30 apr 2009
A 100 Days Genesis of "Marxist Dictatorship"
Fueled by the screeds of radio hosts Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and the lesser-known but increasingly influential online conspiracist Alex Jones, many gun-show attendees I spoke to were convinced Obama planned to usher in a Marxist dictatorship. They warned that the president’s power grab would only begin with mass gun seizures. “If Obama takes away our guns,” a young, .45 pistol-toting man from Reno told me, “it’s just a step into trying to take away everything else.”
Indeed, in their minds, average Americans opposed to the Obama agenda would be herded into FEMA-run concentration camps by a volunteer army of glassy-eyed liberal college graduates. “When they start imprisoning Americans, and people start seeing that we’re the enemy, then that’ll make it hot,” predicted one Antioch-based young man sporting a button for former Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul. “People talk about a revolution,” the young man continued, “an armed revolution. I think police crackdowns on individuals will tip the scales.”
More than a few gun dealers and attendees echoed the young man’s seeming enthusiasm for armed revolt. One Contra Costa, California-based gun dealer named Rich predicted during an otherwise casual off-camera conversation that “some nut” would assassinate Obama within one year of any Democratic attempt at gun-control legislation. While the prospect of organized right-wing violence against the federal government seems far-fetched at this point, the paranoid rhetoric I documented suggests the militia movement that organized against President Bill Clinton’s policies during the 1990s could experience a dramatic resurgence by mobilizing resentment against Obama.
If a new militia movement coalesces, its members will have no shortage of sophisticated assault weapons to choose from. At the gun show in Reno, I witnessed the sale of rocket-propelled-grenade launchers and bazooka guns; I watched a California-based dealer demonstrate how rapidly he could field strip his .308-caliber sniper rifle, then stash it in a deliberately innocuous-looking backpack and a briefcase that “looks just like a camera case.” Nearby, I interviewed another dealer retailing a brand of .50-caliber assault rifle that was banned in California because it could supposedly down an airplane. He told me by slightly altering the bullets his gun fired, and by converting the gun from semi-automatic to bolt-action, he was able to sell it in California once again.
Though big guns were the main attraction, a handful of retailers in Reno appealed to some visitors’ apparent enthusiasm for Nazi memorabilia. Swastika-emblazoned flags, photographs of Hitler and his henchmen, and anything related to the Third Reich were available at several booths. There was obviously no way to gauge the percentage of show attendees who adhered to the racist fringe, but the prominence of so much Nazi regalia suggested they maintained a significant presence. In fact, I learned about the gun shows I attended from a Web site that features a prominent banner ad for the Council of Conservative Citizens, America’s largest white-supremacist group.
On April 4, a neo-Nazi wannabe named Richard Poplawski murdered three Pittsburgh police officers with a high-powered assault rifle. By all accounts, Poplawski was an avid follower of right-wing talkers including Alex Jones and Glenn Beck who “grew angry recently over fears Obama would outlaw guns.”
In the wake of Poplawski’s massacre, the Department of Homeland Security issued a report warning of the mounting threat of “right-wing extremism.” “Heightened interest in legislation for tighter firearms control,” the DHS asserted, “may be invigorating right-wing extremist activity, specifically the white-supremacist and militia movements.” With its focus on right-wing gun culture, the report compounded the already palpable paranoia of gun-show enthusiasts. An organizer of the Antioch show told me the heightened specter of government scrutiny prompted numerous dealers to demand a total ban on cameras of any kind inside the show.
Even with the restriction in place at both shows I attended, I managed to record enough footage to provide what I think is a vivid journalistic report on gun culture mentality during the first 100 days of the Obama era. Was the DHS report on right-wing extremism credible? See my video report, “Gun Show Nation,” and judge for yourself.
29 apr 2009
24 apr 2009
23 apr 2009
22 apr 2009
Boycotting Geneva is unwise
Jewish students shout during the speech of Iranian president Ahmadinejad at the UN anti-racism conference.
Published: 20 April 2009
It is a pity that the Dutch government would rather boycott the UN anti-racism conference than engage in a debate about Zionism.
By Roel Schrijvers
Dutch foreign minister Maxime Verhagen said the UN anti-racism conference is "too important to be hijacked for political purposes" - and promptly withdrew from the conference. It was nicely put: the government comes off sounding so reasonable that you almost don't notice that it is being entirely unreasonable.
A bit of history is required. The closing resolution of the 2001 Durban conference was also widely criticised for being anti-Semitic. I have gone through its 63 pages in detail and there is nothing there that wasn't already established by the UN at some point: the Palestinians live in occupied territory and they have a right to self-determination. And all countries, including Israel, have a right to security.
What's more, the 2001 closing resolution was welcomed by Israel at the time. Shimon Peres, then president of Israel, called the statement "a very important achievement, an accomplishment of the first order for Israel and Israeli democracy".
The statements in the resolution were all correct. But even if they weren't: they form the basis of every two-state solution that has ever been proposed. In short: there was no reason not to sign it in 2001, and there is no reason not do so now.
As with every major anti-racism conference there are parties wanting to define Zionism as racism. It is often forgotten that the UN has already done this. A "Zionism is racism"-resolution was adopted by the UN general assembly in 1975. It was revoked in 1991 under pressure from the US, in part because the Madrid peace conference at the time brought hope of a lasting peace.
But there can be no question that Zionism is discriminating. In a nutshell, Zionists want a country with a Jewish identity that would be safe for Jews. There is nothing wrong with that except that implementing it is fraught with problems.
The facts go back some time, but they are important because they form the very basis of the organisation of the state of Israel.
In 1950 the development authority law was adopted, giving the Jewish National Fund property rights over 92 percent of the land - most of which was taken from its Palestinian owners - and making it the inalienable property of Jewish people worldwide. The final result of this law - combined with later laws - was that non-Jews are not allowed to buy, lease or work the land.
In 1952, Israel adopted the Jewish nationality law, offering Israeli citizenship and the Jewish nationality to all Jews (and only Jews) from the minute they set foot on Israeli soil. This distinction between citizenship and nationality is unique in the world. It is the legal basis for the institutionalised discrimination that gives Jews with the Jewish nationality access to privileges and services provided by the state of Israel.
That same year saw the creation of the Jewish Agency. Its task is to develop the country. Because of the nationality law thousands of Israeli citizens without the Jewish nationality were not eligible for a number of nationality-based privileges: they could not work on 'national' land, take part in 'national' housing schemes or apply for educational or agricultural grants.
On December 25, 1989, the Israeli supreme court ruled that a Jew who converts to another religion is no longer considered a Jew and is therefore excluded from the Jewish benefits that come with citizenship and nationality. The verdict was important because it underscored the legal basis for discrimination by equating nationality with religious persuasion.
Eleven days later, one of the supreme court judges confirmed that in Israeli society Zionism is preferred over other, universal values such as non-discrimination. "The essence of a Jewish state is to give pre-eminence to Jews as Jews. Anyone who asks, in the name of democracy, for equality to all its citizens - Jews and Arabs - must be rejected as one who negates the existence of the Israeli state as the state of the Jewish people," the judge declared on January 5, 1990. (From the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, cited in News from Within, April 3, 1991.)
Zionism comes down to the expropriation and marginalisation of non-Jews in general and Palestinian Arabs in particular. The state of Israel is a fact, but it is clear that Zionism and democracy are ultimately irreconcilable in the event that Jews should become a minority within the state of Israel. The logic of Zionism implies apartheid and discrimination and this is confirmed in practise.
That our government should refuse to engage in a debate about this is regrettable. Minister Verhagen is absolutely right when he says an anti-racism conference is too important to be hijacked for political purposes. He would do well to take a look in the mirror.
Roel Schrijvers is a lawyer specialised in international and European law at IUS-consult.
21 apr 2009
Schwarzenegger Opens California Fairgrounds to Homeless Camp
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said a make-shift tent city for the homeless that sprang up in the capital city of Sacramento will be shut down and its residents allowed to stay at the state fairgrounds.
Schwarzenegger said he ordered the state facility known as Cal-Expo to be used for three months to serve the 125 tent city residents, some of them displaced by the economic recession. The encampment may be shut down within a month, said Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson. The move comes after the Sacramento City Council last night agreed to spend $880,000 to expand homeless programs.
“Together with the local government and volunteers, we are taking a first step to ensure the people living in tent city have a safe place to stay, with fresh water, healthy conditions and access to the services they need,” Schwarzenegger said in a statement. “And I am committed to working with Mayor Johnson to find a permanent solution for those living in tent city.”
California, home to one of every eight Americans, has been particularly hard hit by the housing market collapse after many residents turned to exotic mortgages to afford homes. The tent city, which has long existed along the banks of the America River, gained national attention last month when some of its recently homeless residents were featured on the Oprah Winfrey Show.
The state has one of the highest rates of foreclosure, according to RealtyTrac Inc., an Irvine, California-based seller of real estate data. California home prices dropped 41 percent last month from a year earlier, more than double the U.S. decline, as surging foreclosures drove down values, the state Association of Realtors said today.
State Unemployment
The state’s unemployment rate rose to 10.5 percent in February, as construction, financial and manufacturing companies eliminated jobs, leaving the most-populous U.S. state with one of the nation’s worst job markets.
The shelter at Cal-Exp currently houses about 150 people. It will be expanded by another 50 beds, and will include facilities for families with children.
Dick Cheney slammed President Obama again
Former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed President Obama again on Monday night during an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity at Cheney's home in McLean, Virginia.
Cheney pointedly questioned the president's leadership, criticized Obama's overseas trips as "disturbing," said his handshake with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez was "not helpful," and strongly disagreed with the release of the torture memos.
"I've been concerned at the way we've been presented overseas... What I find disturbing is the extent to which he's gone to Europe and seemed to apologize profusely, been to Mexico and seemed to apologize there," said Cheney. "The world out there, both our friends and foes, will be quick to take advantage of that... I don't think we have much to apologize for."
Describing the Bush administration's policy as to "ignore" Chavez, Cheney said that Obama's handshake was "not helpful... You have people all across South America who are watching how we respond." He added, "The president needs to provide leadership... needs to distinguish between good [guys] and bad guys."
Finally, Cheney defended the use of waterboarding and other interrogation techniques, saying, "It worked. It's been enormously valuable in terms of saving lives and preventing another mass casualty attack on the US."
Cheney formally asked that the Obama administration to release what he claimed are memos that demonstrated the success of those techniques.
"One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn't put out the memos that showed the success of the effort," Cheney said.
While former President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have withheld comment on the new administration, Cheney has been outspoken in his criticism.
In his first TV interview last month with CNN's John King, Cheney said that Obama's policies had raised the risk of a domestic terrorist attack.
And the criticism doesn't seem to bother the president - during a February rally in Austin, Texas, Obama dismissed the former vice president, saying "When Dick Cheney says it's a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."
Did he have any problem with dictators all over the world during his 'service' in public office?
20 apr 2009
New Hope for Senator John McCain
First compound for receptors in schizophrenia and Alzheimer's holds promise
April 20th, 2009 in Medicine & Health / Research
For almost 20 years, pharmacological companies have known that certain compounds that activate two specific CNS receptors, causing them to release the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, are effective in treating the cognitive and motor problems related to both schizophrenia and Alzheimer's disease (AD).
But because the compounds are "dirty" - scientific lingo for a lack of selectivity - they activate not only the essential M1 and M 4 muscarinic receptors but also the other three members of the family, designated M2, M3 and M5, resulting in unacceptable gastrointestinal and other side effects.
That may soon change, thanks to the discovery of a truly selective agonist that targets only the M1 receptor, known to be central to cognition and thus implicated in diseases like AD and schizophrenia.
On April 20, speaking at the Experimental Biology 2009 meeting in New Orleans, Vanderbilt graduate student Evan Lebois in the laboratories of Dr. David Weaver and Dr. Craig Lindsley describes the complex, labor-intensive screening and discovery process that allowed Vanderbilt scientists to pinpoint what big pharma's computers and robots could not, and the process now underway to move the compound toward becoming an effective drug to treat AD and schizophrenia. The presentation is part of the scientific program of the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.
In stage one, the search for the appropriate molecule, Dr. David Weaver, director of the Vanderbilt Chemical Biology's High-Throughput Screening facility and co-director of the Molecular Library Screening Center, painstakingly ran high-throughput screens of every compound in the molecular library to see which ones activated the M1 receptor. Most such studies are done on computers with robots and automatic scoring mechanisms. By looking with his own eyes at the waveform reactions of every compound in the library, including those already rejected by the robotic systems, Dr. Weaver identified the molecule the scientists dubbed VU019467.
It was now time for stage two, and therefore the turn of Dr. Craig Lindsley, head of Medicinal Chemistry and Director of the Vanderbilt Specialized Chemistry Center for Accelerated Probe Development. His task was to create an effective probe compound.
"There is no point optimizing a molecule's potency in vitro if it turns out not to work in vivo," says Lindsley. His probe works in both. The team now is trying the compound in mouse and rat models of Alzheimer's and schizophrenia to determine what dose range restores the appropriate level of signaling through the targeted receptor. In addition, this compound provides a tool of unprecedented selectivity that will allow the researchers to tease apart the basic role of the M1 and M4 receptors in CNS function and disease states to degree that has never before been possible.
The team hopes that within a year they will have a compound ready to license to a pharmacological company that can continue with preclinical development and then onward to human trials.
Source: Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (news : web)
18 apr 2009
Keith Olbermann: "President Obama's Mistake"
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
16 apr 2009
Knaan talks with Davey D about the "truth behind the Somali Pirates"
Can anyone ever really be for piracy? Outside of sea bandits, and young girls fantasizing of Johnny Depp, would anyone with an honest regard for good human conduct really say that they are in support of Sea Robbery? Well in Somalia, the answer is: it's complicated. The news media these days has been covering piracy in the Somali coast, with such lopsided journalism that it's lucky they're not on a ship themselves. It's true that the constant hijacking of vessels in the Gulf of Aden is a major threat to the vibrant trade route between Asia and Europe. It is also true that for most of the pirates operating in this vast shoreline, money is the primary objective. But according to many Somalis, the disruption of Europe's darling of a trade route is just Karma biting a perpetrator in the butt. And if you don't believe in Karma, maybe you believe in recent history. Here is why we Somalis find ourselves slightly shy of condemning our pirates.
Somalia has been without any form of a functioning government since 1991. And despite its failures, like many other toddler governments in Africa, sprung from the wells of post-colonial independence, bad governance and development loan sharks, the specific problem of piracy was put in motion in 1992.
After the overthrow of Siyad Barre, our charmless dictator of twenty-some odd years, two major forces of the Hawiye Clan came to power. At the time, Ali Mahdi, and General Mohamed Farah Aidid, the two leaders of the Hawiye rebels were largely considered liberators. But the unity of the two men and their respective sub-clans was very short-lived. It's as if they were dumbstruck at the advent of ousting the dictator, or that they just forgot to discuss who will be the leader of the country once they defeated their common foe. A disagreement of who will upgrade from militia leader to Mr. President broke up their honeymoon. It's because of this disagreement that we've seen one of the most devastating wars in Somalia's history, leading to millions displaced and hundreds of thousands dead. But war is expensive and militias need food for their families, and Jaad (an amphetamine-based stimulant) to stay awake for the fighting. Therefore a good clan-based Warlord must look out for his own fighters. Aidid's men turned to robbing aid trucks carrying food to the starving masses, and reselling it to continue their war. But Ali Mahdi had his sights set on a larger and more unexploited resource, namely: the Indian Ocean.
Already by this time, local fishermen in the coastline of Somalia have been complaining of illegal vessels coming to Somali waters and stealing all the fish. And since there was no government to report it to, and since the severity of the violence clumsily overshadowed every other problem, the fishermen went completely unheard. But it was around this same time that a more sinister, a more patronizing practice was being put in motion. A Swiss firm called Achair Parterns, and an Italian waste company called Progresso, made a deal with Ali Mahdi, that they could dump containers of waste material in Somali waters. These European companies were said to be paying Warlords about $3 a ton, where as in to properly dispose of waste in Europe costs about $1000 a ton.
In 2004, after Tsunami washed ashore several leaking containers, thousand of locals in the Puntland region of Somalia started to complain of severe and previously unreported ailments, such as abdominal bleeding, skin melting off and a lot of immediate cancer-like symptoms. Nick Nuttall, a spokesman for the United Nations Environmental Program, says that the containers had many different kinds of waste, including "Uranium, radioactive waste, lead, cadmium, mercury and chemical waste." But this wasn't just a passing evil from one or two groups taking advantage of our unprotected waters, the UN Convoy for Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, says that the practice still continues to this day. It was months after those initial reports that local fishermen mobilized themselves, along with street militias, to go into the waters and deter the Westerners from having a free pass at completely destroying Somalia's aquatic life. Now years later, that deterance has become less noble, and the ex-fishermen with their militias have begun to develop a taste for ransom at sea. This form of piracy is now a major contributor to the Somali economy, especially in the very region that private toxic waste companies first began to bury our nation's death trap.
Now Somalia has upped the world's pirate attacks by over 21 percent in one year, and while NATO and the EU are both sending forces to the Somali coast to try and slow down the attacks, Blackwater and all kinds of private security firms are intent on cashing in. But while Europeans are well in their right to protect their trade interest in the region, our pirates were the only deterrent we had from an externally imposed environmental disaster. No one can say for sure that some of the ships they are now holding for ransom were not involved in illegal activity in our waters. The truth is, if you ask any Somali if they think getting rid of the pirates only means the continuous rape of our coast by unmonitored Western vessels, and the production of a new cancerous generation, we would all fly our pirate flags high.
It is time that the world gave the Somali people some assurance that these Western illegal activities will end, if our pirates are to seize their operations. We do not want the EU and NATO serving as a shield for these nuclear waste-dumping hoodlums. It seems to me that this new modern crisis is a question of justice, but also a question of whose justice. As is apparent these days, one man's pirate is another man's coast guard.
Pointer has some questions:
- It's a story and it can be believed, but think about it. Why should criminals be dumping waste from Europe over the wall near the coast of Somalia? The Atlantic Ocean is not that far away and if there is that less control they can dump it into the Atlantic depth of 400-4500 meters.
- Why do they attack other ships than the "bunch of ships" there are with criminal intent, illegal dumping or fishing alike?
- Why is illegal practice never reported and why did the pirates never catch an illegal ship?
13 apr 2009
The President Who Told The TRUTH
Unfortunately the source of this video is terribly suspected, because this Jones-figure is the King of Conspiritists (endorsing John McCain), but mind the JFK-part.
11 apr 2009
Geithner on Meet The Press
Geithner on importance of bank lending
Geithner explains banking plan
Geithner reacts to Krugman's critique
Geithner on handling AIG bonuses
Geithner: Staffing Treasury a priority
Geithner: We will emerge stronger
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Geithner explains banking plan
Geithner reacts to Krugman's critique
Geithner on handling AIG bonuses
Geithner: Staffing Treasury a priority
Geithner: We will emerge stronger
Religious Right Group Claims Same Sex Marriage Leads to Mass Murder
http://www.alternet.org/story/135997/
Is there a connection between same-sex marriage and mass murder?
That's what one religious right outfit is suggesting. This week, Morality in Media disseminated a statement noting that the Iowa Supreme Court had legalized gay marriage on the same day that a gunman murdered 13 people in Binghamton, New York. The headline on the release: "Connecting the Dots: The Line Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders." The group's president, Bob Peters, notes that the "underlying problem is that increasingly we live in a 'post-Christian' society, where Judeo-Christian faith and values have less and less influence." And, he continues, this "secular value system is also reflected in the 'sexual revolution,' which is the driving force behind the push for 'gay marriage.'"
Here's the punch line:
It most certainly is not my intention to blame the epidemic of mass murders on the gay rights movement! It is my intention to point out that the success of the sexual revolution is inversely proportional to the decline in morality; and it is the decline of morality (and the faith that so often under girds it) that is the underlying cause of our modern day epidemic of mass murders.
That is, he's not saying that gay rights activists are directly responsible for the murderous actions of gun-toting madmen. But Peters maintains that those who champion gay rights are undermining the moral fiber of society and that this assault on traditional values creates an environment in which killing sprees can more easily occur. These acts of gun violence, he insists, are the poisoned fruit of the push for gay marriage.
Talk about exploiting tragedy to advance an agenda. It might be tempting to dismiss Peters and Morality in Media as marginal, but this group did receive federal funding from 2005 through 2007. The money supported a Morality in Media project, ObscenityCrimes.org, which paid two retired law enforcement officers to review citizen complaints about obscenity on the Internet and to forward the best leads to the US Justice Department for possible prosecution. A total of $300,000 was provided to Morality in Media through two earmarks Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) placed into spending bills, according to Peters. And a portion of that money went to cover Peters' salary. As The New York Times reported in 2007, no obscenity prosecutions had resulted from the Morality in Media's obscenity-tracking work.
Peters tells me that since 2007 -- thanks to the fuss about earmarks -- he has received no more funds from the US government. After the earmarked grants ran out in 2007, he did apply directly to the Justice Department and was turned down. Since then, he has raised private funds to keep ObscenityCrimes.org going. That may be for the best -- particularly for Morality in Media. Peters has recently attacked President Barack Obama's pick for deputy attorney general, David Ogden, as an "ACLU-minded" sort who would "likely weaken" government efforts "to curb sexual trafficking and sexual exploitation of children." It would be difficult -- or, at least, awkward -- for Peters to blast a Justice Department that was funding his own work.
In his statement on gay marriage and mass murder, Peters notes that Christianity and Judaism teach "that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves and to forgive others." But on the subject of gay marriage, he does seem to have a rather unforgiving approach.
David Corn is the Washington bureau chief of Mother Jones and the co-author of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War and is the author of The Lies of George W. Bush. He writes a blog at davidcorn.com.
10 apr 2009
Limbaugh Lashed By Caller
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
[TRANSCRIPT.]
LIMBAUGH: We're going to go to Chicago. This is Charles. Charles thank you for waiting and for calling. Great to have you here. Hello.
CALLER: Thanks Rush. Rush listen, I voted Republican and I really didn't want to see Obama get in office. But you know Rush, you're one reason to blame for this election, for the Republicans losing. First of all, you kept harping about voting for Hillary. The second big issue was the torture issue. I'm a veteran. We're not supposed to be torturing these people. This is not Nazi Germany, Red China, North Korea. There's other ways of interrogating people, and you just kept harping about, it's okay, or it's not really torture. And it was just more than waterboarding. Some of these prisoners will killed under torture.
And it was crazy for you to go on and on like Levin and Hannity and Hewitt. It's like you're all brainwashed. And my last comment is, no matter what Obama does, you will still criticize him because I believe you are brainwashed. You're just -- and I hate to say it -- but I think you're a brainwashed Nazi. Anyone who can believe in torture has got to be -- there has got to be something wrong with them.
LIMBAUGH: You know --
CALLER: And I know Bush wanted to keep us safe and all of that but we're not supposed to be torturing these people.
LIMBAUGH: Charles, if anybody is admitting that they are brainwashed it would be you.
CALLER: No, no, Rush. I don't think so. You, Hannity, and Levin are all brainwashed --
LIMBAUGH: Charles, you said at the beginning of your phone call that you didn't want Obama in there. But you voted for him because of me.
CALLER: I didn't vote for him. I voted for McCain. I voted Republican.
LIMBAUGH: Oh, so you're saying I turned people off --
CALLER: You turned people off with all this vote for Hillary and all this BS.
LIMBAUGH: That was Operation Chaos. That was to keep the chaos in the Democrat primaries --
CALLER: It didn't work and what we have with you Hannity Levin and Hewitt is sour grapes. That's all we have. And believe me, I'm not -- I'm more to the right than I am to the left.
LIMBAUGH: Oh, of course you are.
CALLER: I am.
LIMBAUGH: Of course you are. You wouldn't be calling here with all of these sour grapes if you weren't.
CALLER: Well I'm tired of listening to go on and on with this --
LIMBAUGH: I don't know of anybody who died from torture.
CALLER: We're not supposed to torture people. Do you remember World War II, the Nazis? The Nuremburg trials?
LIMBAUGH: Charles, Barack Obama --
CALLER: What's the matter with you? You never even served in the military. I served in the Marine Corps and the Army.
LIMBAUGH: Charles, Barack Obama is president of the United States today because of stupid, ignorant people who think like you do. You pose - you and your ignorance are the most expensive commodity this country has. You think you know everything. You don't know diddly squat. You call me a Nazi? You call me someone who supports torture and you want credibility on this program? You're just plan embarrassing and ludicrous. But it doesn't surprise me that you're the kind of Republican that our last candidate attracted. Because you're no Republican at all based on what the hell you just said right here.
9 apr 2009
Jon Stewart Slams Hannity, Bachmann, And Beck
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | |||
| Baracknophobia - Obey | ||||
| ||||
I love watching Jon Stewart shred right-wingers and their sour grape-fueled conspiracy theories, especially when it involves the idiocy espoused by FOX blowhards Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. It is astounding though to see the these shock jocks do a complete 180 from when Bush was in power, back when they labeled you unpatriotic simply for criticizing the President.
Stewart: Yes, tyranny. A.K.A. our democratically elected President. You know what guys....I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing. And I feel for you because ah...I've been there. A few times. In fact one of them was a bit of a nail biter. But see, when the guy that you disagree with gets elected, he's probably going to do things you disagree with. He could cut taxes on the wealthy. Remove government's oversight capability. Invade a country that you thought should not be invaded but that's not tyranny. That's democracy. See now you're in the minority. It's supposed to taste like a s#%t taco. And by the way, if I remember correctly when a disagreement was expressed about that President's actions when ya'll were in power I believe the response was "Why do you hate America?". "Watch what you say." "Love it or leave it." "Suck on my truck nuts." ..... For god's sake guys. You've been out of power for ten f*%#ng weeks. You've got a mid-term election in twenty months. Pace your rage!
Triple Toppled Traffic
A German woman was involved in three car accidents in less than an hour that left a total of seven vehicles damaged but she suffered only slight injuries from the series of mishaps, police said Tuesday.
The 69-year-old woman from Berlin first crashed into three cars while trying to pull out of a supermarket car park on the Baltic resort island of Usedom.
Then, she accidentally stepped on the accelerator and sped across a lawn before crashing into a nearby house, police said. She was taken to hospital in an ambulance but that vehicle was then hit by a truck.
"She was actually fortunate that no one was seriously hurt in any of the accidents," said Zinnowitz police spokesman Axel Falkenberg. "The accidents were a little bit like dominoes toppling."
8 apr 2009
7 apr 2009
Source: AlterNet.orgBig bankers ruined our economy and now they are gaming the political system so they can profit even more off the crisis they caused. They must be stopped.
On April 11th, 2009, the public will come out in cities across the country to express their frustration and disapproval with how our elected officials have handled the economic crisis. No one has been left unscathed; this protest is yours.
***
Tiffiniy Cheng, 29, never imagined she'd spark a populist movement influenced by a former IMF banker. Three weeks ago Cheng and her co-founding partners launched A New Way Forward, a volunteer-run website that advocates for a new approach to bank bailouts and is organizing a nationwide protest on April 11. Cheng and her friends are not new to online organizing. In 2006, some of them launched OpenCongress.org, a nonpartisan website that lets people track the legislation in Congress, and Downhill Battle, a music activism website, but they never had a burning desire to study and reform the financial system. Then, as 350 billion of taxpayer money went to the same CEOs who helped bring the global economic system down, Cheng and her friends, as many in America, became angry. Why reward the same people who broke the system, they asked.
On February 19, the co-founders of A New Way Forward heard Simon Johnson, the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), interviewed on PBS's Bill Moyers Journal argue for an alternative bailout plan. Until recently, Johnson spent 20 years at the IMF working on international bank bailouts, among other things. Dissatisfied with the current bailout process, he decided to show his ex-colleagues at the IMF the balance sheets of some of America's leading banks receiving bailouts (concealing their names). Every one of his former colleagues gave a similar prescription: Recovery will fail unless Americans break up the financial oligarchy. In the short term, that means the failing banks would have to be temporarily taken over by the government, cleaned up, broken up and sold off in the private markets. The board members and CEOs of those banks would have to be fired and replaced. This contradicts the administration's current plan.
In an appearance on NPR's Fresh Air, host Terry Gross asked Johnson why the government hadn't fired the current CEOs. He argued that the American government allowed banks become too big and powerful through lax regulation. When banks grow too big and become major financial supporters of politicians, it becomes much harder to fire them Johnson explained.
Three weeks later, Cheng and her five activist partners launched A New Way Forward as both a platform to advocate for the bailout plan offered by Johnson and other independent economists and an online organizing tool to protest the current plan. In the first three weeks, 8,000 people of all ages signed up to participate in protests planned in over 55 cities. WireTap talked to Tiffiniy Cheng to find out why A New Way Forward thinks a different bailout plan is urgent and why these online organizers decided to protest on the streets this time.
WireTap: Let's start with the basics. Why did you and your partners decide to launch a New Way Forward initiative?
Tiffiniy Cheng: The [bank] bailouts were just on everybody's minds and on my own. Watching all of the bailouts go to the banks and bankers has been so frustrating, because they are a part of the reason why this system has been broken. Once I saw Simon Johnson on Bill Moyers Journal and heard a clear strategy that had the public interest in mind, we wanted to do something. It seemed that Obama and Congress didn't have enough political independence from the financial industry to actually push forward policies that were in the public interest. It seemed to us that there is a sound policy we can all rally around that had our interest in mind.
Is your agenda mostly informed by Simon Johnson?
Yes, a lot of our thinking comes from what Simon Johnson, but also what James Kwak, George Akerlof, and Robert Shiller have written about. I think Paul Krugman is also pretty influential. And we started working on this campaign when both [Paul] Bernanke and [Nouriel] Roubini came out and said that we might need to take a different course. That nationalization [of the banks] would probably be a good thing in their view. We are drawing ideas from expert opinion for sure. We are looking at all of the people who are talking about a way we can get out of this economic crisis in a way that will allow us to build a healthier economy, and a healthier free market where the bottom is allowed to prosper. We are looking at any economist or any leader in Congress who is talking about the policies that will affect the working class people as well.
What is your agenda?
First, nationalize the banks. That means temporary FDIC [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation that guarantees the safety of deposits in the U.S. banks] intervention. FDIC can help to clear the balance sheets of any bank that is failing and has needed the bail out money.
To clarify, right now, it's still the bank board members and the CEOs who are deciding how the money is going to be spent, right?
They are not only deciding, the current plan allows them to privatize the cost of the bail out, and socialize the cost. We are saying the government should be getting something back.
To clarify, another way to describe this is if the banks fail, taxpayers pay for it. If the banks succeed, they take the profits, correct?
Exactly. We are giving them the money with no strings attached.
The second point on your agenda calls to reorganize the current banking system--what do you mean by that?
We think that the government and any future regulatory agency needs political independence from the current powerful financial industry. We are saying that if the government cleans up their balance sheets, other banks should be able to come in and build a new banking system with new rules in place.
And the final point of your agenda is decentralize--what does that mean?
Regulation. We don't want to see any bank that is allowed to grow so big, again, that they can take down the entire economy ["too big to fail"]. The people in power for the past 20 years have eroded most anti trust laws that would make it so that financial industry aren't allowed to make complex financial instruments that create a web of influence that can take down the country. We don't want to see monopolistic behaviors. We don't think that financial industry should be able to play around with consumers' money in such a frivolous way. We need a healthy free market and the best way to do that is to allow for a new, smaller banking industry grow to a healthy level without creating this web of connections.
One of the key points that Simon Johnson made on the Fresh Air program, I think, was that when a similar banking crisis happened in Sweden, at some point, the government had to "face down the big bankers" and tell them that they screwed up and will be replaced by other CEOs and board members. And he was implying that the American Banks are so big and powerful and contribute so much money to politicians that the elected officials are not standing up to them right now. So, does that relate to your point about why we don't want to let any banks get this big and powerful?
Right. It's what missing from the conversation. There is this also this human factor that is involved. When your friend gives you a $100 as a political contribution to your campaign, you still want to take care of them. And that's what's happening at the highest levels of government right now. We have an ex-lobbyist for Goldman Sachs [Mark Patterson] as chief of staff for Timothy Geithner, and that's actually breaking a restriction that Obama was going to have. He wasn't going to have any lobbyists serve in his cabinet, but they made an exception for the chief of staff of Geithner. The "reorganize part" [of our agenda] is essential to seeing policies that don't favor the banks over the public.
What do you say to some young people, who maybe skeptical about street protesting? Why not just use online organizing instead?
I think there are lots of online organizing tools that are yet to be made, but this is a moment to come out and show that the public can be organized around serious ideas, and show Obama that there is political viability to publicly entrusted policies.... I think that showing up at a protest is one of the strongest forms of our political expression. We are glad that the technology allows us to organize something like that. I'm really sick of just signing a lot of petitions online. I do think that showing up at a protest or anything else is still the most potent way to express our political power.
Do you hope that something will happen immediately after these protests?
I think that because we are so well organized and we are seeing so much public support for serious reform ideas that the government can't do anything but listen to everyone. We are saying, 'We don't get to have private meetings with you Pres. Obama and Congress, but you have to listen to us because we are strong in numbers. We are asking for something concrete--for real structural change that we can believe in.'
What are some experiences in your life that impacted your work and politicized you?
I see a huge difference between people who are engaged and not engaged. Not just in politics, but in life in general--about their job, or some event, or idea.... And I think the thing that makes a difference is how open the system is and shows an individual that their efforts are effective and create change....
Seeing my family being less engaged. I was able to enjoy school.... They never had the opportunities that I had. They always had to think about surviving. We were immigrants to this county.... Learning about my own family history and learning about the different political movements that were here before I was even born showed the power of politics. Being political is one of the most powerful ways to live, I think. My parents have always been very poor, but were always impacted by politics.
My grandparents were the victims of the largest famine in the world, which happened in China. And my father was an orphan. And my mother was very poor too, and her parents just died from overwork. We were also affected by the Vietnam war, and I was born in Macau [China] in a refugee camp. And we were then sponsored to come to this country. So, all of that makes me value being political. Seeing a system like ours that can alleviate some poverty makes me want to do something. But when you have excessive growth at the corporate level, you really see a distortion of our political system, and our economy.
How so?
Then the corporations just have so much money and so many connections to the political system. Then they are allowed to influence some of the most important decisions. There are some people who have a bunch of political power because of the money they are allowed to make. And then there is the public that can never gain that much political power individually.
What is one thing that you are hoping that could happen right away? What does success look like?
Independent regulatory body that enforces antitrust laws. I think we could help create a bill in Congress that revisits some of our strongest regulatory policies that we had in the country twenty years ago and that could prevent the financial industry from going out of control again. Some of these things are sort of happening, but there isn't enough energy around it. Some people are talking about and making a few gestures, but no one is putting enough energy to really push it through. I hope we can push our representatives to make those kinds of policies happen.
*******
To learn more about A New Way Forward, visit their site.
Click here to watch Simon Johnson speak on PBS's Bill Moyers Journal.
To learn more about the bailout recepients click here.
6 apr 2009
Colin Powell talks with Rachel Maddow
POWELL ON AFGHANISTAN
RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: First of all, General Powell, happy birthday. I know that you have a birthday this week.
GEN. COLIN POWELL, (RET), FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: And yours is today so happy birthday to you.
|
POWELL: Yeah.
MADDOW: I have to ask you: When you look at President Obama abroad, trying to make the case for Afghanistan to our allies this week—Secretary Clinton at The Hague trying to do the same—I wonder if you wish you were back there. If you wish that you were there too.
POWELL: No. You know, I have been to so many summits in the course of my career and had so many meetings in The Hague and Brussels and elsewhere, that I have no feelings that I want to be there. But I surely hope that their work is successful. I hope that they're able to mobilize our NATO and other European allies to understand that the risk in Afghanistan is not just a risk to Afghanistan and Pakistan, it’s a risk to Europe, it’s a risk to the rest of the world, because we cannot allow al Qaeda to grow in an environment of chaos in that part of the world. We can't allow Pakistan to fail. And we don't want Afghanistan to fail. So I hope the president and Secretary Clinton and my other colleague, Secretary Gates, my friends, will be able to make that case to our friends over there so that they will do more.
MADDOW: The Powell Doctrine, part of the Powell Doctrine is that military campaigns should employ decisive force and that there should be a way out. In year eight of the war in Afghanistan, as we're making these continued overtures to allies now, it doesn't seem like that is the game plan. I wonder if you think that the Afghanistan-Pakistan situation is something to which the Powell Doctrine should not apply.
POWELL: I think the Powell Doctrine is pretty good military strategy and I'm proud to have a doctrine named after me that really is classic military thought. Decide what you are trying to achieve politically and if it can't be achieved through political and diplomatic and economic means, and you have to use military force, then make sure you know exactly what you're using the military force for and then apply it in a decisive manner.
The president, I think, has laid out a very comprehensive plan in his statement last week about Afghanistan, and it looks like every single issue and every itch has been scratched. We need more troops, we need more civilians, we need more economic assistance to both Afghanistan and Pakistan and he understands the centrality of Pakistan to the situation in Afghanistan.
Now, the means he's applying to it—21,000 more troops, hundreds more civilians, a billion and a half dollars a year to Pakistan—is that enough? Is that decisive? I don't know the answer to that question because even the greatest of all strategists must take into account the presence of an enemy.
There is somebody on the other side who is going through their own analysis—Leaders of al Qaeda, leaders of the Taliban. And I don't know enough about that situation to know what level of force is really necessary to be able to say, “We now control Afghanistan and, working with the Pakistanis, the Pakistanis now control those tribal areas.” We don't know how this plan will execute yet. And it's going to be a long-term prospect. There should be no illusions that this is suddenly going to be a surge that produces results by the end of the year.
And your question was: How does it all end up? I think, ultimately, it ends up with America and NATO and the UN all coming together to help the Afghans put together a security force that can provide security to the country so that it isn't going to take American and NATO troops forever to be there. And, if that can be the case, that we have security forces built up to the point where they can manage security and a government that's functioning and that has control throughout the country. That would be a success. We could start to come home.
But the other half of that, which makes it more complicated in recent months, is the situation in Pakistan. Because if Pakistan remains a sanctuary, a place where al Qaeda and the Taliban can regroup and get recruits, then that isn't going to solve the problem. And American troops aren't going to go into Pakistan. We have to work with the Pakistanis so they can bring that problem under control.
MADDOW: You were Secretary of State when the Afghanistan War started. Can you tell us about conversations that you had with President Bush or Vice President Cheney or even Donald Rumsfeld about winning the peace in Afghanistan? Was that a major agenda item? Was that a central area of focus?
POWELL: It was an area of focus and our principal task, even though it's been, I think, missed in recent reporting. We went in there and after we got rid of the Taliban government because they wouldn't turn over al Qaeda, we then focused on going after al Qaeda and the Taliban. And we were having donor conferences. And I chaired one and went to Tokyo and chaired one to get the kinds of funds for reconstruction that they're now trying to do in The Hague. And so we were not unmindful of the need for reconstruction or unmindful of the need for a stable government. We helped Mr. Karzai become president and take over and we began the process of building the Afghan security forces. But we did not eliminate al Qaeda. We did not eliminate the Taliban. Could we have if we had more forces? That will be discussed and debated for years to come.
MADDOW: On the issue of development assistance in Afghanistan, Secretary Clinton has essentially said in recent weeks that the initial reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan were wasted, that that money didn't go to reconstruct the country in a way that we should consider to have been effective, both because of just inappropriate—because of corruption, and also because an unfocused approach to the problem. Do you disagree?
POWELL: I can't agree with her that it was wasted and the characterization that was made of it was all wasted. Roads were built. Schools were built. A government was created. A military force was created. It needs to be made much larger, but there is a military force there now. A police force, which has problems but, nevertheless, we did something to get it started. We helped millions of refugees who were living in camps in Pakistan come back to Afghanistan.
And so I think there were problems in the aid effort, and we can do a better job. I cannot go along with the assessment that it was all wasted. And in fact, when we started our aid efforts in that part of the world, and we were also providing funds to Pakistan, we needed Pakistan in order to be able to conduct our operations in Afghanistan. And so a lot of that money went to assist the Pakistani military to help us and build them up. And some went to—I spent a lot of time with President Musharraf and his team at that time, going over textile quotas and debt relief and other things to get the Pakistani economy going again. And so I think the money wasn't totally wasted, as some have characterized it, either in Afghanistan or in Pakistan.
MADDOW: Did Pakistan spend the money well once they got it?
POWELL: I don't think you can say they spent every dollar well, but I do know that they were investing in their educational system. They did things with their military. But I cannot account for every single dollar, nor do I have the order trail on every single dollar.
POWELL ON TORTURE
|
POWELL: They were not play-by-play discussed but there were conversations at a senior level as to what could be done with respect to interrogation. I cannot go further because I don't have knowledge of all the meetings that took place or what was discussed at each of those meetings and I think it's going to have to be the written record of those meetings that will determine whether anything improper took place.
But it was always the case that, at least from the State Department's standpoint, we should be consistent with the requirements of the Geneva Convention. And that's why this was such a controversial, controversial issue. But you’ll have to go, and in due course I think we all will go, to the written record of what memos were signed. I'm not sure what memos were signed or not signed. I didn't have access to all of that information.
MADDOW: If there was a meeting, though, at which senior officials were saying, were discussing and giving the approval for sleep deprivation, stress positions, water boarding, were those officials committing crimes when they were giving that authorization?
POWELL: You’re asking me a legal question. I mean I don't know that any of these items would be considered criminal. And I will wait for whatever investigations that the government or the Congress intends to pursue with this.
MADDOW: There have been two Bush administration officials now who have said explicitly that what we did at Guantanamo was torture. One of them was the State Department general counsel for Guantanamo litigation, a man named Vijay—excuse me—Padmanabhan.
POWELL: I don't know him.
MADDOW: Also Susan Crawford, who heads up the military tribunals at Guantanamo. Both have said it was torture. Do you think that they are wrong? Do you feel like you have enough information to know if people were waterboarded? Is that torture?
POWELL: I will let those who are making the legal determination of that make that judgment. Susan Crawford has made a statement and she is in a position of authority to make such a statement, has access to all of the information. The lawyer you mentioned who is working in, I guess, the legal advisor's office in the State Department, but I don't believe I know him, has made statements recently. What's the basis for his statements and what meetings he was in and whether he was in Guantanamo, I just don't know.
MADDOW: I guess have to ask that—just a broader question about whether or not you have regrets, not about what the Bush administration did broadly in the years that you were Secretary of State, but the decisions that you participated in about interrogation, about torture, about the other things.
POWELL: We had no meetings on torture. It’s constantly said that the meetings—I had an issue with this—we had meetings on what torture to administer. What I recall, the meetings I was in—I was not in all of the meetings and I was not an author of many of the memos that have been written (and some have come out, some have not come out). The only meetings I recall were where we talked about what is it we can do with respect to trying to get information from individuals who were in our custody. And I will just have to wait until the full written record is available and has been examined.
MADDOW: I don't mean to press you on this to the point of discomfort but there is an extent to which there is a legal discussion around this where everybody feels a little constrained by the legal terms and whether or not they are a legal professional. There is also the policy implications that you've been so eloquent about, in terms of what the implications are of these policies for the U.S. abroad in a continuing way. And you've been very optimistic in thinking that America still has a reservoir of good will around the world that we can call on regardless of these difficulties that we've had around these issues.
If specific interrogation techniques were being approved by people at the political level in the Cabinet, it doesn't—the legal niceties of it almost become less important.
POWELL: I don't know where these things were being approved at a political level.
MADDOW: If there was a Principals Meeting at the White House to discuss interrogation techniques?
POWELL: It does not mean it was approved, anything was approved, at a meeting.
MADDOW: OK.
POWELL: It depends on did the meeting end up in a conclusion or was it just a briefing that then went to others to make a final decision on and to document. And so it is a legal issue and I think we have to be very careful and I have to be very careful because I don't want to be seen as implicating anybody or accusing anybody because I don't have the complete record on this. And that complete record I think in due course will come out.
POWELL ON REPUBLICAN BUDGET PROPOSAL
|
POWELL: Well, you know, I've never seen a spending freeze work. I have heard it trotted out many, many—what are you going to freeze, Social Security benefits? What are you going to freeze, the growth of Medicare payments? Veterans—no increase in disability amounts for veterans? Are you going to freeze the Defense Department?
You can't freeze a government as large as ours with a budget of $1.5 trillion. And so, if somebody actually froze everything, then it would freeze our development assistance.
I'm proud to say that in the Republican administration I worked in, President Bush's first term, we doubled the amount of development assistance. We quadrupled the amount going to our African brothers and sisters. And we created a program to fight HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases that went up to $15 billion. And that passed in Congress, both Democrats and Republicans.
So I hope my Republican friends don't go too far with this spending freeze idea because I don't think it works. It's not really practical.
MADDOW: Are you still a Republican?
POWELL: I am a Republican, yes. But I'm also an American citizen. And I try to make my political judgments on what I think is best for the country.
POWELL ON GUANTANAMO
|
POWELL: I was aware that people were being picked up on the battlefield and there was sufficient cause at the point of pickup—when they were interviewed by the GIs or the Afghans who turned them over to us or Pakistanis who turned them over to us—there was sufficient cause for them to be detained, either in Afghanistan or sent to Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay was a good solution initially because it was separate from the United States and we could sort our way through these people. But over time, it became clear that many of the people we picked up in Guantanamo Bay, we really couldn’t link them to terrorist activity. And as a result, many of them have been released. We're down to a number of 200 or so, but at one time, it was up to 7 or 800. Well, where’d they go? They were released over time as any intelligence value they might have was determined and no more intelligence value (INAUDIBLE: to go?).
We also picked up teenagers who, after a while—these people can't be responsible for anything or guilty of anything. We picked up one gentleman who was 93 years old who ended up there. And we said, "Fellows, come on, we got to send this guy back." And so we worked that population down over time but…
MADDOW: Was there initial resistance to those claims that—was there an internal debate about whether the 13-year-old boy, whether the 93-year-old man, should be released?
POWELL: Yes. Yes and we pressed on it and there were discussions about these issues sometimes down to the individual case. And ultimately, cases as obvious as that, the old man and the teenagers, they were resolved and they were sent back home.
MADDOW: Who was fighting to keep those people in?
POWELL: There were people who wondered whether or not they still had some intelligence value even if they were 93-years-old or 13—did they know something about it or were they involved? And it was not a trivial matter to make sure that if somebody did know something about it, you find out about it, regardless of age or anything else, because you have to remember the post-9/11 environment. America and its leaders wanted to make sure that something like that didn't happen again. But we found, over time, that a lot of people had been swept up and that you couldn't pass the test of them actually being combatants or a danger if they were released. And so they were released. And now we're down to a much smaller population of a couple of hundred and you’ll have to work, we’ll have to work our way through those.
I, for one, have advocated the closing of Guantanamo not only since I left the position as Secretary, but while I was Secretary, because I thought there were other ways to handle this in our civilian court system, with military courts-martial or through the Federal court system. And I felt we were paying too high a price for Guantanamo in terms of the public opinion around the world we were losing. And frankly, the moral basis of our fight against terror was being undercut by Guantanamo and all the people who could point to Guantanamo and say: "Is this justice? People have been there four, five, six, now seven years. How long do you plan to keep them without doing something about it?" And so I have always been one for doing something about Guantanamo. And now President Obama says he's going to have it closed by the end of the year.
It doesn't mean they're all going to get released. Some of them are really really bad. Well let's put them in our court system. We've got two million people in jail in this country. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. All of them had lawyers. All of them had access to the writ of habeas corpus and courts found them guilty and put them in jail. And I'm confident that even although evidence may be not adequate or even tainted in some cases, as we know, I have confidence in our Federal court system to handle it.
POWELL ON THE "GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR"
|
POWELL: I don't think I ever used it very much. I just referred to terrorism. We have a concept called terrorism and we have terrorists. Now let's get the terrorists. And there are many ways to go after them. You can go after them through police activity, through intelligence activity, by drying up the ponds in which they emerge, and lots of ways. And when you called it not only the "War on Terror" but the "Global War on Terror," it took a connotation that this is a war that somehow will be won someday. But we've had terrorism throughout history and we'll continue to have terrorism in the future. We have to make sure that we are defending ourselves well and that we are going after terrorists and the sources of terrorism. And the sources of terrorism, you attack not just with armies and police forces, but with more increases in development assistance and foreign assistance funding so we can help people understand that if you stay away from this kind of activity, America will help you build an economy, create a democracy, alleviate poverty, give you clean water, help you, and dry up these ponds from which terrorists emerge from time to time.
POWELL ON DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL
MADDOW: Do you think that—do you still think that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is necessary for good order and discipline in the military? You have discussed the idea that it should be reviewed.
Would you support the move if Congress decided to get rid of that policy?
POWELL: If Congress decided to get rid of the policy and if the military leaders of the armed forces are a part of that, of course I would. And if the president decided to do it, I would support the president.
|
But it's 15 years later. A lot has changed. Attitudes have changed. And so I think this is a time to review that policy and review it before congressional committees to see if a change of law is now appropriate. I am withholding judgment because I am not the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff anymore. And I think we have to hear from our senior military leaders about the effect of a change in the law would have on the force. And if they came forward and said, "Let's do away with it," or, "Let's modify it or change it," that would mean a lot to me in terms of my point of view.
But ultimately it's going to have to go before the Congress as a law to be changed, not a policy to be changed.
MADDOW: The examples of other countries that have successfully integrated openly gay people into their forces, are those good reference points for that sort of a study?
POWELL: Those are reference points that have to be taken into account, sure. I would study every one of those cases. Many of them have happened since 1993, with a number of countries, and I think all of those should be looked at. I don't think, however, the armed force of the United States is the same as the armed force of one of our European friends or Canadian friends. And therefore as the courts have held traditionally over the years, and the Congress has as well, the military is a unique institution with rules and regulations and a way of living in close proximity with other soldiers—and you're told whom you're going to live with—that the military can have a set of regulations and rules that would not pass any kind of legal or constitutional muster if it was in civilian society. And so I think because it is the quality of the force and the ability of the force to apply the nation's power wherever it's called upon to do so, we have to be careful when we change this policy.
But if the military leaders think that enough time has passed since 1993 that we ought to take a look at this and perhaps change the policy, I'll be completely supportive. I'm not going to make a judgment until I hear from the chiefs.
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)
