Obama has announced he will end funding and deployment plans for the antimissile batteries Bush wanted to plant in Eastern Europe.
Missile defense has become an item of faith with many conservatives, and a cash cow for defense contractors, but it’s never been proven effective. And the arguments that Europe needed it to protect against Iranian missiles weren’t very convincing either (why exactly would Iran be firing on Poland?). Good for Obama.
Welcome
The Destin Log is the twice-weekly newspaper devoted to covering the crown jewel of the Emerald Coast.
Archive for the 'War/military' Category
Something to cheer about
September 18th, 2009, 11:23 am by fshermanAnd one from the Miami Herald
September 15th, 2009, 1:53 pm by fshermanThe column Fear Was No Excuse written by former Marine Corps Commandant
Charles C. Krulak and former Centcom Commander in Chief Joseph P. Hoar argues against torture as practically and morally a bad idea. But I’m sure they’re just two more filthy leftwingers who hate America.
Shamelessly recommending you read Glenn Greenwald
September 15th, 2009, 1:43 pm by fshermanThere’s this post about the reverence for Bush expressed while he was in office; one on right-wing hostility to Obama and its resemblance to Bill Clinton’s tenure; and this one on Obama’s claims that Baghram in Afghanistan can be made into the new outside-American-law Guantanamo.
Ron Hart is only 10 percent wrong
September 10th, 2009, 4:57 pm by fshermanI agree with him that pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq would be a good thing at this point (even though I notice that didn’t stop him endorsing McCain, who was resoundingly pro-war), but then there’s this:
“I tired quickly of the Bush administration’s accusations that if you were not for the “War on Terror,” you were not American enough or you did not “support the troops.” It was as objectionable as Obama’s theme that if you disagree with him you are a racist. ”
In the first place, when did Obama say this?
In the second place, this conveniently ignores that it wasn’t just the Bush administration that made the “objectively pro-terrorist” argument: It was Republicans in Congress, it was conservative pundits, it was Young Republicans in college. It was a constant theme of most of the Republican Party—”People who disagree with Obama are racist” hasn’t been a theme of Democrats (or the administration) to any comparable degree.
This, of course, is the standard shtick of the right-wing (and a fair chunk of the supposedly liberal media): OK, sure, maybe some of our people said something bad, but the Democrats are no different! Pointing out that Republicans are worse reduces them to hissing fits (as witness some of the commentary on my last column).
And by criticizing the Bush administration, Hart has himself a safe target: Bush is out of office, out of power, saying he did wrong is fine. Pointing out that countless Republicans still in office or in print said the same thing … not so cool for a Republican mouthpiece. So he doesn’t say it.
Flawed logic
August 24th, 2009, 12:20 pm by fshermanIn Sunday’s paper, Navarre “birther” Norman Caron argues that “It is Rep. Miller’s duty to represent the people!”–which means that if a majority of people think Obama might not be a citizen, therefore it’s Miller’s duty to investigate (Caron bases his claim on a Daily News poll, but the kind of polls they and The Log run are not statistically accurate, by the way).
No. No more than Miller would have to champion flat-eartherism or creationism or a belief that the moonlandings were faked, even if those were in a majority. Because none of them are true. Representing the people does not mean representing every delusion that comes down the pike.
And delusional it is: Caron directs readers to americangrandjury.org, which is promoting Barack Obama’s supposed Kenyan birth certificate, which has already been proven a fraud.
(While I don’t know Caron’s views otherwise, I wonder if he believes that we should investigate the Bush administration for torture and illegal wiretapping because a majority is solidly in support of that, too. But I’d almost bet money Caron isn’t).
As many people have pointed out over the past two centuries, a representative isn’t required to express the exact views of his constitutent: His judgment on what’s best is also involved. And while I disagree with Miller on a lot of things, I give him points for not signing on to this nonsense.
Over in the editorial, the Daily News reports that 46 percent of the people who voted in another poll believe that if Obama is not a US citizen, troops should disregard his orders as commander in chief. My questions:
•Do the respondents mean “If Obama is at some later date legally proven not to be an American citizen, people should ignore his orders” or “They should stop obeying his orders immediately, even though nothing has been proven legally?”
•If the latter, do they believe that if soldiers believed Bush was not legally elected in 2000, they could ignore his orders? If not, why not?
•If anyone else had made that argument during the Bush era, would the “ignore Obama’s orders” crowd have considered it a legitimate argument or treasonous? And if treasonous, shouldn’t the same apply now?
(Of course not. That would require our local extremists to actually have a principle of government beyond Vote Republican).
Of course, that 46 percent could just represent a bunch of really PO’d people who were passionate enough to vote (a common problem with this sort of poll) and given how far to the right our area is, there’s probably a lot of those around. Still it’s a little alarming to have members of the right-wing announcing that the military should ignore the commander-in-chief’s orders.
Putting it in perspective
August 21st, 2009, 2:12 pm by fshermanProbably the longest comments thread on any of my columns was the one triggered by my column of Aug. 12, which pointed out the absurdity of the birther claims. What really got things going was that when commenters argued the “truthers” were just as nutty, I pointed out that Bush didn’t deal with Democrats in Congress saying that the truthers might have had a point or that Bush should prove he didn’t have anything to do with 9/11.
I went on to point out this is a general pattern: There are plenty of loonies on the left, but the Republicans have them in the mainstream, from Sen. Inhofe, who said the US deserved 9/11 to Glenn Beck who agreed with a guest that another terror attack would be good for America. The fact that the rightwing mainstream is more extreme than the left (at least at this point in time) infuriated commenters who kept insisting the left was just as bad, but couldn’t find any examples.
For comparison, Glenn Greenwald’s Friday post points out the way people who made crazy claims during the Bush year—that Saddam didn’t have WMDs, that terror-threat levels were raised in response to politics (according to Tom Ridge, former Homeland Security head)—that turned out to be true were dismissed as raving maniacs.
Rightwing pundits can say stuff far more absurd and extreme without getting a fraction of the flak.
“An absolute disgrace and an outrage”
July 20th, 2009, 10:31 am by fshermanThat’s Norm Kaiser of Freeport’s response in Saturday’s Daily News to Obama’s statement that “the United States has sometimes fallen short of meeting our responsibilites.”
Kaiser says he’s outraged because Americans “saved the day” in World War I, “again answered the call and saved the day” in World War II, rebuilt Europe with the Marshall Plan and “liberated Italy, France, Belgium, the Vatican, South Korea, Grenada, Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan.”
No argument, America has done some noble things fighting for freedom. But it’s done some pretty ghastly things too.
Take Iraq, for instance? We “liberated” it from a tyrant we’d propped up and supported for more than 30 years; remember when we condemned Israel for blowing up Saddam’s “peaceful” nuclear lab? Remember when we gave our support verbally to the Kurds then stood by while Saddam used poison gas on his own people (when he used it on Iranian forces in the Iraq-Iran War we actively supported it)?
And we went into Iraq because supposedly it was a threat to us (or whatever reason really lurked inside Bush’s brain); liberation was just a side-effect—and Iraqi women seem to be less liberated and more repressed now.
Ditto Afghanistan: Despite Bush’s occasional claims we went in to free the oppressed Afghani women from Taliban rule, we went in because al Qaida hung out there—that was about it.
Likewise, we didn’t “answer the call” in World War II: We were an isolationist country that traded with the Axis until we went to war, and that because we’d been attacked.
We overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953 and installed the Shah and Saavik. We installed a Guatemalan dictatorship that murdered thousands of Indians there. Reagan supported Ferdinand Marcos when his own people wanted him gone, opposed an end to apartheid in South Africa and assured America that an El Salvador government that murdered nuns and priests was complying with human rights standards.
We’ve done many good things in the world. But Obama was right, we have all too often fallen short of our vision of ourself.
Creepy stuff
July 14th, 2009, 9:03 am by fshermanA Stars and Stripes article on neo-Nazis and Skinheads in the military.
Glenn Beck supports terrorist attacks
July 7th, 2009, 9:38 am by fshermanFrom Beck’s show this weekend: Terrorism expert Michael Scheuer asserts that “The only chance we have as a country right now is for Osama bin Laden to deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States. Because it’s going to take a grassroots, bottom-up pressure, because these politicians prize their office, prize the praise of the media and the Europeans. Only–it’s an absurd situation. Again, only Osama can execute an attack which will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently and with as much violence as necessary.”
Beck’s response: “Which is why I was thinking this weekend if I were him, that would be the last thing I would do right now.”
And the point on which he’s horrifically wrong.
June 26th, 2009, 12:11 pm by fshermanHart again: “In reality, these not-ready-for-democracy players in imperialistic parts of the world are better served in the short run under the control of a strong-armed leader. ‘Thug-ocracies’ can be fine for keeping countries under control until democracy can take its natural course; China and Russia come to mind as examples.”
And pray tell me, Mr. Hart, which parts of the world are those? Which is this thug-ocracy where everyone is better off than if they had free elections? How exactly does this benefit the people of China? Or Tibet, which is an occupied state?
And what makes you think democracy will “take its natural course”? China hasn’t had democracy in 50 years and it shows little sign of softening. Saddam or one of his sons would probably be still be in charge in Iraq if we hadn’t invaded (no, I don’t consider that a good reason to go in, but it’s certainly true). Saudi Arabia has less democracy than Iran, but they royal family isn’t letting go.
And what does this have to do with Iran? They were ready for democracy back in 1953, then we decided they were electing the wrong people and installed the Shah and financed his secret police? If they’re not ready for democracy—and it looks like a lot of them are pretty keen on it—wouldn’t that be our fault?
Admittedly, this is a fairly common attitude in Washington: People are ready for democracy when they vote the way we like, and if they’re not then they clearly need “stability” or “a firm hand” or some other euphemism. Many of our leaders have no qualms going several steps beyond Hart’s Thugocracy Is Good thesis; they don’t merely tolerate the thugs, they overthrow democracies (Guatemala, Iran) or prop up tyrants (Panama, Iraq, El Salvador) so we can get the oil or the mining or whatever else it is we think we’re entitled to.
It’s one of our country’s most shameful legacies.
