Recently, former (Democratic) Presidents Carter and Clinton openly criticized current President Bush’s determination to go to war with Iraq. In turn, the former presidents have been criticized for being critical of a sitting president. The argument, it is considered poor etiquette for a former president to be critical of a sitting president. There is an unwritten rule among living presidents, “Thou shalt not criticize the policies of your brethren.”
However, such criticism is not out of line by the former presidents because the current president is rebutting the foreign policy doctrine of his predecessors – the Gulf of Tolkin Resolution notwithstanding.
The Bush Doctrine, as it will be known, is to preemptively attack another nation considered a threat to the security of United States. The United States will no longer wait for another nation to attack first. If the possibility of an attack from a foreign nation exists, then the U.S. military will attack first. Iraq will be the test case of this new foreign policy doctrine.
President Bush appears to have decided on a course of action, but has had a difficult time convincing traditional American allies to launch an attack on Iraq. It was easier to build a coalition for Desert Storm because Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the other Arab nations considered Saddam Hussein a threat to their alleged sovereignty. However, at his most recent press conference, the President assured the media he is prepared to invade Iraq alone, without support, if necessary.
The President’s case for war with Iraq is based on the following logic: Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Why is he an evil man? Because Saddam Hussein threatens the security of the United States. Why does he threaten the security of the United States? Because Saddam Hussein is an evil man. President Bush has been promoting a war with Iraq based on circular reasoning. It is message constantly repeated, but not supported by cold hard facts.
Compare the impending war with Iraq with the Cuban Missile Crisis during Kennedy presidency. During a televised speech to the American audience, President Kennedy presented proof the Soviet Union was building missile bases in Cuba. Missile bases in Cuba posed a serious threat to the national security to the United States. The nation supported President Kennedy’s naval blockade of Cuba.
However, the case against Saddam Hussein is anecdotal. “Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists, terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people and to all free people.
“Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that has got terrorist ties. It's a country with wealth. It's a country that trains terrorists, a country that could arm terrorists.
“I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I've got good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction and he has used weapons of mass destruction, in his neighborhood and on his own people. He's invaded countries (Actually only Kuwait, the war with Iran was a draw) in his neighborhood. He tortures his own people. He's a murderer. He has trained and financed Al Qaeda-type organizations before, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.”
The solution is to invade Iraq, by force change regimes, destroy all offensive weapons in Iraq’s arsenal, and occupy the country until democratic institutions are ready to thrive.
The impending war with Iraq has not received broad based approval because the President has not – to borrow a legal phrase – proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Iraq is a clear and present threat to the United States. Although, the President does argue Iraq will be a future threat to the United States, and Hussein must be stopped now. Or to make an historical analogy, we should have stopped Hitler in 1934 or 1935, and not waited until WWII to fight him.
President Bush has used Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Al Qaida in the same sentence, probably hoping that if he talks about all three together often enough, Americans will see a connection. For example, during the most recent news conference, the president claimed, “[Saddam Hussein] has trained and financed Al Qaeda-type organizations before, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.”
However, to make a convincing argument that Saddam Hussein is directly involved with the four hijackings and the attacks on 9/11, the Bush Administration will have to present cold hard facts: The dates, times, and locations of any meetings held between Saddam Hussein’s government and Bin Laden’s lieutenants.
In addition, either the United Nations weapons inspectors, or US Intelligence operatives will have to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Finally, the President must disclose whether Iraq has an active nuclear program, and a missile delivery system that could threaten the United States. During the press conference, President Bush claimed, “Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people and to all free people.” From reading this statement, I would conclude Saddam Hussein currently possess a missile delivery system that could reach Europe, Japan or the United States. But the Bush Administration has not produced any facts to lead to that conclusion.
It should not be difficult to detect whether Iraq has an active nuclear program. Recent satellite surveillance has detected activity in North Korea. North Korea has activated nuclear reactors. Iraq has not.
Without proof, the President’s actions in Iraq will simply appear to be American Imperialism reasserting itself after 9/11.
To paraphrase President John F. Kennedy, what kind of peace does President Bush want? What type of peace does he seek? A Pax Americana enforced by American weapons of war. Not a peace in our time, but a peace on his terms.
President Bush has turned traditional American foreign policy upside down, and we, the people, may suffer the consequences.
Sadly, 9/11/01 could be remembered as the day American imperialism was reborn.
REPRINTED MARCH/2003
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Victim of Racial Profiling
I am a victim of racial profiling, but not by the NYPD. Although I am a person of color, I hardly consider myself menacing enough to be stopped by the police.
Some would dismiss my case as trivial, and it probably is. And I don’t want to trivialize the experiences of those who have been profiled by the police by comparing it to my situation because I understand the former is worse. I did not have to endure the humiliation of being stopped and frisked in public and hauled off to jail over night as countless other people of color in New York City.
In fact, I was not singled out by my tormentors. Instead, I was ignored. Those who have profiled me are the minions of the politicians standing on street corners throughout the city collecting signatures, and handing out pamphlets and brochures to New Yorkers.
First, a little background on myself. I am a Puerto Rican male in my early forties who used to live in Lower Manhattan. Currently, I live on the upper west side.
Second, I have voted in every election since 1982 – including primaries. I even take the time to study the proposals and referendums on the ballots.
In the beginning, I was a registered Independent, but I switched to the Democratic Party because there really is no viable Republican Party in New York City. Except for Mayor Giuliani’s two election victories, and current Mayor Bloomberg, the winner of the Democratic Party primary won the general election in November. To be heard as a New Yorker, I had to become a registered Democrat, but I have voted for Republicans in general elections.
Third, I have an MA and BA in Political Science, and I consider myself to be a political junkie even though I don’t see any politician that inspires me at this time.
As someone who is politically savvy, I know Hispanics and African Americans don’t vote in the same numbers as whites, but I believe in the truism said by Tip O’Neil that if you want someone to vote for you, then all you have to do is ask.
Early in my voting life, I was amused to see white campaign volunteers handing out pamphlets on the streets of New York to everyone within arms reach except me. “If they only knew,” I would say to myself.
But as I’ve grown older, I have lost my sense of humor. I’m no longer amused when the minions ignore me. In fact, I feel insulted.
Granted, I can’t expect the minions to know I have 2 degrees in Political Science, or that I’m a registered voter. These facts are not stamped on my forehead, and I don’t feel the need to have a tee shirt made listing my educational credentials.
And I also don’t expect whites to engage me in political debates, but something happened one Sunday afternoon that really disappointed me.
I was on my way to the supermarket, and a saw a card table with pamphlets and brochures of my local councilman, and at the table were two campaign volunteers who were minorities. They handed out material to everyone, except me.
It’s one thing to be racially profiled by whites, but it hurts to be racially profiled by another minority group.
I’m sure if the councilman was standing in front of the supermarket engaging New Yorkers, and asking for their support, he would have walked up to me as well.
It has been my experience that politicians will ask anyone within their line of vision for their vote, but I wonder if the candidates for public office – from the presidency to local district leader – knew volunteers and paid staffers who represent them engage in racial profiling.
Every election year I ask myself if I should bother voting. I find the candidates and their causes lacking, but I always find at least one reason to get involved, one person or one proposal to vote for. But if I’m not worthy to be asked, then maybe it’s time I quit voting.
Racial profiling by the police is wrong because of the assumption that minorities are potential criminals or possible suspects of crimes.
Racial profiling by all the candidates’ staffs – from the presidency to local district leader – is insulting because I’m treated as a nonentity. By ignoring me, I’m being told I’m not worth the effort, that the paper these volunteers pass off to New Yorkers is much too valuable to be wasted on me.
As I listen to the Democratic candidates, during every election cycle, promise to end racial profiling in the NYPD, I ask them: How can you end racial profiling in the police department when you can’t control racial profiling within your own campaigns?
Some would dismiss my case as trivial, and it probably is. And I don’t want to trivialize the experiences of those who have been profiled by the police by comparing it to my situation because I understand the former is worse. I did not have to endure the humiliation of being stopped and frisked in public and hauled off to jail over night as countless other people of color in New York City.
In fact, I was not singled out by my tormentors. Instead, I was ignored. Those who have profiled me are the minions of the politicians standing on street corners throughout the city collecting signatures, and handing out pamphlets and brochures to New Yorkers.
First, a little background on myself. I am a Puerto Rican male in my early forties who used to live in Lower Manhattan. Currently, I live on the upper west side.
Second, I have voted in every election since 1982 – including primaries. I even take the time to study the proposals and referendums on the ballots.
In the beginning, I was a registered Independent, but I switched to the Democratic Party because there really is no viable Republican Party in New York City. Except for Mayor Giuliani’s two election victories, and current Mayor Bloomberg, the winner of the Democratic Party primary won the general election in November. To be heard as a New Yorker, I had to become a registered Democrat, but I have voted for Republicans in general elections.
Third, I have an MA and BA in Political Science, and I consider myself to be a political junkie even though I don’t see any politician that inspires me at this time.
As someone who is politically savvy, I know Hispanics and African Americans don’t vote in the same numbers as whites, but I believe in the truism said by Tip O’Neil that if you want someone to vote for you, then all you have to do is ask.
Early in my voting life, I was amused to see white campaign volunteers handing out pamphlets on the streets of New York to everyone within arms reach except me. “If they only knew,” I would say to myself.
But as I’ve grown older, I have lost my sense of humor. I’m no longer amused when the minions ignore me. In fact, I feel insulted.
Granted, I can’t expect the minions to know I have 2 degrees in Political Science, or that I’m a registered voter. These facts are not stamped on my forehead, and I don’t feel the need to have a tee shirt made listing my educational credentials.
And I also don’t expect whites to engage me in political debates, but something happened one Sunday afternoon that really disappointed me.
I was on my way to the supermarket, and a saw a card table with pamphlets and brochures of my local councilman, and at the table were two campaign volunteers who were minorities. They handed out material to everyone, except me.
It’s one thing to be racially profiled by whites, but it hurts to be racially profiled by another minority group.
I’m sure if the councilman was standing in front of the supermarket engaging New Yorkers, and asking for their support, he would have walked up to me as well.
It has been my experience that politicians will ask anyone within their line of vision for their vote, but I wonder if the candidates for public office – from the presidency to local district leader – knew volunteers and paid staffers who represent them engage in racial profiling.
Every election year I ask myself if I should bother voting. I find the candidates and their causes lacking, but I always find at least one reason to get involved, one person or one proposal to vote for. But if I’m not worthy to be asked, then maybe it’s time I quit voting.
Racial profiling by the police is wrong because of the assumption that minorities are potential criminals or possible suspects of crimes.
Racial profiling by all the candidates’ staffs – from the presidency to local district leader – is insulting because I’m treated as a nonentity. By ignoring me, I’m being told I’m not worth the effort, that the paper these volunteers pass off to New Yorkers is much too valuable to be wasted on me.
As I listen to the Democratic candidates, during every election cycle, promise to end racial profiling in the NYPD, I ask them: How can you end racial profiling in the police department when you can’t control racial profiling within your own campaigns?
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Goodbye to the Middle East
On May 25, 1961, President Kennedy challenged America to create and produce the technology necessary to land a man on the moon, and to return him to safety before the end of the decade.
Forty years later, President Bush had the opportunity to not only challenge America, but the Western Nations as well, to create and produce an alternative fuel source that is safer and cheaper than oil by the end of this decade – a fuel source to be shared by the West.
Such an achievement not only would be a great step forward for civilization, but it would also mean an end to the dependence on the Middle East and their oil.
As a group, the Western Nations will be able to pack up their culture, their values, their religion, and more importantly their money, and leave the Islamic countries to fend for themselves.
Like most common hijackers, Osama Bin Laden made demands in exchange for an end to world wide terrorism: The United States military has to leave Saudi Arabia, end the economic embargo and military attacks against Iraq, and abandon the alliance with Israel.
Bin Laden’s (and the Islamic fundamentalist’s he wants to lead), hatred of the United States is not directed toward our freedom or our democracy, but towards our way of life.
There is a perceptible conflict between a heavily devout religion such as Islam, and American pop culture manifested in Madonna videos, Rap music, tight jeans, Heavy Metal Rock and Roll, scantily clad Baywatch babes, and Hollywood movies. The Islamic faith appears unable to reconcile both cultures in the same society.
Osama Bin Laden is exploiting this inability to reconcile by preying on the fears of devoted Muslims. This is a Zero Sum contest between the Islamic faith and American pop culture, a contest fundamentalists are determined to fight to the end.
Deeply religious Americans struggle with American pop culture every day. Parents look to the government for help in keeping certain aspects of the culture away from their children.
Bin Laden’s solution is isolation from the West. Building another Great Wall in the Middle East around the Islamic countries is impracticable, and will not stop the tide of influence of American pop culture. Movies, radio, television and the Internet are the most influential catalysts of American pop culture throughout the world. If the Taliban rulers in Afghanistan are an example of the government Bin Laden wants to establish, then the Muslim countries will live under a system where television and radio will be banned.
Unilateral American withdrawal from Saudi Arabia, abandonment of Israel, and the end of hostilities with Iraq will be seen as a defeat, and an end to American military prestige. On that principle alone, we should never give in to a criminal.
However, we have supported Saudi Arabia by purchasing their oil, and the West has made the Saudi Royal family very rich. Our government has sold weapons systems, and provided military protection against Iraq. We have validated an authoritarian dictatorship in Saudi Arabia.
For our support, Saudi Arabia has funded Madrassas throughout the Islamic world teaching young boys the radical version of Islam Osama Bin Laden believes in.
In a sense, the Saudi government has duped us. They have taken our money, our military hardware and personnel while using their vast fortune establishing schools that teach hatred towards America.
In addition, Saudi Arabia as well as other “friendly Muslim” governments have tolerated fundamentalist movements in their own countries. These governments have traded internal stability for appeasement.
The point of terrorism is to bring “chaos to order.” And our country is being severely tested. At some point, we as a nation have to decide not only how much will we tolerate chaos, and should we even associate with those who will do nothing to end the threat of chaos coming from their countries.
Also, we as Americans have to ask ourselves how much more are we willing to invest in money, manpower, and our lives protecting a region of the world filled with hatred and contempt toward us. Is the Middle East worth the effort?
In America, living in a capitalist society, we are consumers, and when a product does something to offend us, we choose to boycott it by refusing to purchase the product, or by seeking out an alternative. Either way, we have decided to effect change through the power of the purse.
In creating an alternative fuel source, the West will have power over the Middle Eastern countries, the power to bankrupt a valued industry. Osama Bin Laden and his fundamentalists will have all the isolation they can desire.
However, Bin Laden and his supporters will be disappointed to see ancient hatreds emerge within there own countries as ethnic rivalries and religious differences flair up bringing chaos to their attempt at order.
And if one ruler attempts to expand his empire by military conquests, the West can simply shrug it off because oil will no longer have the value it once had.
It is highly unreasonable to believe the Jews will ever give up or walk away from Israel. I would hate to see the day when Islamic fundamentalists destroy Christian and Jewish holy sites just as the Taliban did in Afghanistan; therefore we cannot and will not completely abandon the Middle East as long as Israel is a sovereign nation. On those points, our country should never cave in to a criminal. And we should always encourage peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Our best bargaining chip will be security for the Palestinians, as in who would you feel more secure with: Israel, or the warring Islamic factions?
The time has come to put the interests of humanity ahead of the pursuit of profit. Let us end this economic relationship with the Middle East once and for all, and grant the fundamentalists their wish: isolation from the West, and the Middle East can live in abject poverty.
REPRINTED FROM SEPT/2001
Forty years later, President Bush had the opportunity to not only challenge America, but the Western Nations as well, to create and produce an alternative fuel source that is safer and cheaper than oil by the end of this decade – a fuel source to be shared by the West.
Such an achievement not only would be a great step forward for civilization, but it would also mean an end to the dependence on the Middle East and their oil.
As a group, the Western Nations will be able to pack up their culture, their values, their religion, and more importantly their money, and leave the Islamic countries to fend for themselves.
Like most common hijackers, Osama Bin Laden made demands in exchange for an end to world wide terrorism: The United States military has to leave Saudi Arabia, end the economic embargo and military attacks against Iraq, and abandon the alliance with Israel.
Bin Laden’s (and the Islamic fundamentalist’s he wants to lead), hatred of the United States is not directed toward our freedom or our democracy, but towards our way of life.
There is a perceptible conflict between a heavily devout religion such as Islam, and American pop culture manifested in Madonna videos, Rap music, tight jeans, Heavy Metal Rock and Roll, scantily clad Baywatch babes, and Hollywood movies. The Islamic faith appears unable to reconcile both cultures in the same society.
Osama Bin Laden is exploiting this inability to reconcile by preying on the fears of devoted Muslims. This is a Zero Sum contest between the Islamic faith and American pop culture, a contest fundamentalists are determined to fight to the end.
Deeply religious Americans struggle with American pop culture every day. Parents look to the government for help in keeping certain aspects of the culture away from their children.
Bin Laden’s solution is isolation from the West. Building another Great Wall in the Middle East around the Islamic countries is impracticable, and will not stop the tide of influence of American pop culture. Movies, radio, television and the Internet are the most influential catalysts of American pop culture throughout the world. If the Taliban rulers in Afghanistan are an example of the government Bin Laden wants to establish, then the Muslim countries will live under a system where television and radio will be banned.
Unilateral American withdrawal from Saudi Arabia, abandonment of Israel, and the end of hostilities with Iraq will be seen as a defeat, and an end to American military prestige. On that principle alone, we should never give in to a criminal.
However, we have supported Saudi Arabia by purchasing their oil, and the West has made the Saudi Royal family very rich. Our government has sold weapons systems, and provided military protection against Iraq. We have validated an authoritarian dictatorship in Saudi Arabia.
For our support, Saudi Arabia has funded Madrassas throughout the Islamic world teaching young boys the radical version of Islam Osama Bin Laden believes in.
In a sense, the Saudi government has duped us. They have taken our money, our military hardware and personnel while using their vast fortune establishing schools that teach hatred towards America.
In addition, Saudi Arabia as well as other “friendly Muslim” governments have tolerated fundamentalist movements in their own countries. These governments have traded internal stability for appeasement.
The point of terrorism is to bring “chaos to order.” And our country is being severely tested. At some point, we as a nation have to decide not only how much will we tolerate chaos, and should we even associate with those who will do nothing to end the threat of chaos coming from their countries.
Also, we as Americans have to ask ourselves how much more are we willing to invest in money, manpower, and our lives protecting a region of the world filled with hatred and contempt toward us. Is the Middle East worth the effort?
In America, living in a capitalist society, we are consumers, and when a product does something to offend us, we choose to boycott it by refusing to purchase the product, or by seeking out an alternative. Either way, we have decided to effect change through the power of the purse.
In creating an alternative fuel source, the West will have power over the Middle Eastern countries, the power to bankrupt a valued industry. Osama Bin Laden and his fundamentalists will have all the isolation they can desire.
However, Bin Laden and his supporters will be disappointed to see ancient hatreds emerge within there own countries as ethnic rivalries and religious differences flair up bringing chaos to their attempt at order.
And if one ruler attempts to expand his empire by military conquests, the West can simply shrug it off because oil will no longer have the value it once had.
It is highly unreasonable to believe the Jews will ever give up or walk away from Israel. I would hate to see the day when Islamic fundamentalists destroy Christian and Jewish holy sites just as the Taliban did in Afghanistan; therefore we cannot and will not completely abandon the Middle East as long as Israel is a sovereign nation. On those points, our country should never cave in to a criminal. And we should always encourage peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Our best bargaining chip will be security for the Palestinians, as in who would you feel more secure with: Israel, or the warring Islamic factions?
The time has come to put the interests of humanity ahead of the pursuit of profit. Let us end this economic relationship with the Middle East once and for all, and grant the fundamentalists their wish: isolation from the West, and the Middle East can live in abject poverty.
REPRINTED FROM SEPT/2001
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
