The long-time finacier and reinging poo-bah of The New Republic, Marty Peretz, has formally entered the blogosphere with a dramtic ... thud.
Dubbing his site The Spine, Peretz offers himself up as the stiff, upright antidote to what he sees as the limp world of contemporary journalism. His main indictment of the MSM? That it gives air-time to Al Sharpton.
Oh well. The New Republic has been in slow decline for the last half decade, having tied itself to the political fortunes of first Al Gore and, more recently, Joe Lieberman and now, it seems, none other than Scooter Libby!
It seems doubtful that Peretz' new online foray will do much to revive the mag's slumping appeal. His long time nemesis, Slate's rapier-togued Jack Shafer just can't hold himself back. Muses Shafer:
The Peretz Index: Number of words: 1,500. Number of self-references: 28. Number of $10 words: two ("tocsin" and "phantasmagorical"). Number of stupid comparisons: one (the Republicans are like Sen. Joe McCarthy because they have the "habit" of referring to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party," just as Joe did). Number of foreign words or phrases: one ("par excellence"). Number of grammatical errors flagged by Microsoft Word: one (he writes "It's" when he means "Its"). Number of sentences that begin with "And": nine. Number of British spellings: one (he writes "judgement" twice).
Press reports on the primary victory of Minnesota Democratic U.S. House candidate Keith Ellison make note of the fact that he is now likely to become the first Muslim elected to Congress. But Ellison is also likely to become one of the most left-leaning members of the next House.
The Ellison victory was one of several for anti-war Democrats seeking open seats. Others came in in New York, where City Council member Yvette Clarke won a fierce fight for a Brooklyn seat once held by Shirley Chisholm, and in Maryland, where John Sarbanes, the son of retiring Senator Paul Sarbanes, led in a crowded House race. In Maryland's highest-profile race, however, former NAACP head Kweisi Mfume, who was outspoken in his opposition to the war, lost to the decidely more cautious Representative Ben Cardin by a 46-38 margin.
In another Maryland race, activist Donna Edwards was in a virtual tie this morning with Representative Al Wynn, with a substantial number of votes still to be counted. During the campaign Edwards billed Wynn "the Joe Lieberman of Maryland" because of the Democratic incumbent's many votes in favor of Bush administration initiatives.
If Edwards pulls out a victory, it will be a very big deal.
But Ellison's win is nothing to sneeze at.
What the Minnesota Democrat did right is instructive.
Running against a crowded field for the nomination to replace retiring Representative Martin Sabo, Ellison distinguished himself as a passionate progressive who, in the words of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, mounted a campaign that was "reminiscent of the late U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone."
Ellison featured a photo of himself with Wellstone, the late senator from Minnesota who has become a national progressive icon, in his campaign mailings. He even borrowed the color green, which was used in Wellstone's three Senate campaigns, as the background for "Ellison for Congress" signs and shirts.
It was Ellison's outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq -- which Wellstone also opposed in a critical Senate vote shortly before his death in a 2002 plane crash -- that helped him to win the pre-primary endorsenment of the state's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, and the enthusiastic support of grassroots activists during a fast-paced campaign that began only after Sabo unexpectedly announced in March that he would not seek a new term.
"Nearly 2,600 Americans have been killed since the war began on March 19, 2003, and an the estimated 15,800 have been wounded. President Bush recently admitted to 30,000 Iraqi dead, but other estimates put the toll as high as 100,000," argued Ellison. "It is time to admit this war was a terrible mistake and bring our troops home as soon as possible."
The DFL candidate's supporters distributed "Bring Our Troops Home Now" literature throughout the Minneapolis-based district prior to the primary. In the leaflets, Ellison complained that Democrats had "allowed the Republicans to control the dialogue," and promised to "advocate for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq!"
Ellison's leading primary opponents took softer stands on the war issue, just as they did on domestic policy concerns. That allowed Ellison, a state representative, to stand out as not just as a Muslim but as a serious challenger to the status quo on health care -- he's a supporter of single-payer universal coverage -- and a host of other issues.
Ellison also departed from the political norm by targeting what his campaign referred to as "unlikely" primary voters, placing special emphasis on drawing people of color, gays and lesbians and war foes to the polls. In particular, the Ellison campaign focused on getting members of the burgeoning Somali community to vote -- a project to which Wellstone also devoted a great deal of time.
The ideas and the strategies worked. On a primary day that saw mixed results for anti-war candidates, Ellison easily beat a former DFL party chair backed by Sabo, a well-known former state senator and a member of the Minneapolis city council.
Ellison should have an even easier time in November in the overwhelmingly Democratic district. That puts Ellison, a convert to Islam, on track to become the first Muslim member of the Congress and the first African-American representative from Minnesota. It also suggests that Congress well hear an important new progressive voice come January.
The Bush administration's approach to Iraq reconstruction is about the same as its approach to everything else – greed, cronyism and corruption.
Now, an important new documentary reveals more about the waste, war profiteering and lives wrecked by corporations and this administration in our name. Iraq for Sale, directed by Robert Greenwald (Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, Outfoxed and Uncovered), reveals the impact of this criminal and moral corruption on the lives of soldiers, whistleblowers, survivors and ordinary Americans back home.
Greenwald's film exposes the long-time personal connections between this administration and the profiteers and investigates Blackwater Security Consulting, Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, and CACI International, finding such travesties as truck drivers – told they would be kept out of harm's way – forced to drive into battle zones unprotected; mercenaries used for combat operations and interrogations and soldiers training civilians to, ultimately, outsource their own jobs at much higher salaries so that friends of the administration can rake in obscene profits.
Iraq for Sale demonstrates, once again, the urgent need for an independent war profiteering commission modeled after the fearless work of the Truman Commission during World War II.
We need a public platform where whistleblowers, military families, and veterans who are both victims and witnesses can expose these acts of betrayal. Otherwise, this administration and its cronies will get away with inflated no-bid contracts. Hundreds of millions of dollars in overcharges. Billions of dollars gone missing. Backlash and whitewashing of whistleblowers. Alleged bribes to win reconstruction deals. And a lack of accountability for poor or even criminal performance.
Legislation towards achieving justice has been introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy and Byron Dorgan, and Representatives Henry Waxman, and Jan Schakowsky. Leahy's War Profiteering Act would make overcharges a felony punishable by up to 20 years imprisonment. Dorgan would create a special Senate committee to investigate contracting in Afghanistan and Iraq. Waxman has repeatedly called for Congressional oversight of the "mismanagement, lack of transparency, and potential corruption…." Rep. Schakowsky has called for an end to "US-hired paramilitaries and mercenaries in an interrogation cell" and also introduced legislation requiring that Congress receive copies of contracts in Iraq worth more than $1 million. (It's worth mentioning that Schakowsky has praised Jeremy Scahill's reporting on Blackwater in The Nation, saying that "many, many here in Congress read these reports," including Republicans – and that the magazine has had a "significant impact" in fostering the debate and discussions on the issue of mercenaries).
Only a complicit Republican majority stands in the way of real investigations with teeth. That might change come November in the House, Senate, or both. If the House goes Democratic, this administration will finally be held accountable and we can close one chapter in its corrupt history.
Postcript: There is already wide grassroots support of Iraq for Sale – in fact, over 3,000 people donated $367,892 to get the film made. During the week of October 8, individuals and organizations across the nation will host screenings in residences, union halls, theatres and other venues. The Nation will be encouraging its readers to take part. Check out screenings or find out how to host your own by clicking here. As the Republicans spin their failures and faux-patriotism just in time for the mid-term elections, these gatherings are a critical part of setting the record straight.
The new documentary "The U.S. vs. John Lennon," now playing nationwide, tells the story of Lennon's transformation from loveable moptop to anti-war activist, and recounts the facts about Nixon's campaign to deport him in 1972 in an effort to silence him as a voice of the peace movement.
In the film, Walter Cronkite explains that J. Edgar Hoover "had a different conception of democracy" from the rest of us; George McGovern talks about losing the 1972 election to Nixon; Sixties veterans Angela Davis, Bobby Seale, John Sinclair and Tariq Ali recall their movement days; and G. Gordon Liddy happily explains the Nixon point of view: Lennon was "a high profile figure, so his activities were being monitored."
Those "activities" – planning a concert tour that would combine rock music with antiwar organizing and voter registration for the 1972 election – were stopped cold by Nixon's deportation order; but more than 30 years later, in the 2004 election, another group of rock stars finally did exactly what Lennon had been thinking about doing.
Although the Lennon film never explicitly connects the Vietnam war to Iraq, it's impossible not to think of the present when Nixon is shown saying, "as South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater" (and then wipes sweat off his upper lip). But there's only one explicit reference to the present in the film, and it's brief: Gore Vidal says "Lennon represented life, and Mr. Nixon, and Mr. Bush, represent death."
The real star of the film of course is Lennon, whose biting wit shines through. On his way to his deportation hearing, a newsman says, "You say you've been in trouble all your life – why is that?" "I'm just one of those faces," he replies; "people never liked me face." (I worked on the film as historical consultant, and appear in it briefly.)
Nixon got the idea of deporting Lennon from an unlikely source: Strom Thurmond, Republican Senator from South Carolina, who sent a letter to the White House in 1972 that outlined Lennon's plans for a US concert tour that would combine rock music with antiwar organizing and voter registration. Thurmond knew that 1972 was the first year 18-year-olds were given the right to vote, and that Nixon, up for reelection, worried about 11 million new voters -- who were probably all Beatle fans and mostly anti-war. Thurmond's memo observed that Lennon was in the U.S. as a British citizen, and concluded "deportation would be a strategic counter-measure."
It worked; the Lennon tour never happened.
For the next 30 years, the idea of a tour combining rock music and voter registration languished, until 2004, when Bruce Springsteen and a group of activist rock musicians did an election year concert tour of battleground states with a strategy very much like Lennon's. The "Vote for Change" tour, organized by MoveOn PAC, brought the Dixie Chicks, R.E.M., Pearl Jam, and a dozen others on a tour of swing states, with the explicit goal of getting young rock fans to register to vote and vote against the Republican in the White House.
If the idea of using rock concerts to register young voters was the same, the 2004 tour had different politics from its 1972 predecessor – that much is clear from the one concert Lennon did do before the deportation order came down: the "Free John Sinclair" concert in Ann Arbor in December, 1971. Sinclair was a Michigan activist who had been in prison for two years for selling two joints of marijuana to an undercover cop; 15,000 people turned out for the concert. "The U.S. versus John Lennon" features footage from that concert, including wildly radical speeches by Jerry Rubin, and Bobby Seale, who said "the only solution to pollution is a people's humane revolution!"
The Vote for Change tour had much less political talk, and much milder rhetoric. On opening night in Philadelphia in October, 2004, Bruce Springsteen made only a brief political statement: "We're here to fight for a government that is open, rational, forward-looking and humane," he said – not quite the same as Jerry Rubin at the 1972 concert shouting "what we are doing here is uniting music and revolutionary politics to build a revolution around the country!"
The 2004 effort was much bigger and better organized than what Lennon had in mind. It included thirty-three concerts on a coordinated schedule that moved from battleground state to state. On opening night a month before election day the focus was Pennsylvania. Springsteen played in Philadelphia, the Dixie Chicks played Pittsburgh, Dave Matthews did State College, Pearl Jam was in Reading, John Mellencamp in Wilkes-Barre and Jackson Browne and Bonnie Raitt in Erie. The next night they all moved to Ohio, then Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Florida, and then a giant finale brought everyone together in Washington, DC.
Of course 1972 and 2004 ended the same way – with the re-election of the Republican incumbent. In '72, Nixon won by a landslide; in 2004, Bush barely won the popular vote – you might call that progress.
One factor has remained the same over the last 35 years – young voters are the least likely to vote, and potentially a rich source of progressive support. The challenge of overcoming their apathy and ignorance remains – as does the strategy of reaching them through music. Thus what Lennon thought about in 1972, and what Bruce Springsteen, the Dixie Chicks and others did in 2004, remains a key to mobilizing young voters in the future.
As Lennon says in "The U.S. vs. John Lennon," "our job now is to tell them that there still is hope, we must get them excited about what we can do again."
When it comes to winning back the Senate, Rep. Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee is beginning to look like the Democrats' make-or-break candidate--and that might not be such a good thing.
Ford is running surprisingly well in his race to replace retiring Senate Majority LeaderBill Frist in traditionally conservative Tennessee. In August, he ran virtually unopposed for the Democratic nomination. And now, a recent poll has Ford just one pointbehind his Republican rival, former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker.
If he wins in November, the 36-year-old Ford would become the firstAfrican-American senator from the South since reconstruction. Ever sincehis keynote speech at the 2000 Democratic convention, Ford has been seenas a rising star in the party, yet his very conservative views on avariety of issues make him seem more like the next Joe Lieberman than abeacon of light in future of the party.
During his nearly decade-long career in Congress, Ford has supported constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and flag-burning. Hewas an outspoken opponent of a filibuster attempt to prevent SamuelAlito's appointment to the Supreme Court. He has supported theplacement of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, prayer in schools andan end to handgun bans.
Most disappointing was his vote in favor for the war in Iraq, when so many of his colleaguesin the House had the wisdom not to.
Ford is certainly a charismatic congressman. Tennessee AFL-CIO LaborCouncil president Jerry Lee has called him, "the most exciting candidateI've seen since John F. Kennedy" and he's even appeared in Peoplemagazine's "50 Most Beautiful People" issue . Yet for some time now, the American public, and progressivesespecially, have been crying out for more than a pretty face. They wanta real change in leadership, but in a Senate where Rep. Ford couldostensibly be the deciding vote on a host of issues, change might comemuch slower than they'd hoped.
If Democrats regain the House or Senate in November, will the lobbyist-industrial complex known as K Street turn left or lose business?
The answer: yes, a little, but no, not much.
K Street has boomed under George W. Bush. Today there are twice as many registered lobbyists, 30,000, as there were six years ago. Every $1 million spent on lobbying, estimates the Carmen Group, reaps $100 million in government rewards.
Naturally certain industries, such as oil and pharmaceutical companies, may get fewer handouts if Republicans lose Congress. But many lobbyists are prepping for a smooth transition. Major lobbying firms are courting Democrats and vice versa. Odds are, K Street will only continue to grow.
In a great Washington Post story on Sunday, Jeffrey Birnbaum examined the many reasons why. "Now, more than ever," he writes, lobbyists are "a permanent and pervasive force in Washington."
Following the Jack Abramoff scandal, Congress couldn't even pass a toothless bill aimed at cleaning up the most odious forms of institutional corruption.
Republicans are mostly to blame for the death of lobbying reform. But both parties have helped lobbyists thrive. If Democrats don't challenge K Street, they'll only encourage it.
Call President Bush (and his speechwriters) linguistically resolute, but five years later whatever has changed in our world, nothing much has changed in the fearful world of Bushword, not by the numbers anyway.
On September 20, 2001, just nine days after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the President addressed a joint session of Congress and set the tone for everything that was to follow. Here's just a very partial sample by word use of that speech and the world it painted:
Terror, terrorists - 33
Attack - 8
Fight - 7
Threat, threaten - 5
Murder, murderous - 4
Enemies – 3
Struggle - 3
Kill - 3
God - 3
Evil - 2
Violence - 2
Extremism (Islamic) - 1
In his 9/11 anniversary address to the nation last night, the President's first paragraph set the familiar word choice tone. Here were the key words: "… attacked us… barbarity unequaled… murdered… made war… not yet safe… the threat…"
You could, in fact, have taken that five year-old speech, shaken the words up, and simply dropped them randomly into last night's speech (which was a few hundred words shorter), with about the same effect. Here's a fuller count from last night of almost exactly the same set of words, painting almost the same terrifying picture of our world:
Terror (terrorists) - 17
Enemies - 14
War (on terror, Cold, Third World, upon the entire free world, clouds of) - 13
Attack - 13
Extremists (global network of, movement, ideology) - 6
Fight, fighting - 6
Threat - 6
Defeat - 5
Radicalism, radical (Islamic empire, dictators) - 5
Struggle (for civilization, between tyranny and freedom) - 4
Kill (without mercy, our citizens) - 3
Evil (face of) - 3
God - 3
Violence - 3
Weapons (of mass destruction, nuclear) - 3
Suffering - 2
Destruction, destroy (our way of life) - 2
Hate, hateful - 2
Risk - 2
Offensive, offense - 2
Battle - 2
And singletons of: Dangerous, aggression, firepower, arsenal, totalitarian, horror, conflict, death, tyranny, murder, fear, barbarity.
Between the two moments and speeches, so much had changed in the world, so little in the words. Some of the phrases were simple repeats. The soaring other side -- "courage," "freedom," etc. -- of the President's Manichaean world remained almost untouched (with the exception of a single uncharacteristically florid phrase, "…when the people of the Middle East leave the desert of despotism for the fertile gardens of liberty…") as did the linguistic line-up meant to indicate what a commander-in-chief presidency can do to save us from the vision of hell on Earth he always paints ("safe," "protect," "defend," "homeland").
True, "evil" had tied "God" in the word count five years later, but essentially the President has never stopped peddling the same Bushwa. The only real question is: Are Americans still taking it in?
There are plenty of anti-war Democrats running in today's primary elections in states across the country. There are even a few anti-war Republicans -- mostnotably Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee. But few have done a better jobthan John Sarbanes, a frontrunner for an open U.S. House seat representingMaryland's 3rd District, of articulating the position that the oppositionparty should be taking with regard to George Bush's war.
While he asserts that, "It is long overdue for the Bush Administration toprovide Congress and the American people with a concrete plan for bringingour troops home," Sarbanes pulls no punches with regard to his own party.
"The Democratic leadership in Congress must take action immediately – thatmeans today – by petitioning the President to deliver to the appropriatecommittees in Congress within thirty days two proposed disengagement plansfor Iraq: one that would bring our troops home within six months; the otherthat would bring them home within twelve months," says Sarbanes, a lawyerwho is the son of retiring U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes. "In making thisrequest, Democrats should make it clear that they will use all substantiveand procedural leverage available to them to force delivery of the plans,including resisting the President's budget priorities. As long as thePentagon and the Defense Department resist providing concrete scenarios fordisengaging our troops, it is impossible to evaluate the risks and benefitsof any particular course of action. The Bush Administration must get itshead out of the Iraqi sand and offer the American people a meaningful planfor bringing our troops home."
Bluntly rejecting the charge that supporters of a withdrawal timeline want to"cut-and-run," Sarbanes argues that a timeline is essential to getting theIraqis to stand up so that Americans can stand down. "Setting a timetablefor disengagement of our troops will send a clear message to the members ofthe Iraqi parliament, and will force them to make the compromises necessaryto govern, and that they must do so quickly," argues Sarbanes.
"Thatrequirement is inherent in our request that the Bush Administration delivera six-month and twelve-month disengagement proposal," he adds. "In the past threeyears, there have been three elections in Iraq. Despite this fact, theIraqis have yet to create a functional government. Although the Iraqiselected a parliament in January, the various ethnic groups within theparliament will have to make many difficult compromises in order toestablish a stable government that is responsive to the needs of the Iraqipeople. Their recent selection of a prime minister is a positivedevelopment, although we cannot overlook the fact that it took theparliament over four months to accomplish this task. The Iraqi parliamentmust exhibit a greater sense of urgency in standing up an effectivegovernment. Iraqi officials are less likely to do so if they believe thatU.S. troops are going to remain in Iraq in large numbers for the foreseeablefuture."
Sarbanes is not the only anti-war contender in the race to replace U.S.Representative Ben Cardin, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for Maryland's open Senate seat. For instance, another leading contender, state Senator PaulaHollinger calls the war "a catastrophic failure" and promises to "hold theBush administration accountable for its actions." Complaining that, "inspite of the incompetence of the Bush administration, Congress continues todefer to the White House on the war," Hollinger pledges to call "forhearings to investigate the abuses of power perpetrated by the Bushadministration and for the firing of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."
It is his determination to light a fire under own party thatdistinguishes Sarbanes. This year is likely to produce a number of new Democraticmembers of the House, and many of them will promise to challenge PresidentBush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. But anyonewho has watched Congress over the past five years understands that, beforethe Bush administration can be held accountable, the Democrats have todecide to operate as an opposition party. Only when Democrats have thewisdom and the courage to articulate a clear anti-war position will they begin to steer the debate in Washington. Sarbanes gets credit forrecognizing this.
Keep an eye on how he does today if you want a sense of whether a Democratic takeover of the House this fall will lead to a genuine course correction -- for the party and the country.
Keep an eye, as well, on some of the many other races where anti-warmessages are in play. Some of the most interesting of these include:
* The Maryland Senate race, where former NAACP executive director Kweisi Mfume hasbeen far more aggressive in his opposition to the war than Cardin. Mfume's focus on the cost of the war is especially noteworthy. "The billions ofdollars being spent to wage this war continue to distort our priorities anddrain our economy of much needed resources," the former congressman argues. "We don't everseem to have the money that we need when it comes to driving down the costof health care or driving up the quality of our public schools, because weare throwing so much of it into this war."
* Maryland's 4th Congressional District, where veteran activist DonnaEdwards has come on strong at the close of her Democratic primary challengeto complacent incumbent Albert Wynn. With fresh endorsements from theWashington Post, the major newspaper in the district, and the region'sTeamsters, Edwards is clearly credible. And she is closing with a stronganti-war message in a race against a Democrat who she blisters for "castinghis lot with Bush and the Republicans on such critical issues as Iraq..."
* Minnesota's 5th Congressional District, where Democrat OlavMartin Sabo is retiring. Several of the candidates in the crowded Democraticprimary have articulated anti-war positions. Of the frontrunners, the mostaggressive is state Representative Keith Ellison, who says, "I am callingfor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I opposed the warbefore it began; I was against this war once it started and I am the onlycandidate calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops."
* Arizona's 8th Congressional District, where Republican incumbent Jim Kolbeis stepping down. The Democratic field is crowded and Jeff Latas lacks the funding and the name recognition of several of the other candidates. But the retired Air Force fighter pilot is a compelling contender. The recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals, and the father of an Iraq War vet, Latas says:
The Army sent my 19-year-old son to boot camp for three months, and thento truck driver school for two months, and then declared him fully trainedto risk his life for Iraq. Yet in 3 years, they have trained only one out of15 battalions of Iraqi soldiers to defend their own country.Something isn't right about that. It is time for us to leave Iraq to theIraqi people.
* Bringing the troops home as quickly as possible. The Murtha Plan is our bestoption. We need to reposition our forces out of Iraq, create a quickreaction force stationed nearby to deal with crises that will arise, and weneed to emphasize the use of diplomacy over the use of force.
* Recognizing that we should never have put ourselves in the position ofnation-building, but now that we have destroyed the previous governmentalstructure, we should shift responsibility for assisting the Iraqis from theDefense Department to the State Department, an agency far better equipped todeal with these tasks
* Regaining the trust of other nations with a goal of at least returning tothe state of confidence and good will that existed immediately after 9/11
* Working within the United Nations and NATO to build alliances to deal withcontinuing challenges in the Middle East, especially the immediate problemof how to deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability
* Insisting on separation of powers and the responsibility of Congress fordeclarations of war. Congress must never again give the President blanketauthority to go to do what he deems necessary and then be required toallocate funds to support troops that the President has sent to war.
Latas is one of a number of candidates in today's primaries who are endorsed by Progressive Democrats of America, the party's most energetic anti-war pressure group. Others include: Arizona congressional candidates Herb Paine and Mike Caccioppoli and incumbent Raul Grijalva, a PDA advisory board member; New York congressional candidates John Hall and Chris Owens; and Rhode Island U.S. Senate candidate Carl Sheeler. Maryland candidates Mfume and Edwards are also backed by PDA. While many of these contenders face tough races, none has taken on a more daunting task than PDA-endorsed candidate Jonathan Tasini.
Tasini's opponent in today's New York Democratic Senate primary, Hillary Clinton, has all the advantages of incumbency, celebrity and her vaunted fund-raising prowess. All Tasini has is his position on the war. "My position is a responsible one," says Tasini, "the troops must be brought home now. It is the best solution for our country and for Iraq. I reject the myths that have been promoted against proponents of withdrawal." Locked out of the debates and afforded scant coverage by the media, Tasini has still been a factor in forcing Clinton to moderate what had been a militantly pro-war stance. No matter what vote hegets today, his candidacy will has played a role in moving the Democratic Party toward the opposition position that it must assert if it is to gain the upper hand in this year's political debate and the Congress that will be chosen in November.
Keith Olbermann is without a doubt the best news anchor on television today. Two weeks ago, echoing the spirit of the legendary Edward R. Murrow, Olbermann took Donald Rumsfeld to task for comparing critics of the Iraq war to Nazi appeasers. Tonight, broadcasting live from above a desolate and still demolished Ground Zero, Olbermann delivered a stirring eight minute commentary indicting the Bush Administration's shameful and tragic response to 9/11. The entire speech is worth watching and reading, so I'm posting the full text below.
Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.
All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.
And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.
I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.
And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.
However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.
Five years later this space is still empty.
Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.
Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.
Five years later this country's wound is still open.
Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.
Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.
It is beyond shameful.
At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.
Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.
Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.
Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.
And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.
And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.
The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.
Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.
Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.
Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.
History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.
Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.
The President -- and those around him -- did that.
They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."
They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.
The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."
The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."
Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.
Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.
Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.
Yet what is happening this very night?
A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.
The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.
How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?
Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.
So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.
This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.
And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."
In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."
And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.
"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."
When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:
Who has left this hole in the ground?
We have not forgotten, Mr. President.
May this country forgive you.
Now that ABC/Disney has broadcast a docudrama rife with lies about what a different administration did before 9-11, let's demand that ABC use the public airwaves to tell the facts about lies this administration told the people after 9-11.
I think the just-released Senate Intelligence report -- chronicling an indisputable pattern of deception -- would make great tv. If you agree, let Robert Iger, CEO of ABC'S corporate parent, the Walt Disney Company, know.