Why We Cannot Blame the Military for the Administration's Handiwork

In a recent press conference:

A questioner asked whether the United States and its allies might be deemed responsible for preventing mistreatment of people under arrest in Iraq, given that the U.S. and its allies train Iraqi forces.

"There are a lot of people involved in this, dozens of countries trying to help train these Iraqi forces. Any instance of inhumane behavior is obviously worrisome and harmful to them when that occurs," Rumsfeld said. "Iraq knows, of certain knowledge, that they need the support of the international community. And a good way to lose it is to make a practice of something that is inconsistent with the values of the international community."

He added: "Now, you know, I can't go any further in talking about it. Obviously, the United States does not have a responsibility when a sovereign country engages in something that they disapprove of."

Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked what orders the troops have to handle such incidents. He responded: "It is absolutely the responsibility of every U.S. service member if they see inhumane treatment being conducted, to intervene, to stop it."

He said soldiers who hear of but don't see an incident should deal with it through superiors of the offending Iraqis.

That's when Rumsfeld stepped to the microphone and said, "I don't think you mean they have an obligation to physically stop it. It's to report it."

Pace then repeated to Rumsfeld that intervening when witnessing abuse is the order the troops must follow, not just reporting it.

I put emphasis on what I feel are key items within that exchange. The first being Rummy's comment that the US does not have to step in when it disagrees with a country's actions. However, the administration he is part of said that we had to intervene when we disagreed with Saddam's Iraq. Seems contradictory to me.

The even more important part is the exchange between Rumsfeld and Pace. Pace says troops should step in and stop inhumane treatment when they see it. I support him and our military for that. Rumsfeld says troops should allow the inhumane treatment to continue and run off to tattle to someone who should do something about it (though they may not). That is one of millions of reasons I do not support this administration or their actions. I could go on for pages about all the contradictions, hypocracies, and other ills that arise from this, but I'll let the words above speak for themselves.

A Good Word for Hagel

From The Raw Story:

"The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform," the Nebraska senator remarked. "This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies."

He also suggested the members of Congress who failed to question the war could be responsible for another Vietnam.

"Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late," he added. "Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic – to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."

This is from Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE). I am impressed and appreciative of his words. This administration does everything in its power to suppress those that question its authority. It is wrong for the administration to attend only to their own perogatives, ignoring and keeping everything secret from the public they serve. It is the duty of Congress to keep the Executive in check, not follow behind like little lap dogs.

Supreme Court Nominee Alito

I wish I had more time to write; this blog could be so much more interesting.

Since I don't have much time, I'll just say this:

I am so incredibly sick and tired of hearing Bush preach from his frickin' soapbox about liberal activist judges and how they 'legislate from the bench'. What exactly does he think his latest conservative activist judge intends to do? While I'm sure Rove & Co. will coin a different term for Bush to use, Alito will do just what Bush claims he won't put a judge up to do, legislate from the bench.

Bush, it is time for some honesty. Can you and your group, for once, stop trying to cover everything up? Step up, 'be a man', and tell us the truth. Tell us that you only think white males are worthy of the Supreme Court. Tell us that you intend to stack the court with conservative men with the intention of overturning Roe v. Wade. Tell us that you intend to make Christianity the national religion before 2008. Tell us that you intend to have mandatory Christian prayer in schools. Tell us that you like setting records with our national debt. For once, please tell us the fucking truth.

Paul Harvey and Prayer

Recently, I received a forwarded email with the following text:

Paul Harvey says:

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I'm not going to sue
somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I
don't agree with Darwin, but I didn't go out and hire a
lawyer when my high school teacher taught his theory
of evolution.

Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be
endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer
before a football game.

So what's the big deal? It's not like somebody is up there
reading the entire book of Acts. They're just talking to a
God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the
players on the field and the fans going home from the game

"But it's a Christian prayer," some will argue.

Yes, and this is the United States of America, a country
founded on Christian principles. According to our very
own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others
better than 200-to-1. So what would you expect-somebody
chanting Hare Krishna?

If I went to a football game in Jerusalem,
I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer.

If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad,
I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer.

If I went to a ping pong match in China,
I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha.

And I wouldn't be offended.
It wouldn't bother me one bit.
When in Rome ..

"But what about the atheists?" is another argument.

What about them?
Nobody is asking them to be baptized. We're not going to
pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds. If
that's asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear
plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand.
Call your lawyer!

Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or
two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do.
I don't think a short prayer at a football game is
going to shake the world's foundations.

Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other
cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights. Our
parents and grandparents taught us to pray before
eating; to pray before we go to sleep.

Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a
handful of people and their lawyers are telling us
to cease praying.

God, help us.
And if that last sentence offends you,
well ... just sue me.

The silent majority has been silent too long. It's time we
let that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard
... that the vast majority don't care what they want. It
is time the majority rules! It's time we tell them, you don't
have to pray; you don't have to say the pledge of allegiance;
you don't have to believe in God or attend services that
honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your
right. But by golly, you are no longer going to take our
rights away. We are fighting back ...
and we WILL WIN!

God bless us one and all ... especially those who denounce
Him. God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still
the greatest nation of all.

God bless our service men who are fighting to protect
our right to pray and worship God.

May 2005 be the year the silent majority is heard
and we put God back as the foundation of our
families and institutions.

Keep looking up.

Honestly? The Christian majority feel that their rights are being taken away? The only "right" that appears to be taken away is the ability to force everyone in the nation to live by your religious beliefs. Sure, you aren't forcing us to attend your church or adopt your beliefs (at least not the silent majority Mr. Harvey speaks of). However, laws continue to be made based on the rules of the Christian majority. I don't conceive that to be a loss of rights at all, at least not for this silent majority.

I would argue with Mr. Harvey that a 30-second Christian prayer at a football game could infringe on one's pursuit of happiness. Have you ever been to a football game where a prayer was said? It is given the same reverence as our national anthem. In doing so, those with different beliefs are left to respectfully stand through an homage to Christianity. If you argue that the Christian prayer is OK, then the others there should have equal representation. There should therefore be a 30-second moment for each religion present to pray, not pray, or whatever tradional homage to their beliefs there may be. This silent majority can silently (and respectfully) sit through each of these prayers as everyone else sat through theirs. Mr. Harvey's arguement that those with different beliefs, such as atheists, can do something else such as listen to their walkman (I believe this has been replaced by the iPod), should be reconsidered. When choosing to respectfully omit themselves from these moments directed at beliefs other than their own, such people are often not given the same respect for their choice and are shunned or chastized for not singing "God Bless America" or reciting the prayer. I concede, however, that those being disrespectful may not be considered part of Mr. Harvey's 'silent majority'; at least not while intoxicated.

I understand Mr. Harvey's arguement that if he were to attend sporting events in other nations, he would expect to hear prayers for the religions of those respective nations. The difference between them and the United States is that many of those other nations have national religions. The US is not a Christian country. We are a melting pot. Yes, Christians are the majority; but our Bill of Rights states explicitly that there is freedom of religion and there shall be no national religion. Just because the nation was founded based on moral and ethical principles that coincide with those of Christianity does not mean that it is a Christian nation. Those same principles coincide with many other religions as well.

I respect Christianity just as I respect other religions. I am not arguing that there is not a place for religion in public. We have freedom of religious expression, so feel free to express yourself. It is just that I feel this should be done on an individual basis. To have a group, stadium-wide prayer at a football game infringes on the happiness of others and their pursuit thereof. If you feel a prayer is necessary before the game, say one individually; it is more respectful of the diverse individuals attending the game, and I would argue that it is more meaningful than the group prayer because you choose to do it on your own, not per the suggestion of the people with the microphone.

To not be part of the Christian majority during such a moment is extremely awkward. I can imagine how Christians would feel at the game if an Islamic prayer were said during that 30-second period instead. Recent history of this 'Christian Nation' has indicated that the Islamic prayer would likely not be said again, at least not without a 60-second Christian prayer.

Lastly, for those who admire this email and the information therein because it is from Paul Harvey, think again. From TruthorFiction.com:

This commentary is not from Paul Harvey.
It's from the pen of Nick Gholson, a columnist for the Times Record News in Wichita Falls, Texas, published in September of 1999.

Priceless

From DailyKos: