by Alan Colmes
Eric Margolis in the Toronto Sun on December 19, 2002, argued that Afghanistan was far from stable; that U.S. troops there were being fired upon almost daily; that our buddies in the Northern Alliance had revived opium, morphine, and heroin production; and that some of the dollars the United States was pouring into Afghanistan were going to bribe warlords.
In spite of these continual reports about problems in Afghanistan, glowing, self-congratulatory comments from the administration proclaiming Afghanistan a success went largely unchallenged. Rumsfeld, during one of those news conferences that had women likening him to a matinee idol, said our success in Afghanistan should be a blueprint for what we could do in Iraq: "Afghanistan is a model of what can happen if people are liberated and begin to try to elect their own people and people are allowed to vote who weren't allowed to vote and people are allowed to work who weren't allowed to work. It is a breathtaking accomplishment."
"Breathtaking accomplishment"? Does that apply to the warlords, the al Qaeda cells that are reforming, the firing upon U.S. troops, and the drug dealing?
In December 2002, Barton Gellman wrote a Washington Post piece entitled, "In U.S., Terrorism's Peril Undiminished: Nation Struggles on Offense and Defense, and Officials Still Expect New Attacks." Kind of says it all, doesn't it? The key sentence in this article should have been a wake-up call about what our priorities should have been: "But there is nothing in al Qaeda's former arsenal—nothing it was capable of doing on Sept. 11, 2001—that the president's advisers are prepared to say is now beyond the enemy's reach."
Gellman went on report that we lost our best chances to kill our choicest targets during the first month of the Afghanistan war. Our troops were embroiled in disputes over rules of engagement and lines of command, which detracted from the mission itself.
If we're so interested in exporting our kind of government to the rest of the world, why not use that money to put them all on planes, fly them out of there, and have them settle in a sparsely populated state, like Wyoming, for example? If we can't bring democracy to the mountain, how about bringing the mountain to democracy? Better yet, why not strive to be the best example of democracy we can be, that "shining city on a hill" as Ronald Reagan imaged us. We can start by acknowledging that nation-building should begin at home.
America: "I Vant to Be Alone"
We were hell-bent to go into Iraq, and a case was made to promote that effort. Proponents of the war sometimes worked to prevent facts from getting in the way of the agenda. Most hypocritical was our claim that Iraq's UN violations could no longer be tolerated. But then we were willing to violate the UN ourselves to accomplish our goals! Our blatant disregard for what other countries think creates an image problem for the United States. While the go-it-alone cowboy image sounds romantic, it doesn't serve us well in the long run. Besides not wanting any part of the Kyoto treaty that has been globally accepted, Bush 43 wanted no part of the START agreement to reduce nuclear warheads because, he said, he and Russian president Vladimir Putin had "a new relationship based on trust." After all, after their first summit in Slovenia in June 2001, Bush 43 proclaimed that Vladimir was someone in whom he could place his trust because, "I looked into his eyes and saw his soul." That's all well and good when you're dating or marrying your high school sweetheart, but what if our next president and their next president are less Love Boat and more ElimiDate? I'll take the Reaganesque maxim "trust but verify" over this questionable approach any day.
America should not be the Greta Garbo of nations. It needs to act as though it welcomes being a part of the international community. I bet if they did a survey they'd find that children who grew up to be liberal scored well in the grammar school category "works well with others." Rather than fight the UN, we should embrace it as a true opportunity for dialogue with those who are not our allies.
Embracing true liberal values will move us toward a better world. Just as in any personal relationship, our relationship with other countries should be based on decency and mutual respect. Harry Truman's 1949 inaugural speech could be a valuable blueprint for us more than half a century later. Truman's four courses of action involved support for the UN and related agencies, devotion to world economic recovery by reducing barriers to world trade, collective defense arrangements under the charter of the UN, and making our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the growth and improvement of underdeveloped nations. Generating goodwill won't, by itself, guarantee a more secure America, but it's a start.
Bush 43's isolationism isn't limited to the way he shuns interaction across the sea; it also extends to the way he shuns interaction across the aisle. We need domestic leadership that will tear down the walls of partisanship in the interest of protecting our country. Failure to do this has been one of the most egregious errors in "The 'War' on Terror." Congress approved $1.5 billion in antiterrorism assistance to local police departments and emergency agencies for fiscal year 2003 and the administration sat on it for months. Money that should have gone to first responders: emergency teams, local police, fire departments, and emergency agencies was not distributed. The White House claimed that the holdup was because Congress hadn't acted on appropriations bills it wanted. In the meantime, local authorities were left without needed resources. In fact, just when the drive to protect our country was revving up, these agencies were facing budget cuts and layoffs.
Speaking at the Brookings Institution in late 2002, Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, the North Carolina senator, offered some positive steps America could take to be safer. He pointed out that many old buildings lack fire retardants; security at rail stations could be beefed up (hazardous materials are carried every day over our thirty-three thousand miles of track); food and water supplies could be better protected. Additionally, he noted that while chemical sensors were being installed in the Washington, D.C., subway system, other cities didn't have such systems and could be better guarded. According to the U.S. Customs Service, 5.7 million containers arrive on our shores each year, on 214,000 vessels. This is a lot for our Coast Guard to keep track of without financial assistance and advanced technology.
The real threat to America on September 11, 2001, was not a long-range missile, a nuclear weapon, or an organized government. And yet, our focus shifted to going after governments we didn't like because they might one day get weapons they shouldn't have. Two years later, many of us still don't feel safer flying; our homeland doesn't feel more secure, in spite of a Homeland Security Department; our ports and water systems remain vulnerable; and there are regular reports of U.S.-based sleeper cells. And no matter how many color-coded threat levels the Homeland Security Department comes up with to identify threat levels, we're a more anxious society.
We've seen that politics can get ugly when played against a backdrop of fear and how agendas don't always change just because the world does. It's time to take politics out of the equation, examine our priorities, and focus on actions that are going to protect our homeland. A warning issued by the Department of Homeland Security at the end of July 2003 stated that al Qaeda was interested in using the commercial aviation system to initiate more attacks and that terrorists would use common items carried by travelers as weapons. When we talk of the cost of war abroad, the sky is the limit. If we don't invest more in airport security, the result will be limited skies. Every bag left at curbside should be checked; everyday objects should be reassessed as possible weapons; personnel who have access to aircraft should be given complete background checks. I hope that one day the irony will be gone and we can unwrap the quotes around "The 'War'on Terror."
THREE
Uncivil Liberties: America's War on Americans
From: Gavin and Joanne
Sent: Tuesday, December 10,2002 10:23 PM
To: colmes
Subject: better off
If all the liberals in the U.S. had been in the twin towers we would be better off!!!!!!!!!!!!...
I consider you and your kind My ENEMY! !!!
!!!!!!!!!
Gavin
Juniper, FL
P.S. I dont get riled up or mad when the conservative talk show host speaks, just when you and Daschhole and the other Liberal's speak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: Colmes
Sent: Tuesday, December 10,2002 10:43 PM
To: Gavin and Joanne
Subject: RE: better off
Let me get this straight... you wish I and every liberal in America were dead, killed by terrorists, right?
From: Gavin and Joanne
Sent: Thursday, December 12,2002 9:31 PM
To: Colmes
Subject: RE: better off
Yes it would not hurt my feelings.
Gavin
Juniper, FL
Be careful, Gavin. There might be liberals in your own family you don't know about. Of course, they're not going to come out to you. Can you imagine that dinner table conversation?
SON: Dad, Mom, there's something I feel I must tell you.
DAD: What!
SON: I don't quite know how to say this; and I hope it doesn't make you love me any less. For a long time now I've had these feelings, and I know you won't think they're normal, but this is what I am. Dad, I'm liberal.
MOM: (breaks into uncontrollable tears)
DAD: I never thought I'd ever see this day when my own son, my own flesh and blood, would tell me he's a lib. You can pack your bags and go live with one of your liberal friends. I don't want anyone else in the family around this.
MOM: (still sobbing) Where did I go wrong?
"The 'War' on Terror" became a new backdrop for a left-right debate that has been raging in America for some time. The September 11 atrocity ratcheted up the hostility of an increasingly aggressive right wing in vilifying liberals as un-American. Now, they had a "war" they could use to underscore their own patriotism while impugning the patriotism of their political adversaries, as though there were a left-right patriotic tug-of-war based on a zero-sum game. Bush 43 used the "war" as an argument not only for consolidating power in the executive branch, but also for grabbing more presidential powers. As John Ashcroft used his more-than-bully pulpit to argue for changes that seemed extraconstitutional, the power grab ultimately became a war on our criminal justice system and our civil liberties. "The 'War' on Terror" also provided our president with a vehicle to buttress his penchant for secrecy. Secrecy is not quite the spirit I believe our forefathers had in mind.
Sadly, "The 'War' on Terror" fed another, already-raging war, an American war . . . against America.
POP QUIZ: The knee-jerk right-wing reaction to the atrocities of September 11,2001, was to:
(a) Get angry at the terrorists and band together as Americans to go after those who would do us harm.
(b) Blame the liberals.
If you answered (b) then you have a good memory.
From: R.W.
Sent: Tuesday, October 01,2002 9:33 PM
To: colmes
Subject: democtrats
colmes
It's dumb ass liberal democrats like you ... that brought 9-1 I -01 up on us!! You liberal bastards ought to move to iraq.then ya all can feel at home!! You bastards would never fight for the United States of America!!
R.W.
Lexington, KY
Right, R.W. No liberal ever served or gave his or her life for this country. Tell that to U.S. senators Max Cleland, Bob Kerrey, and John Kerry. Come to think of it, the last time I was at the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington I noticed that every name had an (R) after it.
Conservatives love to brag about how they are the true guardians of our freedoms and the real warriors against totalitarianism. Let's have a look at the political scale:
LEFT
RIGT
Communism Socialism Liberalism Conservatism Fascism Totalitarianism
Hmm . . . which American ideology is closer to the form of government offered by the evil dictators we all detest? I'll give you a hint. . . the word "right" doesn't always mean "correct."
I wish I could convince those who hate the guts of liberals in general and me in particular that we care very deeply about this country, that we share the same goals of liberty, freedom, and justice for all, and that although we prefer different policies for the country, our visions aren't all that different. Those who have raised significant questions about the government's handling of "The 'War' on Terror" have been shouted down by loud voices on the right, conservatives who feel they need to protect us from self-criticism.
Americans who've said we need to look at our own history in order to understand September 11 have been all but silenced by loud cheerleaders for the status quo. MIT Professor Noam Chomsky is considered an authority on global politics and gets far more media attention outside of the United States than he does in his own country. That's because his critical views of America are extremely controversial. In his book 9-11, he writes, "We should not forget that the U.S. itself is a leading terrorist state." He lists places where our actions have caused undue destruction: Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, East Timor, Sudan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. Should we ignore this in discussing those who would do us harm?
And if we swing over to the other side of the political spectrum, it was conservative Patrick J. Buchanan who titled his book A Republic, Not an Empire. Let history be our guide to remembering the disastrous results that happen to empires that use war to spread their philosophies to foreign lands, exporting their version of culture and government because they believe they know what's best.
The refusal on the part of hawks to examine our own consciences goes against the very Christian teachings they often profess to believe. New York's Cardinal Edward Egan has said, "we have to examine our consciences," and that doing so "is one of the things you do in the pursuit of holiness. You say: 'What have I been doing wrong?' even in times when there's not a tragedy, but how do we account for what has happened?" At a press conference in Rome on October 1, 2001, with the pope in attendance, Egan said, "words like vengeance, retaliation and so forth are not the words of civilized people." This would mean Americans and, of course, Christians.
Vietnam Redux
Sadly, government secrecy has not been limited to recent times. I mentioned in the opening of this book how I opposed the Vietnam War because, among other reasons, I felt the government lied to us about the necessity for such a war. Seeing "The 'War' on Terror" so focused on Iraq reminds me of the famous quote of philosopher George Santayana: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This has never been so apropos.
This point was driven home to me when Daniel Ellsberg agreed to appear on Hannity & Colmes. In 1971, Ellsberg risked his job, his career, and his freedom by giving a historical study of the Vietnam War known as the "Pentagon Papers" to the New York Times. This former marine, Vietnam veteran, and staunch anti-Communist, decided he could no longer withstand the lies of the government, which was heralding the success of a war that was, at the time, killing American youth by the thousands. He came on Hannity & Colmes to discuss his book, Secrets, which came out just in time to point out the sickening parallels between the lies we were told in the '70s to promote an illicit war and the ones being promulgated about Iraq. Ellsberg revealed how during this period his phones were tapped, thugs were recruited to break his legs, and the presiding judge in his case was looking for political favoritism to become head of the FBI. G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt, of Watergate infamy, masterminded a break-in to his psychiatrist's office to try to get some damning information on him. And the party that accuses the Democrats of playing the "politics of personal destruction" is seen scheming to destroy Ellsberg for being the country's most prominent and effective whistle-blower. Secrets also reprints a chilling conversation among President Richard Nixon, National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, and Attorney General John Mitchell:
NIXON: Let's get the son of a bitch.
KISSINGER: We've got to get him.
/>
NIXON: . . . Don't worry about his trial... try him in the press . . . We want to destroy him in the press ... Is that clear?
KISSINGER AND (ATTORNEY GENERAL) JOHN MITCHELL: Yes.
Boy, those Nixon tapes! More pornographic than anything the Messe Commission on Pornography ever had to listen to.
As for the parallels between Ellsberg's time and now, the issue of secrecy rarely serves an administration well. On November 1, 2001, Bush 43 signed Executive Order 13233, part of a post-9/11 executive branch power grab. This order allows a president to prevent a previous president's papers from becoming public, even if that previous president has provided for such publication. It just so happens that sixty-eight thousand pages of former presidents' records were to be released under the Presidential Records Act in January 2002, just two months after the order was signed stopping the release. In the interest of disclosure, the Public Citizen group filed suit, and when it did, the Reagan Presidential Library suddenly released eight thousand pages. As Public Citizen Litigation Group attorney Scott Nelson said, "It looks as if they're nervous about whether the executive order will hold up in court and are trying to avoid the issue by not claiming executive privilege."
