Mitt Romney: Certified and Dangerous Chickenhawk/Prevaricator

It would be hypocritical for those who spoke out in favor of the Vietnam War to have taken multiple steps to avoid going to Vietnam as a member of the military. Yet this was the situation of young Mitt Romney, pro-Vietnam War but unwilling to go there, and then he spins a wild lie in an attempt to cover his tracks. That is the news story told by Steve Benen at the Maddow Blog:

Many years later, in 1994, Romney said, "It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft." That wasn't true -- he took several steps to remove himself from the eligibility pool.
Romney is certainly not the first chickenhawk to run vie for high political office. We've seen it before, and every time I see it, it reminds me of the words of Chris Hedges (who wrote War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning), and I think to myself, "If he had fought in a war he wouldn't be nearly so willing to start yet another war." To me, the word "chickenhawk" is not a mainly an insult because I can respect the fact that people avoid going to war. To me, the importance of the term is that it refers to a dangerous psychological profile of many people who seek powerful political positions. It refers to a type of reaction formation. It is a common tactic of those who are willing to sacrifice American soldiers so that they can feel a psuedo-manly inner glow. The fact that one is a certified chickenhawk, as Mitt Romney is, should disqualify him for office. American voters just don't seem to "get it," however. We should run from politicians who bellow pro-war platitudes after having avoided war. What kind of candidate would be trustworthy on matters of war? Those who actually fought, or equally, those who avoided war when of military age and continue to avoid war now.

Continue ReadingMitt Romney: Certified and Dangerous Chickenhawk/Prevaricator

Hypothetical Olympian dilemma

People all over the country are parking in front of their TV's for many hours every night to watch sports that they couldn't care less about most of the year. The Olympics are extremely compelling for many of us. People are talking about the Olympics all across America, mostly sharing observations about the sports where Americans are competitive. It all seems very important, and you can tell this by the way earnest look on the faces of people who discuss the Olympics. But what if a magic being appeared before you tonight and offered you the following option: [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingHypothetical Olympian dilemma

Another day, another BS U.S. drone strike story

Yesterday I spotted another one the many U.S. drone strike stories--the story I read was published by MSNBC. These stories are incredibly predictable: U.S. drones launched an attack that killed a group of people from the Middle East who are presumed to be bad people despite the fact that we have no idea who these victims were. The witnesses and the victims are unnamed. The source of the entire story could well be the U.S. military, which has no idea who the dead people are and, in fact, has been repeatedly caught claiming that the dead people were threats to America (through the use of the word "militant") when many, if not all of them turned out to be innocent people, including children. And, of course, there is no information about how the local people acted. They should be outraged, because, according to the story, unknown people were killed from the sky by the U.S., which has repeatedly outraged the government of Pakistan for such conduct in the past. For all we know, this attack, like so many other attacks, has angered the people, causing them to swear revenge against the United States. But you'd have no idea of whether this attack advanced the interests of the U.S. or hurt U.S. interests. This is a prototypical sterile story about the U.S. using its high tech weaponry to preserve freedom, or so this immensely obeisant and gappy story suggests. The U.S. doesn't know who was killed, even long after the fact, because the U.S. doesn't care. If they cared, they would quickly announce who the dead people were and tell U.S. citizens the "bad" things these people did to deserve to die such a fiery death, often in the presence of their children. I'd like to give a lot of credit for what follows to Glenn Greenwald, who has repeatedly pointed out that these drone strikes are usually nothing but propaganda, and that the word "militant" is used as follows: Any person killed by a U.S. weapon. With Greenwald's guidance, I decided to mark up the opening lines of the MSNBC story as if I were an editor reacting to the reporter's first draft:  

Continue ReadingAnother day, another BS U.S. drone strike story

The mind of a neocon

Glenn Greenwald acknowledges that Thomas Friedman has value: If we listen to Friedman we will understand the way neocons think. We will understand their rage and we will understand how their rage tempts them to lash out indiscriminately. Here are Greenwald's words:

If I had to pick just a single fact that most powerfully reflects the nature of America’s political and media class in order to explain the cause of the nation’s imperial decline, it would be that, in those classes, Tom Friedman is the country’s most influential and most decorated “foreign policy expert.”
Here is the mind of a neocon in action (from a 2003 interview with Charlie Rose):

Continue ReadingThe mind of a neocon

Abe Lincoln’s warning about allowing a President alone to declare war

For at least the past ten years American Presidents, including Barack Obama, have been not-declaring their wars, including their secret wars. What's wrong with this situation? Glenn Greenwald quotes none other than Abe Lincoln:

There are few things more dangerous in a democracy than allowing a President to wage secret wars without the knowledge of the country. I’ll permit Abraham Lincoln — not exactly a pacifistic worshipper of legalisms and restraints on Executive power — to explain why this is so, in an 1848 letter to a proponent of unrestrained presidential warmaking powers:
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, I see no probability of the British invading us but he will say to you be silent; I see it, if you dont. The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

Continue ReadingAbe Lincoln’s warning about allowing a President alone to declare war