You've got to read this description of the new American embassy under construction in Bagdad (the title: "The Colossus of Bagdad"). This monstrous construction project is unbelievably arrogant and excessive. It will be the largest embassy on the planet. As an outpost, this vast compound reeks of one thing: imperial impunity.…
The imperative phrase is proclaimed on millions of bumper stickers: “Support the Troops.”
Tell me what it means to “support the troops” and then I’ll tell you whether I support the troops. Fair enough? Until you can tell me what the phrase means, asking me whether I “support the troops” is like asking me to sign a blank check. I don’t sign blank checks.
The vague phrase “Support the troops” is a challenge that is not only found on bumper stickers these days. For instance, Bill Arkin of the Washington Post recently wrote about soldiers who are increasingly expressing frustration with the growing opposition to the war back home. Many of the soldiers took it personally. Arkin quotes Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun:
One thing I don’t like is when people back home say they support all troops, but they don’t support the war. If they’re going to support us, support us all the way.
Arkin goes so far as to characterize the volunteer troops as “mercenaries,” suggesting that we’d be having an entirely different national discussion if we had a draft. Arkin’s “mercenary” comment quickly caused a firestorm. Overnight, his blog drew more than 900 comments. Arkin also drew the ire of conservatives from coast to coast. Did he fail to “support the troops”?
“Support the troops” is a hopelessly vague phrase; it means different things to different people. For instance, when I am asked whether I support the troops, it could mean any of the following things:
1. Do …
Huffpo is reporting what secret papers revealed to Bush before he decided to invade Iraq. Intelligence analysts predicted, in secret papers circulated within the government before the Iraq invasion, that al-Qaida would see U.S. military action as an opportunity to increase its operations and that Iran would try to shape…
After reading Erich’s post, I thought I’d put this up. I wrote it–most of it–some time ago, for a different venue, but I’ve added to it since, and, well, along with Erich’s it might add more flavors to the stew of memory. So.
I have friends who thought it was a great thing when Reagan became president, who now reject any such accusation, and refuse to believe it when I remind them that they said encouraging things about him when he took office. One quote, during a ceremony broadcast on television, that I’ll never forget: “He just looks like a real president!”
Time passes, policy comes to the fore, and most of those people no longer recall these initial bouts of near-patriotic enthusiasm. They have conveniently forgotten.
I didn’t like Reagan’s policies. I’m sure I would have liked him. Everybody who met him seems to say the same thing. When Donna Brazille can say she thought he was a decent man, despite the complete polarization of their politics, you have to admit something was going on with Reagan which is all too often more telling about politics and history than the facts attached to a particular era.
Reagan was presidential. He had Presence.
I listen now to the talk about putting his face on the ten dollar bill with some amusement. Reagan already has at least one airport, a couple of highways, no doubt many streets, parks, a library named in his honor. He may be the most honored president …
Look how low the bar has now gotten. This is from the President's May 2, 2007 address to the Associated General Contractors of America: ..."But slowly but surely, the truth will be known. Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed. And the definition of success as I described is sectarian…