Judge Andrew Napolitano gave a speech for Reason Magazine in Washington D.C. in October of last year on the history of Constitutional infidelity. Virtually every president from George Washington to George W. Bush has broken his oath of office to defend the Constitution. President John Adams, the nation’s second president, was the first president who […]
Late yesterday, a state court Judge in Nevada said that NBC must include Dennis Kucinich (D., Mars) in tonight’s Democratic debate:
A judge in Nevada has just ordered MSNBC to include Rep. Dennis Kucinich in Tuesday’s Democratic Party presidential debate in Las Vegas or he will cancel the forum.
Senior Clark County District Court Judge Charles […]
NBC should of course cancel the debate and show Ezra Lavant’s videos instead.
Comment by KipEsquire — January 15, 2008 @ 6:48 am
But this is a Nevada judge, not a federal judge. Isn’t he bound by the Constitution of the State of Nevada?
It is up to the states to run elections, not the feds. The argument could be made that he is making sure that his state is running a fair election.
He is bound by the law, including the United States Constitution which is the highest law of the land.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 15, 2008 @ 7:05 am
Although I haven’t read the Nevada Constitution, I’m willing to bet that it says nothing that could be construed to support this explicitly.
Comment by Adam Selene — January 15, 2008 @ 7:53 am
sadcox,
As Doug correctly says, as a judge, he is bound by the law. The United States Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of the press from government control. Kookcinich has no business at the debate tonight.
Kucinch has continually tried to bring back the FCC Fairness doctrine. Kucinich is claiming breach of contract and this:
Sec 315 of the equal opportunity law: Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] Facilities for candidates for public office.
(a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provision of this section. No obligation is hereby imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any –
(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news interview,
(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or
(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),
shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.
Comment by Amyz — January 15, 2008 @ 8:15 am
The ruling is legit and Dennis Kucinich should be allowed to particpate. NBC is not just any ‘ol “private” party here, they control the PUBLIC AIRWAVES which were created on behalf of the public interest. When we let monopolies (NBC) seize control of public resources and then have the authoritarian power to control which candidates can be heard from, and which cannot — that is a fascist/totalitarian model.
How about free elections, based on equal access/equal time?
The power is taken away from the people to decide their own elections, if monopolies control who and who is not allowed on the public airwaves.
NBC is acting like the Stalinist Soviet Union here.
Comment by MoreCowbell — January 15, 2008 @ 8:20 am
Egads, not the “Public Airwaves” argument! Sorry, the public did not create them, they are a fact of physics. The public does not own them, but they are a commons and that requires a means to prevent the tragedy of the commons.
NBC is a monopoly because the theory of public airwaves led to the regulation of broadcasting by the government, which led to the creation of a monopoly. If you want competitive elections, get rid of the government regulation creating the monopoly.
Comment by Adam Selene — January 15, 2008 @ 8:24 am
“How about free elections, based on equal access/equal time?”
Yeah, because I certainly trust the government to tell me what’s “fair” or “equal”. Especially since the government is a group of politicians and bureaucrats who have an incentive to suppress viewpoints that endanger their continued employment.
“if monopolies control who and who is not allowed on the public airwaves.”
The only private monopolies that exist are those that receive government support (through regulations, licensing or decree) to create barriers to entry that bar competitors from the marketplace. Want to get rid of the “monopoly” on the airwaves? The first step should be getting rid of the FCC.
“NBC is acting like the Stalinist Soviet Union here.”
Yeah, I hear about the gulags they run for dissidents all the time. I hear one of them is going to be the focus of a new reality show now that the writers are on strike.
Just to clarify…
NBC is a private entity, and as far as I’m concerned they should be able to disallow anyone for any reason. If the market doesn’t like their decisions, the market will make them pay.
I was simply stating what the argument on the other side would probably be, not arguing for it.
sadcox,
“I was simply stating what the argument on the other side would probably be, not arguing for it.”
Fair enough…devil’s advocates are important to debate too :)
Dennis was ALREADY INVITED to tonight’s debate as a contender, 6 term congressman and presidential candidate and one who fell within all the criteria to take part in the debate. NBC then UNINVITED him! Since when does the media tell ME who I can listen to and hear, especially when I need to make an informed decision on who I am going to vote for? This is unAmerican, undemocratic and the media TELLING me who I can hear and who I get to vote for. Everyone, get a grip! Dennis is the ONLY ONE who has stood up for the American voter here. Regardless on if he makes president or not, he did the American thing by standing up for the people, not the corporations. If we do not vote him in, simply because of his morals and integrity, then we will get what we deserve…more of the same!
Another point, the airwaves belong to the people not the corporations. I grew up in a radio station and have worked in media all of my life. My father owned a radio station. He would be rolling over in his grave to see what is happening today with the media, the press and the networks.
The airwaves don’t belong to the people, they are a fact of physics. The statement you made:
Another point, the airwaves belong to the people not the corporations.
betrays a fundamental lack of grounding in the science of radio waves. It does, however, lead to populist claptrap, such as the FCC.
Comment by Adam Selene — January 15, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Earlier this week, four United States Senators did not think that a new game, Manhunt 2, was not sufficiently rated high enough and may even be bought by the children. Those four Senators decided to write the Entertainment Software Rating Board, private agency set up by the video game makers to self-regulate their products.
The […]
Lieberman has been on an anti-videogame crusade for years; Brownback thinks if it isn’t godly enough it’s evil; Bayh is an idiot; and Clinton is an opportunist.
Comment by Chris Byrne — November 23, 2007 @ 10:52 am
What you’re saying is that they don’t believe in freedom? Again, I’m shocked.
Comment by somebody — November 23, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Bloodthirsty butchers against video games. This is ironic.
Comment by uhm — November 23, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Congress has been threatening the video game industry for years. This is nothing we haven’t seen in the last ten to fifteen years anyway. Always trying to take away our freedom and downplay personal responsibility. I’m not surprised in the least.
Comment by Adam Rodriguez — November 23, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
NEW YORK – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faced sharp criticism Monday about his opinions on women, gays, Israel, nuclear weapons and the Holocaust in an appearance at Columbia University, where protesters lined the streets bearing signs reading, “Hitler Lives.”
Inside a crowded lecture hall, the university president issued blistering introductory remarks. Ahmadinejad exhibits “all the signs […]
While I find myself heartily agreeing with most of this piece, I do take a different view of the final item on barring Mr. Ahmadinejad from the WTC site. What bothers me about this is the knee-jerk association of Mr. Ahmadinejad with the 9/11 hijackers. There is no connection between Mr. Ahmadinejad and the 9/11 hijackers. The belief seems to be that, since Mr. Ahmadinejad supports groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, he is somehow connected with 9/11. But neither Hezbollah nor Hamas had anything to do with 9/11 either!
We have every right to deny Mr. Ahmadinejad access to the WTC site — but we were wrong to do so.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 25, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Chepe’s right, Stephen. You appear to be falling prey to the common misconception that Iran was in some way tied to 9/11. It wasn’t…at all. And your rant about how Ahmadinejad is afforded free speech in America is contradicted by your inclusion of the political cartoon celebrating Ahmadinejad being barred from Ground Zero. Free societies (and their politicians) don’t bar people from public areas just because they don’t like them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2173388,00.html
Also Ahmadinejad took the opportunity to bring up a few valid points during his visit, such as the fact that the Palestinians didn’t perpetrate the Holocaust (thus begging the question of why the Palestinians deserved to have their land treated as reparations) and that people who complain about Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial often choose to ignore the fact that Holocaust denial (or, more often, whatever the authorities say is Holocaust denial) an actual crime in several countries in the “free world”.
Now I’m no Holocaust denier, nor am I an anti-Semite. I think Ahmadinejad’s views are patently ridiculous and I think the man’s a fool. But frankly, his visit to the United States made us look a lot more foolish, hypocritical and uninformed than it made him look. Especially since the press has spent several days obsessing over a loudmouthed idiot who doesn’t actually have any real power in his own government…power resides with the clerics. Ahmadinejad’s the Iranian equivalent of Dana Perino or Tony Snow…the only difference being that he’s (nominally) elected.
And no Chepe…there is no “right” for government to deny Ahmadinejad access to the WTC (a piece of public property) unless it’s closed off to everybody.
Hmm, I wouldn’t argue with you about a moral right of the government to deny access to the WTC — that was my point in saying that it was wrong to do so. But legally the government did have a right to restrict his movements. Certainly the public safety concerns — the cost of providing security for Mr. Ahmadinejad at the WTC — provides a valid excuse. But again, I agree that morally, we should have let him go.
Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 25, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
UC:
You’re right; Ahmadinejad did make a few valid points (the ones you cited). Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I considered bringing that up in the post but to tell you the truth, I’m not real familiar with the European anti-Holocaust laws. I’ll have to save that for a post for another day (of course I would be opposed to such laws).
I also think he has a valid point about Israel. I have never understood why the displaced Jews were given Palestine to create their new country (I do have some theories though). It would have made more sense for the Jews to take over a part of Germany since it was Germany that tried to wipe them of the face of the Earth. The problem is they have been there now for about 60 years and they are one of the few friendly nations to the U.S. in the region. The best we could ever hope for is some sort of peaceful co-existence (which doesn’t seem likely).
To your other point: I realize that Iran was probably not part of 9/11. Ahmadinejad has, however; on numerous occasions opened official speeches with “Death to America” and has said several times he hopes to see a world without America. Iran also is probably the largest state sponsor of terrorism (namely Hezbollah), and is widely believed to be arming the insurgency in Iraq. Whether or not Iran had anything to do with 9/11 is irrelevant. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.
Comment by Stephen Littau — September 25, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
Chepe,
I’ll buy that argument so long as they apply it to every other foreign dignitary who asks to visit the WTC site to lay a wreath. Somehow I’m betting that funding won’t be an issue if a world leader the NYC and US government likes comes to visit. I’m not against a decision based on legitimate cost analysis…I’m against the blatant government hypocrisy that led to this decision.
Stephen,
Wikipedia is a good starting point for understanding the roots of the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan ). From what I’ve seen there and other places one of the key reasons it was deemed acceptable to gift Palestine was that we didn’t recognize their system of land ownership so we felt it was okay to ignore it to make a politically popular decision of theft. Not to sound like a shill, but typical egocentric Western behavior (see: Native Americans, British colonialism).
It’s not an issue of Iran [i]probably[/i] not being involved in 9/11. Iran [i]wasn’t[/i] involved in 9/11. [i]At all[/i]. It was al-Qaeda-conceived, al-Qaeda-planned, al-Qaeda-executed, and there is zero evidence to say or even insinuate otherwise. As for wishing to see a world without America, if I lived in a country that had it’s government overthrown by the CIA in 1957 and replaced by a bloodthirsty dictator (Shah Reza Pahlavi), and if the President of the U.S. kept referring to my country as part of an “Axis of Evil” and lumped us in with our mortal enemy (Iraq) in an I’d probably be just a scootch anti-American too. And Hezbollah’s got nothing to do with us.
As for a “terrorist being a terrorist” tell it to the Kurdish groups we liberated and put in charge who are now attacking civilian targets in Turkey. We aren’t exactly demanding that Iraq’s president (a Kurd) crack down on them. Or how about the MEK ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen-e_Khalq ), an anti-Iranian terrorist group that we’ve apparently treated with kid gloves because of their choice of enemy? Rumsfeld actually extended Geneva protections to them. Interesting how the definition of a terrorist conveniently changes based on who that person chooses to blow up or kill.
Comment by UCrawford — September 25, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
And I think that the South Koreans would beg to differ with you about the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. North Korea has sent infiltrators into the south for the last 50 years, conducted unprovoked attacks against U.S. and ROK forces, abducted civilians from Japan, sold weapons and weapons technology around the world, and launched missiles into other countries’ airspace. The Iranians are pikers by comparison…they at least restrict their actions to their own neighborhood.
Comment by UCrawford — September 25, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
Plus, as Ron Paul pointed out, the Saudis are sending a hell of a lot more weapons to Iraq than the Iranians are. And yet nobody’s talking about going to war with them.
Well, except for Tancredo, and he was just desperate for somebody to pay attention to his joke of a presidential campaign.
Comment by UCrawford — September 25, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Mr. Littau, I reject your assertion that “a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist”. Were the mujahadeen who resisted the Soviets in Afghanistan terrorists or freedom fighters? We shipped weapons to them — what does that make us?
Comment by Chepe Noyon — September 25, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
How Did Jew-Friendly Persia Become Anti-Semitic Iran?
Muslim, but not Arab, Iran protected its Jews from the Holocaust, but now questions that it ever happened. Once one of Israel’s closest Muslim allies, it now seeks to wipe the “Zionist entity” off the map. Tens of thousands of its Jews have left, yet it still boasts the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country. In an in-depth cover story (Dec. 2006), Moment magazine asks:
How Did Jew-Friendly Persia Become Anti-Semitic Iran?
http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2006/2006-12
Comment by Editor - Moment Magazine — September 26, 2007 @ 7:41 am
Chepe, I don’t know what your definition of “terrorist” is but I define it as a person who intentionally targets men, women, and children who are minding their own business.
For the record, I think the U.S. foreign policy has been fatally flawed in many instances.
Comment by Stephen Littau — September 26, 2007 @ 8:59 am
I agree with Stephen. Iran wasn’t involved with 9/11, true enough, but I doubt the reason that he wanted to visit ground zero was to pay his respects to the Americans who died. Even though it was solely AQ that initiated the attack, Ahmadinejad would most definitely be against us if he had to choose between the hijackers and America (as if he hasn’t chosen already). He wants to kill us, and I see no reason to let him anywhere near a place where so many were killed by people with the same insane mindset as him.
Comment by Hazel — September 26, 2007 @ 9:18 am
Stephen,
Then you’d probably better add the Afghan mujaheddin to the list. They committed multiple atrocities against civilian targets…including Ismail Khan’s slaughter of the families of Soviet advisors in Herat. That was noted in “Ghost Wars”, and Khan was one of the insurgent leaders we supported during that war ( http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/jul/johnsonJul04.asp ). As were Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani, both of whom also targeted civilians (especially Hekmatyar, who was responsible for the destruction of Kabul and the executions of every moderate Afghani politician, academic or intellectual he could get his hands on after the Soviets pulled out).
I could also mention the Contras, the IRA (who get a substantial portion of their funding from the Irish-American population), and more recently the Sunni insurgent groups we’ve armed to fight al-Qaeda in al-Anbar province. All of these have targeted non-combatants repeatedly and frequently. Terrorism is simply a general collection of tactics, not an enemy, and we’ve demonstrated in our past that we’re more than willing to justify terrorist activities whenever it suits our needs. I understand your opposition but you’re taking a black-and-white mindset on an issue that is anything but. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
As for Ahmadinejad’s motivations for visiting the WTC, who cares? He’s not planning on doing anything illegal and we supposedly have free speech in this country. Or does that only apply to people we don’t dislike? His political speech is no more offensive than President Bush continually surrounding himself with soldiers in uniform in his press conferences (implying military backing of his partisan political positions, which is a violation of his duties as Commander-in-Chief) and spouting “pro-troop” propaganda, while behind the scenes he slashed the V.A. budget in the middle of a war, micromanaged and overruled his military commanders on the ground when it was politically popular (as when he ordered the assault on Fallujah), ignored intel reports that show Iraq is getting worse, and extended war-zone tours by 3 months so he wouldn’t have to admit that his war is logistically impossible to win. That’s a hell of a lot more offensive to me than anything a third-world pseudo-dictator is going to say or do while standing in a hole in the ground in New York. Hell, he could spit on Ground Zero as far as that goes…I’d find it offensive and stupid, but no more so than pretty much anything that comes out of our own President’s mouth these days.
Hazel,
And considering that al-Qaeda has specifically listed Shia on their list of enemies and has encouraged its followers to kill all the Shia (and Ahmadinejad is devoutly Shia) I find it a little hard to believe that he’d take bin Laden’s side over ours if our president didn’t keep calling Iran “evil”, didn’t keep hinting at a possible invasion, and didn’t have armies parked on Iran’s east and west borders. Actually, considering that Iran continually targeted and arrested al-Qaeda operatives in its country, I find the “they’re all in it together” argument both woefully uninformed and intellectually dishonest.
Despite what the ignorant skydecker in the White House would have you believe, not all people in the Middle East are alike, nor do they all share a common “anti-freedom” ideology, nor is their dislike (or, more accurately, fear) of the West irrational, unsubstantiated, or unjustified.
The Washington Post noted Iran’s anti-al-Qaeda activity just this February:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902294.html
UC:
Don’t think because I’m against retreat in Iraq that I support every military intervention of the past 100 years or so. Far from it (for the record I am opposed to war with Iran). I would agree that some of those instances were examples of American foreign policy supporting terrorism or turning a blind eye toward terrorism.
Comment by Stephen Littau — September 26, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Stephen,
“Retreat” implies decisive defeat of our military forces resulting in a lack of other options. That’s not the case because we still have the option of remaining in Iraq, but the question would be “Why”? To support a genocidal government allied with Iran? To support a flawed ideal of western democracy the Middle East has never shown any indication it wants or is capable of? To save face? It sure as hell doesn’t have anything to do with national defense…our actions create more animosity towards us than leaving would. What is there for us to gain out of staying in Iraq that’s worth another 3,000-5,000 American lives?
The accurate term is “withdrawal”. That’s what smart leaders do when they realize that it’s possible to continue a war, but pointless to do so because there’s no upside to staying. Eisenhower applied this principle to Korea, Nixon applied it to Vietnam, Reagan applied it to Lebanon. History has shown all of those choices to have been the correct ones.
I would also like to point out that Iran did hold American hostages for 444 days. It’s also commonly believed that Hezbollah attacked the Marine barracks in Lebanon (Yeah I know, there probably shouldn’t have been American troops I Lebanon to begin with). While it’s true that these things happened in the 1980’s, these events are still fresh to many Americans.
I guess we need to ask the question as to whether there should be a statute of limitations on these wrongs. When should we move on? It doesn’t seem that anyone America has transgressed against is willing to forgive and move on. “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” and I think the world is very much blind now. How do we stop this vicious cycle?
Even if we adopted Ron Paul’s foreign policy, al Qaeda its ilk would still wish us harm. I do not think we could call for a truce and sit down with these people and negotiate.
Comment by Stephen Littau — September 26, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
And I know that you’ve said that you’re against unprovoked military intervention and I believe that you mean it. But your Iraq position is undeniably at odds with that assertion.
That’s not meant as a personal attack, I just think it’s something that needs to be pointed out to you. You still seem to tie Iraq, either consciously or subconsciously, to 9/11 in your anti-withdrawal arguments and it’s almost as unsubstantiated a position as any of the crap the “truthers” throw out. Once that argument is removed, every other justification to remain in Iraq pretty much collapses.
To be fair, though, you’re not the only libertarian who has made this lapse of judgment. You’re not even the only one on this site who’s done it. There’s a very good reason why Bush keeps alluding to 9/11 in his Iraq speeches, even though he’s explicitly said that Iraq had nothing to do with it…the fear of another possible attack will get people to continue to buy off on undeniably bad policy so he won’t have to admit that his entire war has been a dismal failure.
Yes, I well remember the hostages…they were taken when the revolutionaries overthrew the U.S.-installed and -backed Shah. Incidentally, none of those hostages were executed by their captors and all were eventually released. As for Beirut, as you pointed out, we had no reason to be in Lebanon in the middle of their civil war. Do you think if it were the Chinese army intervening militarily in our internal affairs we wouldn’t target them for insurgent action? I’d definitely consider it.
And the Vietnamese fought a war with us 40 years ago, but there was hardly a peep when our president (a draft-dodger, ironically) normalized relations with them. So far that’s worked out well for both countries.
What’s in the past is in the past and at some point people have to stop living there, stop seeing themselves as perpetual victims, and stop acting like they’re entitled to do whatever they damn well please with no regard for the consequences. That applies to Americans as much as anyone else. That doesn’t mean we’ll get along with everyone, but that also doesn’t mean that today’s antagonist can’t also become tomorrow’s friend, or at least trading partner (that’s obviously not going to happen with al-Qaeda, but it could with Iran, Iraq, or Syria).
As for how you stop it, I think the first key is not to overreact and overreach when faced with a problem. Like I’ve said before, al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Only al-Qaeda. When that happened, most of the world sympathized. Had we just restricted our actions to going after al-Qaeda, most of the world would still be on our side. But Bush’s overreaction, his unfocused belligerence, and his designs on Iraq and the Middle East pretty much scuttled that. So I guess the first suggestion would be not to put too much faith in leaders whose first proposed solution is knee-jerk use of the gun.
Yes, I well remember the hostages…they were taken when the revolutionaries overthrew the U.S.-installed and -backed Shah. Incidentally, none of those hostages were executed by their captors and all were eventually released. As for Beirut, as you pointed out, we had no reason to be in Lebanon in the middle of their civil war. Do you think if it were the Chinese army intervening militarily in our internal affairs we wouldn’t target them for insurgent action? I’d definitely consider it.
And the Vietnamese fought a war with us 40 years ago, but there was hardly a peep when our president (a draft-dodger, ironically) normalized relations with them. So far that’s worked out well for both countries.
What’s in the past is in the past and at some point people have to stop living there, stop seeing themselves as perpetual victims, and stop acting like they’re entitled to do whatever they damn well please with no regard for the consequences. That applies to Americans as much as anyone else. That doesn’t mean we’ll get along with everyone, but that also doesn’t mean that today’s antagonist can’t also become tomorrow’s friend, or at least trading partner (that’s obviously not going to happen with al-Qaeda, but it could with Iran, Iraq, or Syria).
As for how you stop it, I think the first key is not to overreact and overreach when faced with a problem. Like I’ve said before, al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Only al-Qaeda. When that happened, most of the world sympathized. Had we just restricted our actions to going after al-Qaeda, most of the world would still be on our side. But Bush’s overreaction, his unfocused belligerence, and his designs on Iraq and the Middle East pretty much scuttled that. So I guess the first suggestion would be not to put too much faith in leaders whose first proposed solutions are knee-jerk use of the gun and demands for unquestioned power.
UC:
If I knew then what I know now, I would not have supported the war in Iraq. It’s clear to me now that when America “goes to war” (hell, the congress doesn’t even have the gonads to properly declare war) that America doesn’t fight to win but will sacrifice the lives of our soldiers for politically correct reasons (i.e. rules of engagement that prohibit attacking “holy sites” even when such sites are used as bases of attack). I also see that the idea that helping to establish democracies elsewhere to make the world safer for us is a well intentioned but flawed idea (that I bought into). I don’t think Bush lied or mislead us; I think he too was mislead and he miscalculated. The world was mislead by the international intelligence that suggested that Iraq had WMD and that Saddam would likley pass such weapons on to terrorist organizations. In a post 9/11 world, this did not seem so far fetched.
Having said that, I still think that leaving Iraq vulnearble at this point will come back to haunt us. But who knows, you might be right. I’ve been wrong before, I’ll be wrong again. In fact, I hope I am wrong because I think that you will get your wish soon after Hillary is elected president.
Comment by Stephen Littau — September 26, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Stephen,
I don’t think that Bush lied about the weapons of mass destruction (because it was common assumption by everyone that Saddam had them), but I also don’t think he was misled. I think he decided that Saddam was evil and had to go, I think he looked at the anecodatal evidence that indicated Saddam might someday be a threat (although there was nothing indicating he had an actual capability to launch a nuke at us), I think he picked out the pieces that he wanted to see, and I think he ignored or minimized all the warnings that indicated his case was largely unsubstantiated (and there were a lot that the intel community did raise to Bush repeatedly…he chose not to listen). Then I think he intentionally overstated the case to the American public (which would be close to a lie). He cherry-picked facts and factoids to fit his opinion, same as any conspiracy theorist, and he didn’t fit his opinion to the facts as a responsible leader does. So did he lie? Not really. Did he behave unforgiveably irresponsibly and as a result cost over 3,000 Americans and untold numbers of Iraqis their lives? Absolutely, and he should be held accountable for that.
As for the rules of engagement, that’s a slightly different argument (and a very long one). Part of that is also Bush’s fault because he never clearly stated a strategy or even the intent of the mission in Iraq. The rules of engagement derive from commander’s intent because they’re tailored in each conflict to fit the objectives we’re trying to achieve. For the record, I wouldn’t be for blowing up mosques carelessly…we see it as an ungentlemanly violation of the rules of war (based on a set of laws to which Iraq, to my knowledge, was not even a signatory), but to the insurgents it’s a viable way to combat a militarily superior opponent while turning the local populace against that opponent (which is the goal of the insurgency). Frankly, they’d be stupid not to do it.
The post-9/11 justification you refer to is basically just panic. It’s a leader’s responsibility to not give into panic or allow the people he’s leading to give into panic. Instead, Bush exploited the panic to push us into a war that we rationally never would have engaged in otherwise (because it was unjustified). So again, I fault Bush entirely.
We’ll eventually be forced to leave Iraq anyway. Logistically our forces won’t be able to hold up. Retention’s been dropping, equipment readiness has been dropping, the workforce is burned out. Something’s going to give eventually, at which point Iraq will become a retreat and not a withdrawal. If we leave now, at least we’ll be able to do so at a time of our choosing and not circumstance. Whoever follows Bush is likely to realize this. The only reason Bush hasn’t (and this is not an irrational prejudice) is because George W. Bush is fucking stupid.
And I think once we leave Iraq (which we will) the Iraqis will be a bit too busy slaughtering each other to spend a whole lot of time on us. But they’ll eventually sort it out, the Iraq we know will likely cease to exist (this isn’t necessarily a bad thing), and it will eventually come to an end and people will move on with their lives. And if we’re smart we’ll stay out of it and let them figure things out on their own. It’s their neighborhood, after all, and they’re far more qualified to determine what works best for them than we are.
I think Bush thoroughly believed that Saddam had the weapons of mass destruction. He did manufacture the evidence and expected to vindicated by after the war. I think he consciously picked out evidence for justifying the war in order to make the case for invasion. The 9/11 produced a lower threshold for actionable evidence.
The rest is history. The cost to America is much higher than just the 3000 dead. We have to deal with the 20000+ seriously wounded and maimed. On top of that, it’s wasting million of man years on activities that would be better allocated elsewhere. There is a tangible benefit to staying in Iraq. But I would argue whether it’s worth the cost, and whether there are better things for Americans to be doing.
I recall how I felt about the war. I was ambivalent. I really didn’t know how to feel about it. Some people were passionately against it. More were passionately for it. I guess I should have been against it since being ambivalent would be a reason to be against starting war.
Comment by TanGeng — September 26, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
As for Iran, as long as we’ve got our massive nuclear arsenal I’ve got no problem with them having a few. They’re not the Soviet Union and they haven’t got the capability to annihilate or occupy us and overthrow our way of life (nor are they ever likely to). It’s rational to assume that if they do develop their nuclear program a large portion of it will actually go towards civilian usage (for power, most likely). And if we normalize relations and open trade there are a lot of benefits that we can derive (more o
RSS 2.0 Feed
Long clip but Napolitano is always worth listening to.
Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
I wish his podcasts and books were as good as this.
Comment by Norm Nelson — February 13, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
Well, I have a hard time, a very hard time, agreeing that Bush is worse than FDR. Incredibly hard. After all, he did not, by Presidential Order, put hundreds of thousands of Americans in concentration camps and allow their property to be taken for pennies on the dollar. Nor did he force the Supreme Court to behave unconstitutionally through threatening to use his congressional majority to pack the Court.
I agree he’s bad, but not like FDR bad. Sorry, that sort of false exaggeration is a real problem for me.
Comment by Adam Selene — February 13, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
In my view, Judge Napolitano hits the nail on the head.
Degrees of separation. FDR had the concentration camps, Bush has Gitmo and the dismantling of legal protections and any meaningful path for redress.
In all the ways that matter, I have come to believe that the only real accomplishment that Bush has made is the war on terror. However, in conducting this war, he has willingly instituted law, policy and procedure which directly nullify individual freedoms. Freedoms whose very presence guarantees that terror cannot take root and thrive: as it most assuredly can in a police state.
Comment by Harry Rossman — February 13, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
Hi all. Cool site zawermash Google
Thank.
Comment by injusany — February 13, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
Adam,
Yup, got to agree with Harry. I think that the damage Bush has done is far more horrific than what FDR did, although it’s close. Bush basically fought for the right for the government to torture detainees, including U.S. citizens. FDR didn’t do that. FDR didn’t actually start WWII as Bush started Iraq, and he didn’t try to fight it on the cheap by shafting soldiers on equipment and manpower as Bush did. Whatever your opinions may be about WWII (and I realize that not everyone will agree with my opinion that it was a just war) I think we can all agree that at least FDR at least fought it to win…Bush is only continuing the fight in Iraq because he refuses to accept blame for losing and he doesn’t seem to care how many people (U.S. and Iraqis) have to die just so he can save face either by not withdrawing or by trying to expand the war to Iran. It pains me to say it, but I’ll take FDR over Bush any day.
Comment by UCrawford — February 13, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
Oh please, you guys need to really look at FDR.
- Fought an undeclared, unpublicized war against Germany in the North Atlantic. American sailors and merchant marine were dying on presidential orders as early as January, 1940
- Created the OSS, a very secretive intelligence agency that later became the CIA. Torture, double dealing, secret detainment, etc. was common. The argument that they were fighting the Nazi’s was commonly used (sound similar to today?)
- The Nisei concentration camps were much worse on scale of magnitude than Gitmo
- Illegal bank holidays
- Private ownership of gold made illegal
- The New Deal, basically fascism brought to the USA, right down to demagoguery, rallies like Nuremberg, etc.
- Did you know that FDR pinned Iron Crosses on his congressional opponents as a means of silencing dissent?
- The “Switch in time that saved Nine” Supreme Court packing
I could go on and on, but you guys are so fixated on the current devil ……. who is bad, I agree. But not even close to our fascist president.
Comment by Adam Selene — February 14, 2008 @ 7:10 am
Let’s not forget the propaganda and racism of the FDR administration. They very effectively, and brazenly, used fear of “the other” to mobilize the USA. And how about the terror bombing of Germany and Japan? What about the illegal suppression of free speech opposing US involvement in WWII prior to a declaration of war? What about the use of J Edgar and the FBI to spy on internal enemies and suppress dissent?
Bush is just incrementally continuing the tradition of American Fascism. FDR is the one that brought it to this country.
Comment by Adam Selene — February 14, 2008 @ 8:05 am
Adam,
Against a nation with a military and industrial base actually capable of threatening the U.S., unlike Iraq. I can understand the difference in opinion but I side with Roosevelt on this one.
First of all, cite specifics not rhetoric. I’ve heard this “OSS tortured people” argument before and I’ve yet to see anyone bring up actual data of widespread torture happening on the part of OSS agents during WWII. I’m not saying that no incident ever occured (because atrocities occasionally happen even in the best organizations) but from the actual evidence I’ve seen presented it was never an institutional practice on the part of the OSS. Cite specifics and then we’ll debate the morality of the OSS.
In numbers of people, not in the treatment of those people. The Nisei camps (abhorrent though they were), unlike the Nazi concentration camps were not used to exterminate Japanese-Americans, and they were run in accordance with international law, unlike Gitmo. You’re cherry-picking your facts.
Demonstrate the catastrophic harm.
Agreed, it was wrong and economically indefensible…and it’s no longer in place.
The New Deal, comparable to Bush’s installment of McCain-Feingold, the MCA, the War on Terror, the PATRIOT Act, and Medicare Plan D. Had FDR lived to install his “new Bill of Rights” I’d say he was worse than Bush by a long-shot, but he didn’t. I have no idea what you’re talking about with the Nuremburg comment.
Bush pins Presidential Medals of Freedom on those who suck up to him (or those who he wants to co-opt) and accuses those who oppose him of supporting terrorism, meaning nothing more than that Bush and FDR both demonized their political opponents to stifle debate. That’s pretty much a wash.
Agreed, this was worse than anything Bush did with regards to the Supreme Court. Of course, just because he appointed two new justices wouldn’t have meant those justices would automatically agree with him (as Ike found out with Earl Warren and William Brennan). Also, ultimately it was the Supreme Court who was responsible for craven cowardice by allowing their verdict to be influenced by coercion.
“We leave before the mission is done, the terrorists will follow us here” - President Bush, justifying continued involvement in Iraq with a logistically improbable threat of a Middle Eastern invasion of the United States.
“States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.” -Bush’s description of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, none of whom happen to be led by white people, unlike Russia…whose leader (corrupt, murdering, authoritarian white guy Vladimir Putin), Bush said he understood because he “looked into his soul”.
And if you really want to quibble we could always mention Bush campaigning at a racist university in 2000, or his exclusion of local and foreign contractors in Iraq so he could give no-bids to preferred U.S. businesses, or his extremely patronizing attitude that Middle Eastern governments are incapable of democratic reform unless we go in and force them to reform. I don’t seem to recall FDR saying that it was our job to spread “democracy” by force to the unenlightened “suiciders” of the world.
Comment by UCrawford — February 14, 2008 @ 9:08 am
UC Crawford,
The bank holiday thing was essentially a license for the banks to steal! It prevented people from recovering their funds from insolvent banks. Imagine if your bank arbitrarily announced it wouldn’t allow withdrawals for 14 days. You got enough cash on hand for groceries?
Comment by tarran — February 14, 2008 @ 9:41 am
tarran,
I understand the argument and agree it was the wrong decision. But at the time the Emergency Banking Relief Act was passed Roosevelt considered it necessary to keep the country from falling into financial collapse. Was he wrong? Probably so…as Milton Friedman pointed out in “Free to Choose” banks were often able to deal with the circumstances on their own without requiring the government to intervene. But FDR also did it to stem the immediate consequences of a major panic at the time, it was reasonable considering the information he had available, so I don’t attribute maliciousness to it as I do to his actions towards the Supreme Court or most of Bush’s actions post-9/11 (which were generally based on Bush’s unwillingness to listen to any information that contradicted him).
Comment by UCrawford — February 14, 2008 @ 9:51 am
tarran,
UC Crawford? :)
Comment by UCrawford — February 14, 2008 @ 9:51 am
Silence! I never make mistakes!
Comment by tarran — February 14, 2008 @ 9:57 am
You moved to Massachusetts, didn’t you? :)
Comment by UCrawford — February 14, 2008 @ 10:09 am
Shrugs, as I said, FDR brought us the fascist state. Bush is just the incremental inheritor of it.
Sorry, an undeclared war without congressional approval is wrong, regardless of how much you do, or do not, like the enemy country. While Bush has fought a war in Iraq that I disagree with starting in the first place, at least he had congressional approval. Hindsight to decide that the North Atlantic naval war of 1940-41 was okay because the Nazi’s were bad is justifying a bad deed, not establishing a good deed.
You know, for all that Bush has used “the other” to gain power, neither he nor his administration have actually demonized them with racial epithets, racial stereotyping, etc. The Japanese and German fascists were threats, yes. However, they couldn’t actually threaten us substantially in the near term. And once our industry was engaged, the outcome of WWII was pretty much ordained.
I’m amazed, with the violation of the property rights of the Nisei, that you think that the “internment camps” were not major civil rights violations. They lost their freedom of movement and personal liberty, had their speech completely censored and had their property rights massively violated. It’s not just that they were interned. They posed no threat, had never acted in a criminal fashion and there is not one single case of established Nisei sabotage or spying to support the Japanese war effort, even though many movies have tried to implicate that.
At least at Gitmo the small number of people we are detaining have, for the most part, been in combat against us. The reality is, if they were called prisoners of war and this was a declared war there would be little to object to. That doesn’t mean, by the way, that I excuse some of the things that have happened there. I’m simply pointing out the difference between the WWII “internment camps” that housed American residents and citizens who had not committed any crime other than being Nisei Japanese-Americans and Gitmo.
I think you need to check your thinking on FDR in that area. There’s no excuse, none, for the massive violation of the personal rights of hundreds of thousands of American residents and citizens. Not to mention that I consider your scale comment to be aligned with Stalin’s “a million deaths is a statistic” comment. More violations is worse, not just a difference of scale.
Medicare Part D is not even comparable to Social Security. It’s completely incremental. Social Security tied EVERY SINGLE citizen and resident nearly irrevocably to the US federal government. Medicaid and Medicare would have been unthinkable without Social Security.
About using Iron Crosses vs. Medal of Freedom. Yeah, helping out the suck ups is bad. But silencing dissent is much worse. Come on now.
As for my “Nuremberg Rallies” comment, read this.
As far as the OSS goes, there’s a couple of different books I can recommend. I will dig ‘em out. Look into the OSS in Indochina, not Europe. Going along with the theme of the FDR administration as racist against Orientals, the OSS secret war in Asia was dramatically different than Europe AND something that no one ever talked about. The Pacific war was vastly different in terms of what was acceptable and the level of atrocities and so forth. The US war in Europe was very civilized, over all. Not so the war in the Pacific. Don’t buy into the glory that hollywood shows.
And seriously, about citing specifics, not rhetoric, how about you and Napolitano and so on not blowing the Bush administration all out of proportion. This administration has been bad, but less abusive of rights during wartime than Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ or Nixon. And less jingoistic, racist and propagandist than those administrations. To me this is more BDS, although not as bad as the far left. I can’t stomach Bush, but I can try to be objective about reality.
Comment by Adam Selene — February 14, 2008 @ 11:26 am
And the banking holidays enabled significant theft of property by the banks, and the Federal Reserve. FDR was wrong and acting on bad advice. That was a back room deal made in the late of the night. You can find references to it in things Harry Hopkins wrote later. You can also find that FDR essentially made an emotional decision based on his paternalist, fascist approach to government.
Comment by Adam Selene — February 14, 2008 @ 11:31 am
In my view, FDR was far and away the worst violator of the Constitution for the reasons Adam has expressed as well as others. FDR had no regard whatsoever for the Constitution if it got in the way of one of his policy ideas. All of his solutions were big government solutions. Most every big government problem we face today can be traced either directly or indirectly to FDR. Like Adam said, Bush is just the latest inheritor to FDR’s big government legacy. Whoever the next president is, s/he will add to it and we’ll probably be saying that the 44th President has “shown less fidelity to the Constitution than any president since Abraham Lincoln.”
I think Napolitano’s overall point is that we have to always remain vigilant with regard to our liberties no matter who is in the Oval Office, the congress, or the Supreme Court.
Comment by Stephen Littau — February 14, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
Adam,
Not openly, since society now frowns on open stereotyping, they’re just sneakier about it by using euphemisms to define the “white man’s burden” they think it’s our job to shoulder.
I never said that, nor do I believe that those camps were not violations of civil rights. They were inherently wrong and FDR’s decision was appalling. You called them “concentration camps”, which they were not. People were not executed on a mass scale in them as they were in Nazi Germany. The Nisei were also not tortured for information as detainees apparently have been in Guantanamo. I said that you were cherry-picking facts to bolster your argument, which you did.
http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/docs/ci2/2ch2_a.htm
There was a Japanese intelligence presence in the United States on the West Coast and in Hawaii. The government’s response (interning the Nisei and Issei) was an unconstitutional and abhorrent overreaction but to insist that there was no threat at all is disingenuous.
Really? And your conclusion is based on what? The government’s word that they’re guilty, which the detainees are unable to challenge in any court except a military tribunal where they have no meaningful legal representation, little to no ability to call witnesses on their behalf and where hearsay and evidence obtained by torture can be submitted as evidence by the prosecution? As someone who worked in a war zone I can clearly state that the military arrests the wrong people all the time, sometimes for offenses no more egregious than the detainee being related to a guy we’re looking for, or being in the area of a guy we’re looking for, or having a similar name. The military detainee and tribunal system is inherently flawed…even the military’s lawyers have been fairly jaundiced in their view of it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19375738/
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/washington/16jags.html
If they were called “prisoners of war” it’s highly unlikely that the President would be willing to advocate “aggressive interrogation” methods be used against them because that would be a clear violation of international law. Instead he set up the category of “enemy combatants”, the qualifications for which he alone has the authority to determine, and the implication of which is that said “enemy combatant” (U.S. citizen or not) has no human rights. I don’t seem to recall FDR claiming that Nazi and Japanese POWs had no human rights.
You’re right, there isn’t. There’s also no excuse for most of what Bush has done in the “War on Terror” either in regards to human rights. Ultimately our dispute is a matter of opinion over who is worse…Bush is on the record as advocating the torture of prisoners, FDR isn’t. So as far as I’m concerned, Bush is worse because that’s about as clear a disregard for human rights as you’re going to get.
Actually, since I oppose both a few wrongful deaths at the government’s hands as much as I oppose a million wrongful deaths at the government’s hands I think you’re tossing a straw man out there. Bush conducted a poorly-planned invasion and occupation of a country (Iraq) unnecessarily that has to this date resulted in the deaths of approximately 4,000 U.S. soldiers and untold numbers of Iraqis, turned Iraq over the Iranians, and kicked off a religious war that threatens to destabilize the entire region. As far as I’m concerned, he’s more of a murderer than FDR ever was because every single death caused by the Iraq War is a direct result of Bush’s decision to go in…unprovoked.
Give it a few years.
There is no difference between what FDR did and what Bush has done every time an Iraq supplemental funding bill has come up, or when the PATRIOT Act came up, or when Congress criticizes what Bush does. He basically claims that anyone who opposes him wishes harm on the troops.
Oh, I’m well aware of the differences between the two wars. Not to excuse human rights abuses on our part, but all battlefields tend towards reciprocity and the Japanese…well, let’s say that they weren’t overly gracious towards POWs or civilians. Toss out the names of the books and I’ll probably give them a read…I’ve got a long reading list right now, but I enjoy all books about military history so I’ll get to them eventually and be objective about it. I’m just not willing to debate the morality of the OSS based on vague accusations (because there are plenty who try to paint an inaccurate picture for the other side too).
Comment by UCrawford — February 14, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
And just to be clear, I think FDR was a horrific president and I despised most of his policy…not as much as my grandparents, of course. They’d go off on a rant if you said anything nice about him. Of course that side of the family was always a little extreme…on the day John Kennedy was assassinated my grandpa’s brother apparently went down to his local bar and bought rounds for the house.
Comment by UCrawford — February 14, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
=====
The US war in Europe was very civilized, over all. Not so the war in the Pacific.
=====
Hah! This is an extreme simplification, and generalizing the whole of Europe at the time.
The Western Allied powers - Britain, France, the US etc - in the European theatre were civilized in their conduct, and even the Nazis were fairly humane towards the Allied forces.
Things couldn’t be more different for the poor sods just East of Germany, who *weren’t* signees to the Geneva Convention. Poles, Serbs, Roma, Russians, Jews obviously, were not treated in a civilized manner. I don’t just mean the Holocaust, or the lesser known extermination of over 3 million Soviet POWs from ‘41 in concentration camps through complete neglect, but the attitude towards civilian welfare. Massacres of civilians in Poland were extremely common, not only by the infamous SS Dirlewanger Bridgade but by regular units as well. Over 150,000 civilian Poles were killed in the first month of the country’s invasion.
The Soviets were no better. After the conquering the Eastern realms of Germany, mass rape and slaughter of civilians was common place, and German civilian refugee columns were sometimes unfortunate enough to be gunned and mowed down by Red Army tanks.
I would’ve preferred to be an American in a Japanese internment camp than a Russian Soviet in a Nazi internment camp. A 1 in 3 chance of survival is better than actually being exterminated.
Comment by Y. Zaus — February 14, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
Y. Zaus, did you see me say “The US war in Europe …”?
Comment by Adam Selene — February 14, 2008 @ 4:03 pm
UCrawford, all I have to say is you are nitpicking the followers of the man who established fascist America. Stop and think about that for a minute. Who’s worse, the guy that made it institutional, or the people who incrementally evolved the institution?
Medicare, Medicaid, NCLB, all just evolution. Without Social Security, the NRA, the Switch in Time, WWII, etc. none of the rest would have been enabled institutionally.
Comment by Adam Selene — February 14, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
In essence, I believe your proximity to Bush is blinding you to the true horror of what FDR brought to this country in the 1930’s and 40’s.
Comment by Adam Selene — February 14, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
Adam,
Perhaps, and my opinion on it may change down the road, but our entire argument here is really a subjective one based on personal opinion of who’s worse between two presidents who, when you get right down to it, are both pretty fucking horrific. You weight the despicable socialist policies that FDR installed higher than I rate higher the open lack of respect for human rights (by attempting to legalize torture) that Bush has pushed and neither of us are probably going to convince the other that they’re wrong. Ultimately we’d probably agree that they should both rot in Hell. The only bone of contention I’d have with your argument is that I disagree that without FDR none of these abuses would be possible, because (as Napolitano pointed out) abuse and subversion of the Constitution is a consistent practice by the executive branch all the way back to John Adams…if FDR hadn’t installed all of these policies, who knows what future presidents would have attempted? All governments eventually attempt to consolidate greater power for themselves, not just our own.
Comment by UCrawford — February 14, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
Honestly, most of Bush’s crimes pale in comparison to Abraham Lincoln’s. Remmber that ex-Democrat congressman he had deported? The hundreds of people held incommunicando despite Congress not having suspended habeas corpus? Not to mention the advocacy for total war, where the U.S. army attacked not only the confederate army but also the civilian population.
With that being said, I agree with Adam in that these arguments rapidly become pointless. It’s like getting angry in a debate over the question of who was more evil, Hitler or Stalin. Both were evil, and reasonable people can disagree.
Comment by tarran — February 14, 2008 @ 8:23 pm
tarran,
Ummm…actually I think you were agreeing with me. I was the one who said it’s kind of a pointless argument :)
Comment by UCrawford — February 14, 2008 @ 9:58 pm