Yesterday, in a speech to the American Legion's state convention in Richmond, George Allen essentially said that Democracy and open debate are "not helpful." In front of 300 veterans, Allen declared:
What is not helpful for the trust or credibility of America and our will to win is those who revel in the political world, the world of 'I told you so, that we never should have gone, that the intelligence of the U.S. and the world was wrong and the world would be better off if we left Saddam Hussein alone in his palaces.'
In other words, what Allen is saying is that we should all simply salute President Bush and Vice President Cheney and keep our mouths shut. Even worse, what Allen is arguing is that we should never question our elected officials' judgment in a time of war, that we should not engage in open debate or participate in a thriving Democracy. Aside from being deeply misguided and offensive to those of us who love our Constitution and our country, that's an extremely dangerous and divisive position to take, essentially labeling your political adverseries as disloyal. It has no place in America.
Let's cut to the chase: what Allen's arguing is that there should not be dissent or disagreement in a time of war, even if the dissenters are correct. And, in this case, what's indisputably correct is that the pre-Iraq War intelligence was wildly incorrect and off target. Saddam Hussein, it turns out, had NO serious weapons of mass destruction program, NO ties to Al Qaeda (according to the 9/11 Commission Report), and absolutely NO connections with the 9/11 attacks. Even President Bush admitted the last point, but only well AFTER his Administration misled the public in order to make its case for war against Iraq.
Apparently, George Allen has never read the 9/11 Report and remains deeply confused on all this. Either that, or George Allen DOES know the truth about Iraq, but is deliberately misleading us for political purposes. Either way, it's deeply disturbing.
As if all that's not bad enough, George Allen - who never served in the military himself - yesterday declared that it was "not helpful" to have a debate over pre-war (mis)intelligence. Allen asserted that such a debate hurts the morale of our troops fighting in Iraq. According to Allen, who of course has never been in combat himself:
When they see a lot of bickering and political posturing, that is not really good for them. That says to them, 'Are we getting support from back home?'
Well, well, that's just fascinating Allen would say that, because in early June of this year, he was arguing the exact opposite, that "American troops in Iraq "seem to have very good morale.'" At the time, Allen added that "[t]he troops don't care about political sniping or grandstanding." Whoa cowboy, now wait a minute here! Last month, you believed our troops in Iraq had high morale and weren't listening to "political sniping or grandstanding," but now you're claiming that the troops' morale is harmed by examination of pre-war (mis)intelligence used by the Administration to (mis)lead the country into war? Say what?
Perhaps George Allen simply doesn't know what he's talking about, having never served in combat like the man who is challenging him, Jim Webb. Or, perhaps Allen is panicking because he knows the facts are not on his side with regard to Iraq and the war on terror - no WMD, no ties between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, and no al Qaeda connection. On the latter point, perhaps George Allen is not aware - although how could he not be?!? - that Saddam and al Qaeda despised each other? Perhaps Allen missed Osama bin Laden's audio recording, in which bin Laden called Saddam Hussein a "socialist" and an "infidel?" Geez, it sure seems like George Allen misses a LOT of things while he's sitting there snoozing, "bored" in the Senate.
Something else that Allen apparently doesn't know while he's snoozing in the Senate, but something that he damn well SHOULD know, is that most American troops in Iraq strongly disagree with the Bush Administration and with him on Iraq. That's right. According to a LeMoyne College/Zogby Poll conducted earlier this year, "An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately..." According to the same poll, only 23% of troops agree with Bush and Allen that American forces should remain in Iraq "as long as they are needed."
The bottom line here is that George Allen is completely out of touch with our troops in Iraq, and completely out of touch with reality in general - on the facts about the war in Iraq as outlined by the 9/11 Commission and others, on the importance of dissent and debate in a Democracy, on the morale of our troops serving heroically in Iraq, and on the feelings of those troops regarding Bush/Cheney/Allen policy in Iraq.
Luckily, we've got a candidate for Senate this year who DOES understand those things, and his name is Jim "Navy Cross" Webb. According to Webb, in a Democracy we "have a profound duty to speak out in a responsible manner." In addition, Webb argues - as he has since 2003 - that the war in Iraq is "unnecessary and unhelpful in fighting terrorism." Jim Webb is exactly right on this, as the crises in North Korea and Iran, not to mention the growing unrest in Afghanistan, prove.
The unfortunate fact is this: our involvement in Iraq has completely distracted us from the main purpose of the war on terror - smashing al Qaeda and capturing Osama bin Laden, "dead or alive" as George W. Bush once said. Instead, we're now bogged down in a sideshow, while grave threats grow in two countries - Iran and North Korea - that George W. Bush once lumped together into an "Axis of Evil." My guess is that Bush and Allen know this, which is why they try so hard to distract us with talk about flag burning amendments, gay marriage amendments, amendments on walking your dog, whatever. Anything to keep your eye off the ball - that ball being the BushCheneyAllen failed foreign policy. Don't let them do that to you. Support Jim Webb, and send George Felix Allen back to where he wishes he was born - Iowa. Go Jim Webb, and Semper Fi!
[UPDATE: Jim Webb and George Allen will each be on "This Week" with George Stephanopolous this morning. Please feel free to use this as an open thread to discuss their appearances.]
P.S. Image courtesy of "Al Rodgers" at DailyKos. Great job.
*Webb correctly states that the Bush Administration has "never articulated a clear end point" in Iraq, but in fact is building "4 large permanent bases" in the interior of that country. According to Webb, "that implies something very different" than a withdrawal from Iraq anytime soon.
*Webb is concerned that the Administration might move American troops to those bases in the interior of Iraq, and hunker down there indefinitely as the Iraqis fight it out in the cities.
*Webb thinks we CAN be out of Iraq in 2 years, but doesn't want to set "arbitrary deadlines."
*Allen says "we'll still have a presence after 2 years."
*Allen says "I don't see why the United States would have to have a presence there any longer than necessary." Is that clear as mud?
*Webb says he'll give a 5% tax break to every veteran. This will not be expensive, especially since the "average income of a veteran is just $33,000 per year."
*Webb will pay for this by getting out of Iraq, and also by rolling back the Bush tax giveaway to the top 1% wealthiest Americans (in a time of war and massive deficit).
*Webb says that he's running not because he always wanted to be a politician, but because he saw a "lack of leadership" in this country. He is NOT running because he has anything personally against George Allen, but Allen has not been the Senator Webb thought he would be back in 2000.
*Allen claims that his 97% rubber stamp of George W. Bush won't hurt him in Virginia, where people know "my record of performance." Oh really? WHAT record of performance, that's what many of us want to know.
*Webb says that he is proud to have served under Ronald Reagan, and that he suspects if Reagan - a former liberal Democrat turned Republican - were alive today, he might be coming back to the Democratic Party himself, as Jim Webb has.
*Allen snickers at this thought and sneers that Webb is a member of the same party as Ted Kennedy and others who caused people to leave the "Democrat Party" in the first place.
*Webb says he is comfortable as a Democrat, that he supported Bob Kerry for President, and that the main reason he left the Democratic Party was because he was angry after Vietnam.
*Webb says that, "after 9/11, I lost all my anger" about the treatement of Vietnam Vets after that war.
*Webb says that the Democratic Party, with its beliefs in "fairness" and "justice," is the "best place to be."
*Webb says he will support the Democratic nominee in 2008, even if his "old friend" John McCain is the Republican nominee.
COME ON.
Webb knew his facts, inside and out. He looked relaxed as always!
He did a great job.
Allen stumbled over his words again, and I loved his statement of:
"I wish President Bush would agree with me 100% of the time."
Why do Bush supporters ascribe alterior motives to Webb? Is it because you have been so misled and deceived by your own leadership? And I use the term 'leadership' loosely in these days of the Bush administration.
As far as the open-ended commitment in Iraq goes, it doesn't take a genius to see that this position is untenable. On the flipside, it's also obvious to a casual observer that an immediate withdrawl could preciptate a full blown civil war--and a larger regional war (with Iran, Syria, and Turkey jockeying for influence inside Iraq). The best course of action at this stage in the game likely rest somewhere between these two extreme outcomes.
Even so, the worst case scenario may still play out even in the face of a continuing U.S. presence. Right now there is a low-grade civil war going on in the Sunni Triangle--this ongoing battle shows no sign of abatement.
Saddam had joined the Arab League. His neightbors would never have let him get away with using the pretend WMDs. This was a neighborhood issue. Jim did not want us jumping into it. Maintaining relationships with the neighbors is still the way out. But now we are posturing so that the neighbors could join the fight instead of allaying it.
We have to create interdependence in the region. bush's war on terror is destructive with permanent devasting scars. You can't shock and awe people and get away with it. Numbers won't get us out of it. We need leaders who think in the We instead of the Me.
Now we're hearing from some quarters that Iran is the main geopolitical concern for the U.S. In a number of ways the war in Iraq has strengthened the Iranian hand. (e.g. yes we now have a stronger strategic position militarily in the region with bases in Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc; however, the Iranians are now able to influence internal politics in Iraq in a way that they weren't before 2003; hardliners within the Iranian regime can leverage the U.S. position in the region to advocate a more extreme stance within their own country vis a vis the "nuclear" question; plus valuable resources in blood and treasure have been tied up in Iraq; our positions within Iraq is not tenable for the long-term).
I am not opposed to nation building per se, but Iraq was a poor application of the model. Sadaam was undeniably a bad person, but the reality is that we have absolutely no idea what will follow. The situation could be better, but the odds are just as likely at this point that things could be even worse. Contrary to what our fearless leader says, the world is not necessarily a safer place now that Sadaam Hussein is out of power.
Never mind that Webb's campaign keeps implying that Allen never served...
That would be what we call in the Democratic Party, "the truth", something we use all the time to discuss and analyze issues and candidates.
Welcome to the Democratic Dialogue.
This is what democracy looks like, Felix-get used to it.
Get ready to hear more of the same from Allen as the campaign deepens, and from the entire spectrum of republicans across the board, who intend to ride National Security and The Flag to a crushing victory over the namby-pamby, "liberal," "treacherous," hate-America damn Democrats, who will never keep you safe.
Lowell, keep up the good work of exposing their hyposcrisy and their neo-nazi personality cult of Bush, every time they do it. Their technique, of course, is to peat and repeat the same outrageous lies until they somehow morph into being "true," and are accepted as conventional wisdom by the pliant mass media.
Make no mistake, it's always party before country if you're an R.
The 5% tax cuts for veterans is a solid winner for Webb. But he needs to be more specific on it. Nice interview.
-Political debate "hurts the troops'morale"
or
-"Troops morale is high" this debate doesn't bother them.
????
Also, he's so proud of his bill raising the death gratuity for KIA's to $100,000. What about the veteran's services being cut to pay for that? Support the Troops, Republican style...geeesh.
Webb came off as vauge on the issues. Allen had a ready answer for every question asked, which showed that he knows the issues facing this country. I know on this site, knowing the issues is knows as "parroting talking points." I guess that is a new title for doing research and knowing what is right for this country.
I guess I will continue to waste bandwidth. . . .
The hypocrisy there is laughable.
Allen is also VERY WEAK on limited government. According to the Cato Institute
President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal
spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after
excluding spending on defense and homeland
security, Bush is still the biggest-spending presi-
dent in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut
enough spending to change his place in history,
either.
And, as we know, George Allen voted with George W. Bush 97% of the time on this and everything else.
In general, what conservative values are you talking about when you speak of George Felix Allen, Jr.? An activist, Wilsonian, "nation-building" foreign policy? An out-of-control-government-spending fiscal policy? Budget deficits as far as the eye can see? More intrusion into our personal lives and civil liberties? Lack of respect of separation of powers, checks and balances, and the Constitution? What? If I were a conservative, I would strongly oppose George W. Bush and George Felix Allen, Jr. But fortunately, I am a Teddy Roosevelt/Truman/RFK Progressive, so I support the American Hero named Jim Webb. Why don't you join us?
How is a two-fold increase in our debt obligation consistent with the principle of "limited government"? (BTW, if you attempt to advance the that "debt is a small percentage of GDP" argument--you'll need to show me a corresponding two-fold increase in economic growth. BTW, BTW--you won't find one).
In reference to not caving to popular winds how do you account for Allen's statement this morning that he's no longer voting with Bush 97% of the time? (You remember he's taken the tough stand against illegal immigration which is at odds with the president--a stand which seems to be very much in line with popular sentiment within the state).
I would agree that Allen is socially conservative. But I don't see his conservatism in other areas (e.g. fiscally, as an advocate of small government, or on national defense issues). The federal bureacracy has grown since 2000--thanks in large part to increases in Homeland Security, our debt burden has skyrocketed, and the Iraq War has not increased our domestic security. I'm sure you'll have counter-arguments--I'd like to hear them.
2000 (Last year before G. Felix and G. Dubya take office)
$5,628,700,000,000 - Federal Debt
58.0% - As Percentage of GDP
2004 (Last year with available figures)
$7,354,673,000,000
63.7%
2006 estimate
$8,707,627,000,000
67.5%
2008 estimate
$9,948,640,000,000
69.3%
2010 estimate
$11,137,297,000,000
70.0%
Btw, based on the fact that they have raised the debt ceiling to over $9 Trillion and are expected to raise it again to over $10 Trillion this year I would say the estimates are a bit short. These estimates don't include eliminating the estate tax or the cost of Medicare Plan D (or most of the cost of Iraq).
For comparison, when Reagan took office the debt was less than $1 Trillion ($909,041,000,000) and 33.3% of the GDP.
Our fear of terrorism and the consequences of that fear--which are certainly driving a part of this spending orgy--could in and of itself be just as dangerous to us as the threat posed by 15,000+ stateless militants who "hate our freedom". Sound fiscal policy is part of our national security. In this regard Bush-Allen have failed the American people miserably.
1. Lying to take a nation to war is not a conservative value. (WMDs, Al Queda & Sadham, "We will be greeted as liberators").
2. Lying to the American people about the true strategic reasons for going to war and then shifting the goal posts every time the administrations "new" reason is proven false and thus unviable is not a conservative value.
3. Sending the men and women of our armed forces into a long-term military engagement when they do not contain the proper body armor or armor for their vehicles is not a conservative value.
4. Assassinating the character of decorated military veterans who disagree with you politically and thus threaten your corrupt agenda is not a conservative value (McCain, Cleland, Kerry, Clark).
5. Revealing the name of a covert CIA agent, threatening over 20 years of covert operations and all the contacts she has developed and used, because her husband has disagreed with your administration public ally and published the truth is not a conservative value.
6. Defending the revelation of a covert CIA asset to the public and unleashing the full power of an administration and its media attack dogs to continue to undermine her years of service to the nation and misrepresent her husband's record is not only reprehensible, but it is certainly not a conservative value.
7. Denying that anyone in your White House was involved in the leaking of that agents name to the press, only to find out that not only did Scooter Libby and Karl Rove do so, the former being indicted, but that they did so at the direction of the Vice President who we later find out directed them to do so under the President's direction is not only not a conservative value but rises to the level of treason.
8. Creating a secret energy task force, inviting all the CEOs of major energy companies to the White House and then hiding behind executive privilege because you are embarrassed of your "accomplishments" is not a conservative value.
9. Cutting taxes on the highest income bracket, spending reckless amounts of government funds and cutting services to the most needy in the country and creating a massive deficit while doing this is not a conservative value.
10. Giving tax breaks to oil companies while they are earning unimaginable record profits is not a conservative value.
11. Torturing enemy combatants in Abu Ghraib and holding others in Guantánamo without due process of law is not a conservative value.
12 Declaring the rules of the Geneva Convention "quant and antiquated" and then justifying and minimizing the brutal torture and treatment of enemy combatants is not a conservative value.
13. Undermining the Constitution of the United States by claiming that the administration has some inherent right to snoop through our library or financial records or our telephone and e-mail communication is not a conservative value.
14. Subverting the rule of law and using the NSA to gather telephone communications and bypassing the FISA laws is not a conservative value.
15. Having the FBI draft new "sweeping legislation that would require Internet service providers to create wiretapping hubs for police surveillance and force makers of networking gear to build in backdoors for eavesdropping" is not a conservative value.
16. Wrapping yourself in the false sanctity of the flag for political gain when more important political issues are at hand (i.e. health insurance, education, rebuilding New Orleans, the subversion of civil liberties, the abandonment of civil rights legislation, etc.) is not a conservative value.
17. Creating "Faith-based Initiatives" to funnel money to those who support you politically and then hiding behind the cross whenever someone criticizes you is not a conservative value.
18. Creating a Constitutional Amendment that not only seeks to deny individuals their civil rights but also hopes to use hate and bigotry for political gain is not a conservative value.
19. Climbing on Air Force One during a weekend in Texas to return to Washington and then waking up "in the wee hours" of the night to sign so-called legislation to prevent the will of a husband to carry out his wife's medical wishes so you can pander to your base and then claim to stand up for the sanctity of life is not a conservative value.
20. Having members of your administration and the Republican party engage in a years-long attempt to hide the level of corruption that has taken place under this administration and the Republican controlled Congress is not a conservative value.
21. Strumming on a guitar, then hopping on Air Force One for a fly-by over the Gulf Coast while thousands of Americans are dying in the largest natural disaster in American history and then claiming that "No one ever imaged the levies would be topped" is not a conservative value.
I will stop here because by now I hope you will get my point. What we have witnessed these past six years here in America bears no resemblance to any conservative "values" that I myself once held dear. Certainly this is a long list, and one that at any point I believe a current Republican would love to point at me and say, "See, I knew you were a weak, cowardly liberal...how could you be against this! It's, it's...un-American."
The problem is that I am neither weak nor cowardly. I have had the great misfortune these past years of watching members of my former party fall by the wayside and abandon their once proudly held principles for cheap political gain. All the while they have cowered in the face of an administration that demands absolute adherence to its policies. Failure to bow to the Bush-Cheney administration's agenda is punished severally within the Republican Party and outside of it, not only for Democrats, but also journalists, corporations, movie stars, musicians, political activists and individual American citizens.
My point in including all of these items (don't worry, I unfortunately could go on for a long time as this administration has regretfully offered us a large number of examples of "conservative" hypocrisy) is that I personally believe even one of the above listed items is enough to undermine the moral superiority that they like to claim as they debate and debase their political enemies. However, there is not simply one outrage to report from this administration, but a constant, steady stream, a torrent even, of consistent and deliberate abuse against the laws of our nation and the Constitution of the United States.
Regretfully, none of the above examples are ones of "conservative values." It is almost certain that both Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan would both roll over in their graves and quite possibly rise from the dead if they knew what Republicans were doing in the name of conservatism today. Instead of advancing the ideals of limited government, fiscal responsibility, and a pragmatic foreign policy, the Republican party, under this administration has taken a drastic lurch towards Stalinist principles in the management of government by one-party rule, silencing opposition, bullying the press into subservience, and advancing its new-found belief that it not only has the right to spy on its citizens, but the hubris to say that no one has the authority to question them. Rather than build on his own father's legacy of responsible governance, George W. Bush has decided to lead America into a previously unimagined era that will soon border on quasi-fascist police state.
For those "conservatives" out there reading this, if not a single of the above examples cause a shiver to run through your bones as you imagine the long-term implications of these actions (just consider if Hillary Clinton or John Kerry did any of the above as President) then you certainly place party loyalty above love of your country, which as an American is obviously your right, but truly says something about the Republican party of today.
For my own sake, I now sleep a lot easier knowing that I belong to a party that respects independent thought, separation of church and state, civil liberties, the right for a woman to choose, and supports our troops not only in times when there is a convenient photo op to be taken, but also when they need things like body armor, health care and educational and financial assistance both while they are serving the country and once they are finished. It’s also good to belong to a party that believes in compassion for their fellow citizen as a permanent part of their platform and not just another cheap, campaign slogan.
The great thing is that I’m not alone. It appears Republicans in Kansas are also catching the spirit.
Nice manifesto, McNair.
Since when are you a former Republican?
Oh, I forgot, you are in the party that likes taking away rights and believe in a 'Unitary Executive', totally out of character with actual rights. My bad.
Fundraising problem solved. Have parents watch Allen speak, watch them donate to Webb out of fear.
Sidenote - With Allen not being friendly to France (where his mother is from) and Hollywood (where he's from), is it only a matter of time that his self-hatred consumes himself.
Email your friends and ask them to vote for Webb. Tell them just what you said about Casey and then add that Santorum's not in the running to be our next neocon President.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt 1918
"And, in this case, what's indisputably correct is that the pre-Iraq War intelligence was wildly incorrect and off target. Saddam Hussein, it turns out, had NO serious weapons of mass destruction program, NO ties to Al Qaeda (according to the 9/11 Commission Report), and absolutely NO connections with the 9/11 attacks."
This is one of those example's of right-wing excuses/talking points becoming accepted as fact, even by those of us who know better.
From all I've been able to determine, the intelligence wasn't really that far off, taken as a whole. The administration ignored and failed to pass along information that ran counter to their WMD theme. They also failed to heed or alert others to caveats warning that even those who thought it was likely Saddam had WMD were concerned about the reliability and motives of their sources.
In short, I don't think we should let the Bush-Cheney White House off the hook by agreeing that they were somehow victims of faulty intelligence.