Yesterday was a very good day for the Democrats. Let's face it, this year is all about beating Bush, and Edwards is going to help Kerry do just that. I was very worried he might choose his close friend Dick Gephardt, or someone else with which he had a longer personal relationship. But Kerry didn't make that political mistake.
The election is now the Democrats' to lose. Edwards can bring the charisma and "regular guy" appeal that Kerry lacks. He is intelligent and connects with audiences. He is a moderate (voted for the war in Iraq, pro-death penalty) and will force the Republicans to spend more time in money on Southern states they can't quite take for granted any more.
Like a lot of you, I've worked and voted for Democrats that were much closer to my solid left-wing ideals, but this year we understand that the stakes are too high not to go with a ticket that has lots of broad appeal.
We Democrats chose Kerry not because we loved him, but because we thought he could beat Bush. Kerry has now done us a favor in return by choosing his ex-rival Edwards, not because he loves him, but because he can help him win the election.
Or, as one Republican web-site has put it, is Edwards "a disingenuous, unaccomplished liberal and friend to personal injury trial lawyers."
What are your thoughts????
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Saturday, July 03, 2004
Saddam in Court
It certainly was strange footage to see Saddam appear before the Iraqi court. He was the man that we haven't seen since they pulled him out of the hole in the ground looking like hell.
This time, he did have moments of appearing nervous, but soon reverted to the same old Saddam, blaming the United States and Iran for the crimes for which he stands accused.
There are a couple of important questions about this trial. The first is whether, in the long process of gathering and presenting evidence against Saddam, it will bring a sense of justice to the Iraqi people. Will the ultimate conviction of Saddam under an Iraqi Court bring a sense of closure to nightmarish episode in the life of that nation?
Will Saddam be able to use the trial as a pulpit for his ideas and anger? Will he be able to use the trial to speak out against the American occupation and the legitimacy of the new government? Remember that when Adolf Hitler was convicted in the 1920's after the failed Beer Hall Putsch, he was able to use his trial as a springboard to public acceptance. Similarly, ex-Serbian President Slobodan Milosovic of Yugoslavia has dragged out his war crimes trial and blamed all of his political enemies for everything that has gone wrong in the Balkans in attempt to deflect attention from his own crimes.
Let's face it. Saddam can say a lot of things that will embarrass and implicate the CIA, the Reagan and Bush administrations, as well as Russia, France, and a host of others that aided his rise to power. We not only tolerated, but supported and sold arms to Saddam in the 1980's. Our actions in Iraq are only one example of the morally dubious actions of United States foreign policy since the beginning of the Cold War. We have tolerated and supported many brutal regimes because it served our immediate purposes. We continue to this tradition by supporting the government of Pakistan because it is supposedly helping us track down bin Laden and his followers. (We can all see how well that is working out.)
The United States likes to celebrate the good it has done around the world (like liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam's rule) while ignoring the costs of our foreign policy (the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, the destruction of their infrastructure and the creation of unstable and nearly ungovernable nations in Afghanistan and Iraq, all while destroying 60 years of support for international law).
What do you think? Will Saddam’s trial bring to light not only his crimes, but those of the United States, and other members of the international community that were often complicit in his crimes? Or will the trial be rigidly censored to eliminate any embarrassing evidence from reaching the American public?
Let me know what you think. For more on the CIA and Saddam, see the link on this posting.
This time, he did have moments of appearing nervous, but soon reverted to the same old Saddam, blaming the United States and Iran for the crimes for which he stands accused.
There are a couple of important questions about this trial. The first is whether, in the long process of gathering and presenting evidence against Saddam, it will bring a sense of justice to the Iraqi people. Will the ultimate conviction of Saddam under an Iraqi Court bring a sense of closure to nightmarish episode in the life of that nation?
Will Saddam be able to use the trial as a pulpit for his ideas and anger? Will he be able to use the trial to speak out against the American occupation and the legitimacy of the new government? Remember that when Adolf Hitler was convicted in the 1920's after the failed Beer Hall Putsch, he was able to use his trial as a springboard to public acceptance. Similarly, ex-Serbian President Slobodan Milosovic of Yugoslavia has dragged out his war crimes trial and blamed all of his political enemies for everything that has gone wrong in the Balkans in attempt to deflect attention from his own crimes.
Let's face it. Saddam can say a lot of things that will embarrass and implicate the CIA, the Reagan and Bush administrations, as well as Russia, France, and a host of others that aided his rise to power. We not only tolerated, but supported and sold arms to Saddam in the 1980's. Our actions in Iraq are only one example of the morally dubious actions of United States foreign policy since the beginning of the Cold War. We have tolerated and supported many brutal regimes because it served our immediate purposes. We continue to this tradition by supporting the government of Pakistan because it is supposedly helping us track down bin Laden and his followers. (We can all see how well that is working out.)
The United States likes to celebrate the good it has done around the world (like liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam's rule) while ignoring the costs of our foreign policy (the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, the destruction of their infrastructure and the creation of unstable and nearly ungovernable nations in Afghanistan and Iraq, all while destroying 60 years of support for international law).
What do you think? Will Saddam’s trial bring to light not only his crimes, but those of the United States, and other members of the international community that were often complicit in his crimes? Or will the trial be rigidly censored to eliminate any embarrassing evidence from reaching the American public?
Let me know what you think. For more on the CIA and Saddam, see the link on this posting.
Thursday, July 01, 2004
Bush Administration Checked and Balanced!!
George Bush says that he does not read newspapers. He relies on others to keep him up to date on what is happening out there. Putting aside the obvious “Emperor’s New Clothes” analogies, I certainly hope that someone has kept him up to date on what has been going down at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Earlier this week, in three separate decisions, the Court struck down a basic operating principle of the Bush Administration’s war on terror; namely that the President has the authority to detain any person it claims to be a member of a terrorist organization. For almost two years we have seen an executive branch wield powers unparalleled in modern times. Many of us have been frightened at the growth of the new powers being exercised by this government. Many seemed to betray some of the most basic principles of our constitutional system.
Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court sent a very strong reality check to the White House in recently announced decisions.
Earlier this week, in three separate decisions, the Court struck down a basic operating principle of the Bush Administration’s war on terror; namely that the President has the authority to detain any person it claims to be a member of a terrorist organization. For almost two years we have seen an executive branch wield powers unparalleled in modern times. Many of us have been frightened at the growth of the new powers being exercised by this government. Many seemed to betray some of the most basic principles of our constitutional system.
Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court sent a very strong reality check to the White House in recently announced decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)