fair and speedy trial. What is relevant is that only the supreme court should have the right to decide whether Padillia’s imprisonment is constitutional, and thus legal, not the president.

This is not a matter of partisanship. This is a matter of protecting American values. This is a matter of winning the war on terrorism on the home front by not allowing the tactics used by those we fight against to be used by our leaders against us.

This is a matter of demanding the immediate access to a trial and council for any United States citizen detained as an “enemy combatant.”

Something you should read...

This is not a traditional post yet, as I will have more to say later. For now, I would have you read the following New York Times Article:

"Videotape Offers a Window Into a Terror Suspect’s Isolation."

Change the Course

Withdrawal from Iraq is becoming less of a partisan issue and more of a general consensus among politicians. The bipartisan Iraq Study group has recently released a preliminary conclusion of its study which calls for the gradual withdrawal of all United States combatants by 2008, leaving soldiers to train Iraqi military and security forces in order for them to take a more active role in ending secratarian violence.

Noted former secretary of defense Henery Kissinger has declared that the objectives and the definition of victory in Iraq needs to be changed, stating that a military victory in Iraq is no longer possible. As quoted by CNN:

"If you mean by clear military victory an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible."

Even Donald Rumsfeld, recently resigned from his position as Secretary of Defense, sees a need for a change in the President's foreign policy in Iraq. "In my view it is time for a major adjustment," he wrote in a memo to the white house. "Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough." (NYTimes, December 2nd).

It seems as if the only prominent decision maker in foreign policy is the only one who holds the position that "Staying the Course" is a good idea. Unfortunately, he is also the supreme authority in regards to making foreign policy. In response to the Iraq Study group, Bush declared that a strategy concerning exit in Iraq "has no realism to it whatsoever."

Before proposing further comment regarding the issue, it is important to note that Bush aides infered that the President is not completely resistant to change in policy concerning Iraq, saying that there are options that "he's (the President) is very open to."

It is interesting, however, that the President is not considering the advice of those who have extensive credibility regarding foreign policy towards Iraq, especially that of Donald Rumsfeld (who was allegedly asked to resign because his perceived strict advocation of "stay the course"). It seems as if the President has an unrealistic vision he wishes to pursue in Iraq. His rejection of the Iraq Study Groups findings is epecially alarming considering the report has yet to be released.

The president needs to realize that his objectives in Iraq are unrealistic. At minimum, he needs to heed the advice of Rumsfeld and Kissinger that policy change is needed in Iraq. He should carefully consider the consensus reached by the Iraq study group and delay making any prejudgeces in regards to the conclusions reached by the report until he has the opportunity to read the full report.

North Korean Logistics

There have been many who consider North Korean dictator Kim Jong Ill to be an irrational dictator, calling his isolationism foreign policy as self destructive to his country. They use this rationale to advocate their belief that North Korea's possession of a nuclear weapon is threatening to the international community, demanding sanctions be placed . Some have gone so far as to call for the United States to respond militarily.

The assertion that Jong-Il is insane is incorrect. Jong-Il has made the same realization that his father, Kim Il-sung, made, which is that the most effective way to consolidate power in a state is to have complete control over the population. This involves the limiting of foreign influence, which calls for the abolition of any foreign media, as well as the strict regulation of or termination of domestic media (which resulted in only two television channels available in North Korea, both of which are owned and operated by the state).

Jong-Il's desire for a nuclear weapon is actually the behavior of a rational leader. Jong-Il, along with other nuclear weapon seekers such as Iran's Ali Khamenei, realize that never in the history of international relations has a country with a nuclear weapon been invaded. In the interest of maintaining power and hopes to eliminate any foreign threat, Jong-Il has publicized his alleged possession of nuclear weapons technology.

The plausibility of Il's claim that his country has the ability to produce nuclear weapons is substantial enough to attract the attention of the international community. Already, the UN security council has condemned the actions of North Korea, and most are calling for sanctions against the country. China, however, has been the most reluctant country to cooperate, rejecting the United State's demand that they cut off all trade relations with North Korea. They have however, agreed to comply with the UN's request of discontinuing the trade of military goods with North Korea.

The United States will likely never see a war between themselves and North Korea. Each country understands the ramifications of such a war, which would be significant for both countries. Instead, the United States and the United Nations must rely on diplomacy to effectively contain any threat by North Korea. Additional pressure by China is essential in the continuation of successfull diplomacy. Because of North Korea's reliance on Chinese trading, any threat to eliminate trade with North Korea will have significant leverage on Jong-Il's decisions regarding his nuclear program.

Media Bias and the War in Iraq

I saw this in the New York Times today:

"The House and the Senate engaged in angry, intensely partisan debate on Thursday over the war in Iraq, as Republicans sought to rally support for the Bush administration's policies and exploit Democratic divisions in an election year shadowed by unease over the war."

I by no means consider myself a supporter of the war in Iraq, or of our president in general, but as a student of journalism, I do have a few problem with this first paragraph.

The phrase "exploit Democratic divisions" engages in a news story taboo called editorializing, which is the practice of expressing an opinion as if writing an editorial piece. In short, the above mentioned phrase gives the story a liberal bias, taking away from its credibility. I had originally intended to write this piece as a criticism of Senator Mitch McConnel's act of forcing Senator John Kerry's withdrawal amendment to be voted on, which Senator Kerry was saving so he could discuss issues for improvement of his amendment, or of representative Charlie Norwood's exploitation of the dichotomy between Al Qaeda and the United States, but I felt that addressing the issue of media bias was the most pressing topic of the story. As I mentioned above, it takes away from the credibility of what was otherwise a good story.

I like the New York Times. I believe it is one of the best staffed newspapers in the country, and I think their writing is engaging and informative. I would like to see less bias in future stories, especially concerning politics.