Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIt's been clear for some time that when it comes to approaches to security and foreign policy, the people are way ahead of the Inside-the-Beltway politicians and pundits in believing there's a need for real change.
Now, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and its Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) network of progressive experts have released a new report –Just Security – that offers an alternative framework that is more sane and effective than the stunted vision and failed policies supported by so-called moderates in both parties.
One important departure from bipartisan conventional wisdom in the report is the call for a reduction of $213 billion in US military spending, which amounts to about one-third of the total defense budget. Even with this cut the US would retain the largest military in the world and spend over eight times more than any of the next largest militaries.
"This new foreign policy approach is more in line with public opinion than the US Congress, which recently backed additional money for the Iraq War," said John Feffer, co-director of FPIF. "Leading presidential candidates and the foreign policy establishment are being overly cautious. There's virtually no debate about freezing, let alone reducing, military spending, which has soared to unprecedented levels."
Other areas addressed by the report include: climate policy, nuclear disarmament, overall health and economic wellbeing, conflicts in the Middle East and Africa and counterterrorism, as well as security spending. This kind of bold and comprehensive approach is exactly what is needed in these times, as Feffer recently wrote: "Franklin Delano Roosevelt transformed US foreign policy with his big picture Good Neighbor policy of the 1930s. When they dramatically reoriented the US approach to the world, neither Ronald Reagan nor George W. Bush… approached the matter piecemeal. They offered a large-scale, comprehensive foreign policy vision (Peace Through Strength, Global War on Terror). Those who oppose the current administration's foreign policy should take this lesson to heart. We should be thinking not just about Iraq or about cutting one or two old Cold War weapons systems. Judicious retrenchment, judging from the elections and the polls, is not what Americans want. We should be aiming high. We should be aiming for a Just Security program."
This report is an important contribution to articulating and demanding an alternative to the Bush Doctrine and the Global War on Terror. You can download the full report here.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
KVH: ...new report –Just Security – that offers an alternative framework that is more sane and effective than the stunted vision and failed policies supported by so-called moderates in both parties....
Mighty BIG, and ?effective? claim there Ms. Heuvel....for `Just a Report'!
I can just see it:
Just Healthcare - Lets' start by cutting back expenditures by 1/3!
Just Education - Lets' start by cutting back expenditures by 1/3!
Just Justice - Lets' start by cutting back expenditures by 1/3!
Just Medicare - Lets' start by cutting back expenditures by 1/3!
Just Government - Lets' start by cutting back expenditures by 1/3!
Just Congress - Lets' start by cutting back expenditures by 1/3!
Just Pork - Lets' start by cutting back expenditures by 1/3!
Just Beef - Lets' start by cutting back expenditures by 1/3!
Just Chicken - Lets' start by cutting back expenditures by 1/3!
This sound so great & powerful, it may even work as great Party Platforms!
The Dem version of "Contracting with America (by 1/3)"
Posted by Happy at 06/26/2007 @ 11:53pm
"One important departure from bipartisan conventional wisdom in the report is the call for a reduction of $213 billion in US military spending, which amounts to about one-third of the total defense budget. Even with this cut the US would retain the largest military in the world and spend over eight times more than any of the next largest militaries."
Wow, KVH! That is an absolutely amazing stat!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/27/2007 @ 12:34am
"Leading presidential candidates and the foreign policy establishment are being overly cautious. There's virtually no debate about freezing, let alone reducing, military spending, which has soared to unprecedented levels."
Okay, then...let's ask a question. Who is going to be potentially elected President in 2008?
A. the leading Presidential candidates
B. The Institute for Policy Studies
No, not being a smart-ass (okay, a little). Politics, not "policy studies", matter. And NO Democrat, not even the "more progressive" John Edwards, if they become President is going to call for a ONE-THIRD cut in US defense spending. The ramifications would be DISASTEROUS politically.
Congress, even under Democrats, wouldn't support it. They all know they'd get CREAMED in 2010, as resurrecting the Democratic stereotype so EASILY used by the Republicans as "soft on defense".
Posted by Mask at 06/27/2007 @ 07:10am
"the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and its Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) network of progressive experts have released a new report "
Network of Progressive Experts, an oxymoron for sure...only one missing is Code Pink..
Lets hear some ringing endorsemets from thr current crop of preidetial candidates(experts all, I am sure) of the Dem party for these "expert" opinions...
What's that I hear...crickets?
I'd love to see 'em run on that and keep the House and Senate...or anything else...for years. My guess is they will say nothing and hope it goes away(the "expert report"), and thank their lucky stars that it is noticed by the 20-30 experts here, who will of course, endorse it completly.
Posted by john maasch at 06/27/2007 @ 08:11am
This sound so great & powerful, it may even work as great Party Platforms!
The Dem version of "Contracting with America (by 1/3)"
Posted by HAPPY
Oh HAPPY, you are just pissed because a move like that would cut into your investment portfolio. Evidently, you enjoy making money off the blood and sweat of others. What a guy.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/27/2007 @ 08:36am
Think of the MIC as an unrestrained teen on drugs. Sure some drugs are ok, especially for allergies, infections, harmonal imbalance (cause for the small testicles), or A.D.D., but come on-- don't you notice the wallet's a little light lately?
The right drugs work, the wrong drugs kill.
Of course ignore the warning signs at your own risk-- "I should have known", are usually the first words out of a parent of a teen who has overdosed.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/27/2007 @ 08:46am
" Evidently, you enjoy making money off the blood and sweat of others. What a guy.
Posted by WOLFGANG1 06/27/2007 @ 08:36am "
Doesn't everybody? Isn't that how the loons see the world?
Some guy invents something, sells it, and makes himself wealthy and ends up hiring people, who end up with jobs..and a product or service comes to market where other people want it enough to pay for it..but the dumb ass who actually made it happen is earning off the "Blood and sweat"(what about tears?) of others...would that others be the guys who risked their money to invest in the stock to finance the hiring and building of the inventors company, which he started on his own?
Posted by john maasch at 06/27/2007 @ 08:48am
Some guy invents something, sells it, and makes himself wealthy and ends up hiring people, who end up with jobs..and a product or service comes to market where other people want it enough to pay for it..but the dumb ass who actually made it happen is earning off the "Blood and sweat"(what about tears?) of others...would that others be the guys who risked their money to invest in the stock to finance the hiring and building of the inventors company, which he started on his own?
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
John, Have you ever heard of war profiteering? That, my man, is what I am talking about, not some guy who actually comes up with an engineering idea or technological breakthrough. Keep in mind, most of the "owners" of these companies couldn't design dick, they hire engineers, programmers and scientists to do the work for them, and by the way, a lot of that research money is tax money, not yours. Anyway, I'm talking about investing in companies that are part of the war machine. It's great for the investors, the companies making the materials, but not so damn great for the guys (soldiers) who actually have to use the end product. Our brave leaders in Washington have to keep finding new creative ways to get us into wars so they can justify spending a huge portion of the national budget on defense toys. When I said, blood, I literally meant blood, not figuratively.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/27/2007 @ 09:05am
But then what if one of the teen's (MIC's) parent is also a drugee? It does add to the level of dif trying to get family straight again... That's called 'tough love' BABY. YEAH.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/27/2007 @ 09:06am
KVH seems to be realizing that new ideas or even new direction CANNOT come out of a ONE PARTY system. One side of the party is funded by corporate interests and the other side of the party is funded by corporate interests.....why in the hell would that party (either side) want to derail the money train and do something that actually benefits the citizenry rather than the elite?
No, with our bought and paid for system we'll just carry on spending on guns without even debating guns V butter because the parties and the corporate owned media unanimously want guns.
Even I think that unions are irrelevant in this day and age, but at least when they existed (really existed) there was two sources of funding for the parties and thus two avenues of ideas.
America is in deep trouble.
Posted by freedomplease at 06/27/2007 @ 09:43am
To further my analogy of MIC/teen on 'excessive' and/or the 'wrong' drugs. But to elaborate on our power as 'we the people'. I posted this analogy on cHeney's Bluft:
executive = ego (HD)
legislature = thinking (ram)
supremes = conscience (motherboard)
we, the people = the body (monitor and key board)
So screw the MSM and the congress if they don't want to do what we the people want-- we just need to remember WE control the keys and the monitor if WE choose to. Well do WE? If we get our lazy fat asses off the fucking couch and write, call, march in great numbers, do you really think the legislature won't shit in their pants to fix the shit they've allowed to happen these last few years? It really comes down to whether WE the people care enough about our freedom and constitution to take back OUR government. Well assholes are we mad enough YET? Care about anything other than our weak check; have we been bought out soooo cheap? What IS worth it? What about our children's freedom and their future-- are we the ones in the history books that will be said 'rolled over' for the fascists and condemned the world to years of war?
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/27/2007 @ 10:15am
Contrast this with the output of Conservative think tanks, such as the Project for a New American Century, PNAC. Conservative think tanks cook up these policy documents that hope out loud for a "second pearl harbor" so they can get their planned invasion and occupation of Iraq. The authors of PNAC are all going to hell. Conservative think tanks cook up disastrous policies such as the disaster in Iraq.
Posted by conshame at 06/27/2007 @ 10:32am
Well assholes are we mad enough YET? Care about anything other than our weak check; have we been bought out soooo cheap? What IS worth it? What about our children's freedom and their future-- are we the ones in the history books that will be said 'rolled over' for the fascists and condemned the world to years of war?
Posted by HSUBFOOLS
HSUB, I think I can say, regretfully, that "we the people" will roll over and let things go as they may. I mean, just look at half of the blogs here. We've got people who still think Bush and Cheney are doing a great job. I think about half of the people in this country don't really care what is going on as long as they collect their $200 and pass go. Until something bites them in the ass, they will continue to turn a blind eye. By the time congress gets done interviewing DOJ people, Bush will be out of office and not held accountable. Gonzales is key for the Bush administration where he is at because he is supposed to be the watchdog that enforces the law, but as you can see, he's the wedge between Congress and the White House and of course the bought off supreme court will side with Bushco every time that really counts. Meanwhile,the damn congress hasn't impeached that lying piece of crap Gonzales from office, so they certainly won't do anything to Bush and Cheney. It's a damned 3 ringed circus and the media, the congress and white house put on a hell of show while the people behind them pull the strings and get what they want.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/27/2007 @ 10:35am
Some guy invents something, sells it, and makes himself wealthy and ends up hiring people, who end up with jobs
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/27/2007 @ 08:48am | ignore this person
This "some guy" obviously is not "you". You havent invented anything, sold anything, made yourself wealthy, or hired people, HAVE YOU?
Posted by conshame at 06/27/2007 @ 10:39am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 06/27/2007 @ 09:05am
In Johns world China doesn't have child slave labor, every chinese worker is making good money and Halliburton is earning every dime fair and square.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/27/2007 @ 11:08am
We have the largest military in the world, larger than something like the next 5 combined. We have 200+ bases around the world. Did this stop 9/11? Is it helping us win in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or is it helping the mI complex enrich itself off of our tax dollars?
how about just getting rid of Chimpy before he destroys the military totally? Now THAT would be supporting the troops.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/27/2007 @ 11:15am
Crab,
Whoop dee doo....we get rid of Bush. Probably replace with Hillary...she's been rubber stamping massivly bloated military expeditures for years. Obama? Corporatist flunky who would be very pliant towards the status quo.
Posted by freedomplease at 06/27/2007 @ 11:52am
WG!,
Don't poopoo our/your responsibility just because it would be hard and we feel a wee bit overwhelmed by the amount of corruption to address. If your kid were on drugs would you roll over so easily, I know some here would, but is that an excuse to sit on your hands while your kid does horrible things to his/herself? We all have responsibility to act. The corporate rulers of hsuB/cHeney admin, supporters of new cons, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, are counting on dividing us and making us into indentured servants. Don't be fooled by the amount of your weak check that just means your kids have bigger servitude: the bigger the servitude the smaller their spirit.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/27/2007 @ 12:23pm
ZERO lightly touched on it...of course, he's lightly touched.
The $213 Billion that the IPS or Ms vanden Heuvel want cut....WON'T be going to reducing our deficit.
But the dirty little secret just letting the Bush tax cuts lapse....won't cover BOTH reducing the deficit AND a host of new spending that IPS, Ms vH, or everybody else on the Left want.
No...they need MORE money that that provides....so.....where to get it?
Tax hikes are a political killer of the first magnitude. So the ONLY (in their minds) other place to get it....defense. And not a "freeze", but a "one-third cut" to garner $213 Big Ones for every pet project you can think of.
But again....won't fly. There is GOOD reason that "Leading presidential candidates and the foreign policy establishment are being overly cautious". Because a massive (and yes, 1/3 in a short term cut is massive) cut in defense plays bad on SO many levels of politics. Not just the "Dems weak on defense" canard, but all those military bases and DEFENSE contractors in a lot of key Dem districts and states that would be VERY mad.
Posted by Mask at 06/27/2007 @ 12:40pm
Posted by MASK 06/27/2007 @ 12:40pm
We could use some bold ideas Mask. And it COULD just be that such a large cut would make sense and not undermine our national defense. I know you are just playing political realist here. Perhaps you are right. Not one comment on the underlying proposal; whether or not the proposed cuts make sense; or any defense of the current defense budget. I imagine anyone in opposition will simply cry out that any proponent of cuts is "soft on defense!" Well, some clever candidate is just going to have to figure out a way to explain why that is not so. I'll keep dreaming we will get one, that the press will give it a fair shake, and that the public will actually listen.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/27/2007 @ 1:01pm
Again Masky, the MIC is on drugs, got to cut the pusher out and get therapy; health is costly too but necessary. Fixing what's wrong is the responsible thing to do and it too costs money. I prefer that we fund our infrastructure which includes health services as much as roads and clean-up, etc., that to feed a crack pusher. Why does anyone still trust the lying cowardly greedsters of the hsuB/cHeney admin, it's not weakness to slap the war profiteers/MIC around, that takes 'real' balls. It's really more a cowardly stand to advocate for going along because of ones own percieved weaknesses.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/27/2007 @ 1:03pm
Hman / Mask,
International corporations want the boondoggle of taking tax money from Americans and funneling it into worthless "defense" profits.
Corporations control the entirety of the US election system.
It is not a coincidence that no debate is being had on this topic. No debate is permitted.
Posted by freedomplease at 06/27/2007 @ 1:09pm
HSUB, I wasn't saying I plan on rolling over, I was just saying that I believe the majority of the people of this country will roll over. If, as Al Gore said in his book, that elections can be swayed by saying a certain thing for a sound bite for a section of voters, that means that the people paying for the sound bites (bytes?) get to pretty much choose who gets elected. That is because most of the people in this country would rather pretend that everything is ok and keep their heads buried in the sand or should I say oil. They don't read between the lines and double check the sources of their news. Look at the Fox folks. They really do think they are getting the true scoop because it's on t.v. Most Americans are oblivious to the fact that they are being fed propaganda via news, commercials etc. Why else would Rupert Murdock be so damn interested in getting his mits on the already conservative Wall Street Journal? So, he can have an even stronger influence on American politics. So, some rich Ausie with his head up his ass can come to our country and pretty much ram his crap down peoples' throats and they actually buy into it. Like I said, it's sad, but I think it's a reality. I will do whatever I can to help out the next generation or generations, but unfortunately, I don't have any power besides my vote and talking to others.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/27/2007 @ 1:12pm
Published on Thursday, May 31, 2007 by TruthDig.com, Gore and Sheehan Join Forces, by Marie Cocco
...
Nearly two years later, and after a descent into the clutch of radical politics, Sheehan's "resignation" letter lashes out equally at left-wing commentators who she says heaped the same abuse upon her once she held the Democratic Party to account for its role in sustaining the war. Sheehan's letter is a rambling account of her journey to disillusion. But amid the pain is a truth that has no ideology: "Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months. … "
It is a complaint I've heard from returning Iraq veterans, who are astonished at the trivial info-tainment that passes for news at home. It is echoed by Gore, who laments in his book that "it is simply no longer possible to ignore the strangeness of our public discourse."
Starting with the O.J. Simpson trial, Gore recites the "serial obsessions" that dominate coverage--and so help define what the public thinks is important. You know their names: JonBenet and the "Runaway Bride," Natalie Holloway and Michael Jackson. "And of course," Gore writes, "we can't forget Britney and KFed and Lindsay and Paris and Nicole." While these noisy psychodramas got saturation coverage, Gore says, "our nation was in the process of more quietly making what future historians will certainly describe as a series of catastrophically mistaken decisions" on war and peace, climate change and other issues.
Gore, the scold, is a familiar character in his own political saga--the same fellow who was ridiculed for sighing audibly during a 2000 presidential campaign debate. But, like Sheehan, he speaks a truth: The country didn't make so many bad decisions--about Iraq, global warming, torture or the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists--in the absence of information about these policies and their historic consequences. It ignored what information was available.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/31/1557/
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/27/2007 @ 1:21pm
There are people organizing all over the nation to protest and connect with others to alter the course to fascism that our nation is heading in. We need to get our heads out of the stupor and start screaming at our congress to halt this corruption now. Google search organizations close to where you are about any direction you want to go in: impeachment, protest the war, draft Gore,... It's all there if you want it enough. For now... Don't wait until it's too late.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/27/2007 @ 1:30pm
"The derivation of just power from the consent of the governed depends on the integrity of the reasoning process through which that consent is given. If the reasoning process is corrupted by money and deception, then the consent of the governed is based on false premises, and any power thus derived is inherently counterfeit and unjust. If the consent of the governed is extorted through manipulation of mass fears, or embezzled with claims of divine guidance, democracy is impoverished."
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/27/2007 @ 1:34pm
....some clever candidate is just going to have to figure out a way to explain why that is not so. I'll keep dreaming we will get one, that the press will give it a fair shake, and that the public will actually listen.
Posted by HMAN23 06/27/2007 @ 1:01pm
Not a candidate (this time), but Buchanan is the one so `clever', he figured this out long time ago!
The `bold' idea needed is to totally discard, or at least, drastically cut back, the post-WWII, high-O/H, globally-based US military. Our vanquished WWII enemies are today, fully capable financially, to shoulder much more......while we can still (but not per Buchanan), backstop/support KEY ALLIES (not the 60+ now) with strategic security agreements.
The Left would have better success agitating for getting us out of Korea and Europe....and push for using the savings for `domestic security'.....would score lots of points.
Posted by Happy at 06/27/2007 @ 1:55pm
Well, some clever candidate is just going to have to figure out a way to explain why that is not so. ---Posted by HMAN23 06/27/2007 @ 1:01pm
That's what I call the "Aaron Sorkin Theory", HMAN, after the creator of "The West Wing" and writer of "The American President".
Sorkin in both that TV series and movie attempts to postulate that some "smart liberal" can come out and not only elucidate, but ENACT a "progressive agenda" and "get it past" the political paradigms under which we have lived for near-on 40 years.
Unfortunately, "Jed Bartletts" and "Andrew Shepherds" are not only few and far-between...but almost unknown. Sure, an "Edwards" pops up and starts talking about "Two Americas", etc....getting as liberal as a mainstream Democratic candidate can get.
But even HE is under some constraints of realpolitik....and KNOWS that calling for an immediate (or even "over 5 years") ONE-THIRD cut in the defense budget in a "post-9/11 world"...is suicide.
Sure...10-15-20% of America might love it. But the Republicans would use it in a campaign in 2010 and 2012, that would make the "Swift Boat Vets" look like Eisenhower's campaign against Stevenson in 1956.
Posted by Mask at 06/27/2007 @ 3:15pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/27/2007 @ 1:03pm
HSUB, care to make another prediction for my archives....
that "candidate for '08 Al Gore" calls for a ONE-THIRD cut in defense spending?
Posted by Mask at 06/27/2007 @ 3:16pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 06/27/2007 @ 11:52am | ignore this person
I suggest you look for the policies that distinguish them from the repubs, they are many and the future of our country depends on repudiating the lock step repubs.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/27/2007 @ 3:29pm
The Left would have better success agitating for getting us out of Korea and Europe....and push for using the savings for `domestic security'.....would score lots of points.
Posted by HAPPY 06/27/2007 @ 1:55pm | ignore this person
let's agitate for getting out of Iraq, first and foremost. we're not losing a dozen soldiers a week in Korea, Japan or germany.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/27/2007 @ 4:10pm
"Moreover, the global capital markets have begun to recognize the unprecedented size of this emerging fiscal catastrophe. In truth, the current executive branch of the U.S. government is radically different from any since the McKinley administration 100 years ago.
The 2001 winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, George Akerlof, went even further last week in Germany when he told Der Spiegel, "This is the worst government the U.S. has ever had in its more than 200 years of history...This is not normal government policy." In describing the impact of the Bush policies on America's future, Akerloff added, "What we have here is a form of looting."
...
It seems obvious that big and important issues like the Bush economic policy and the first pre-emptive war in U.S. history should have been debated more thoroughly in the Congress, covered more extensively in the news media, and better presented to the American people before our nation made such fateful choices. But that didn't happen, and in both cases, reality is turning out to be very different from the impression that was given when the votes -- and the die -- were cast.
Since this curious mismatch between myth and reality has suddenly become commonplace and is causing such extreme difficulty for the nation's ability to make good choices about our future, maybe it is time to focus on how in the world we could have gotten so many false impressions in such a short period of time."
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2003/08/08/ gore_speech/index_np.html?pn=2
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/27/2007 @ 4:17pm
"Earlier, I mentioned the feeling many have that something basic has gone wrong. Whatever it is, I think it has a lot to do with the way we seek the truth and try in good faith to use facts as the basis for debates about our future -- allowing for the unavoidable tendency we all have to get swept up in our enthusiasms.
That last point is worth highlighting. Robust debate in a democracy will almost always involve occasional rhetorical excesses and leaps of faith, and we're all used to that. I've even been guilty of it myself on occasion. But there is a big difference between that and a systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology that is felt to be more important than the mandates of basic honesty.
Unfortunately, I think it is no longer possible to avoid the conclusion that what the country is dealing with in the Bush presidency is the latter. That is really the nub of the problem -- the common source for most of the false impressions that have been frustrating the normal and healthy workings of our democracy.
Americans have always believed that we the people have a right to know the truth and that the truth will set us free. The very idea of self-government depends upon honest and open debate as the preferred method for pursuing the truth -- and a shared respect for the rule of reason as the best way to establish the truth.
The Bush administration routinely shows disrespect for that whole basic process, and I think it's partly because they feel as if they already know the truth and aren't very curious to learn about any facts that might contradict it. They and the members of groups that belong to their ideological coalition are true believers in each other's agendas."
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/27/2007 @ 4:24pm
"First, powerful and wealthy groups and individuals who work their way into the inner circle -- with political support or large campaign contributions -- are able to add their own narrow special interests to the list of favored goals without having them weighed against the public interest or subjected to the rule of reason. And the greater the conflict between what they want and what's good for the rest of us, the greater incentive they have to bypass the normal procedures and keep it secret.
That's what happened, for example, when Vice President Cheney invited all of those oil and gas industry executives to meet in secret sessions with him and his staff to put their wish lists into the administration's legislative package in early 2001.
That group wanted to get rid of the Kyoto treaty on global warming, of course, and the administration pulled out of it first thing. The list of people who helped write our nation's new environmental and energy policies is still secret, and the vice president won't say whether or not his former company, Halliburton, was included. But of course, as practically everybody in the world knows, Halliburton was given a huge open-ended contract to take over and run the Iraqi oil fields -- without having to bid against any other companies.
Secondly, when leaders make up their minds on a policy without ever having to answer hard questions about whether or not it's good or bad for the American people as a whole, they can pretty quickly get into situations where it's really uncomfortable for them to defend what they've done with simple and truthful explanations. That's when they're tempted to fuzz up the facts and create false impressions. And when other facts start to come out that undermine the impression they're trying to maintain, they have a big incentive to try to keep the truth bottled up if -- they can -- or distort it.
For example, a couple of weeks ago, the White House ordered its own EPA to strip important scientific information about the dangers of global warming out of a public report. Instead, the White House substituted information that was partly paid for by the American Petroleum Institute. This week, analysts at the Treasury Department told a reporter that they're now being routinely ordered to change their best analysis of what the consequences of the Bush tax laws are likely to be for the average person.
Here is the pattern that I see: the president's mishandling of and selective use of the best evidence available on the threat posed by Iraq is pretty much the same as the way he intentionally distorted the best available evidence on climate change, and rejected the best available evidence on the threat posed to America's economy by his tax and budget proposals.
In each case, the president seems to have been pursuing policies chosen in advance of the facts -- policies designed to benefit friends and supporters -- and has used tactics that deprived the American people of any opportunity to effectively subject his arguments to the kind of informed scrutiny that is essential in our system of checks and balances.
The administration has developed a highly effective propaganda machine to embed in the public mind mythologies that grow out of the one central doctrine that all of the special interests agree on, which -- in its purest form -- is that government is very bad and should be done away with as much as possible -- except the parts of it that redirect money through big contracts to industries that have won their way into the inner circle"
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/27/2007 @ 4:26pm
"If the 21st century is to be well started, we need a national agenda that is worked out in concert with the people, a healing agenda that is built on a true national consensus. Millions of Americans got the impression that George W. Bush wanted to be a "healer, not a divider", a president devoted first and foremost to "honor and integrity." Yet far from uniting the people, the president's ideologically narrow agenda has seriously divided America. His most partisan supporters have launched a kind of 'civil cold war' against those with whom they disagree.
And as for honor and integrity, let me say this: We know what that was all about, but hear me well, not as a candidate for any office, but as an American citizen who loves my country:
For eight years, the Clinton-Gore administration gave this nation honest budget numbers; an economic plan with integrity that rescued the nation from debt and stagnation; honest advocacy for the environment; real compassion for the poor; a strengthening of our military -- as recently proven -- and a foreign policy whose purposes were elevated, candidly presented and courageously pursued, in the face of scorched-earth tactics by the opposition. That is also a form of honor and integrity, and not every administration in recent memory has displayed it.
So I would say to those who have found the issue of honor and integrity so useful as a political tool, that the people are also looking for these virtues in the execution of public policy on their behalf, and will judge whether they are present or absent.
I am proud that my party has candidates for president committed to those values. I admire the effort and skill they are putting into their campaigns. I am not going to join them, but later in the political cycle I will endorse one of them, because I believe that we must stand for a future in which the United States will again be feared only by its enemies; in which our country will again lead the effort to create an international order based on the rule of law; a nation which upholds fundamental rights even for those it believes to be its captured enemies; a nation whose financial house is in order; a nation where the market place is kept healthy by effective government scrutiny; a country which does what is necessary to provide for the health, education, and welfare of our people; a society in which citizens of all faiths enjoy equal standing; a republic once again comfortable that its chief executive knows the limits as well as the powers of the presidency; a nation that places the highest value on facts, not ideology, as the basis for all its great debates and decisions."
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/27/2007 @ 5:52pm
For eight years, the Clinton-Gore administration gave this nation honest budget numbers; an economic plan with integrity that rescued the nation from debt and stagnation; honest advocacy for the environment; real compassion for the poor; a strengthening of our military -- Posted by HSUBFOOLS 06/27/2007 @ 5:52pm
I agree, HSUB.....but I wonder how the line "real compassion for the poor" will play here at "The Nation" (and elsewhere on the Left) who LOATHED the welfare reform the Clinton signed.
Posted by Mask at 06/27/2007 @ 9:04pm
Masky ask New Hampshire:
New Hampshire Dem leader is . . . Al Gore
By: New Hampshire Union Leader
Jun 27, 2007 05:14 PM EST
Boston – A New Hampshire presidential poll by WHDH-TV and Suffolk University shows that local Democrats prefer Al Gore to any of the current contenders.
Hillary Clinton has a solid lead over the rest of the current Democratic field. The poll, released this afternoon, shows 37 percent of likely Democratic voters backing Clinton or leaning towards her. Barack Obama was at 19 percent, with both John Edwards and Bill Richardson at 9 percent.
Al Gore, however, could enter the race as the leader. When his name is added, Clinton loses more than a quarter of her support, while Gore is backed by 32 percent.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/28/2007 @ 12:47am
Have any of you hecklers here even bothered to look at the report? You are all saying (without showing any signs of having read the report), "This is worthless" or "The system is so bad we should not waste our energy trying to change it" or "What somebody else said reminds me of my favorite off-topic rant, which is blahbedy blah." Me, I plan to read the report before deciding whether it is good or bad or useful or useless or what.
Posted by peggyjane at 06/28/2007 @ 04:00am
Posted by PEGGYJANE 06/28/2007 @ 04:00am
I doubt it. Most here are hardwired to have a pre-conditioned response, for the most part, based on the source. Go check out the thread on SiCKO - the movie hasn't even been released yet!
Posted by Hman23 at 06/28/2007 @ 1:14pm