“The Failure Wasn’t His, It Was Ours”: George McGovern Will Die Vindicated On War And Peace
Speaking at the Democratic National Convention in 1972, George McGovern kicked off his ill-fated presidential bid by focusing on his opposition to the ruinous war in Vietnam. “I have no secret plan for peace. I have a public plan. And as one whose heart has ached for the past ten years over the agony of Vietnam, I will halt a senseless bombing of Indochina on Inaugural Day,” he said. “There will be no more Asian children running ablaze from bombed-out schools. There will be no more talk of bombing the dikes or the cities of the North. And within 90 days of my inauguration, every American soldier and every American prisoner will be out of the jungle and out of their cells and then home in America where they belong. And then let us resolve that never again will we send the precious young blood of this country to die trying to prop up a corrupt military dictatorship abroad. This is also the time to turn away from excessive preoccupation overseas to the rebuilding of our own nation. America must be restored to a proper role in the world. But we can do that only through the recovery of confidence in ourselves.”
Over the course of his career, McGovern made a lot of arguments that I personally find unpersuasive. But he sure did get the most important issue of his time right. Think of all the Americans who’d be alive today if the country had listened to McGovern rather than his opponents about the Vietnam War. Think of all the veterans who’d have been better off. Think of how many Vietnamese civilians would’ve been spared death by napalm. But America didn’t listen.
The country would eventually come to see Vietnam as a mistake.
But ours is a people who are dismissive of men who lose presidential elections. We behave as though the electoral outcome discredited their ideas, even on matters where they’re ultimately proved right.
Of course, it was about more than one war for McGovern. A World War II veteran, he liked to say that he’d been persuaded by Dwight Eisenhower, under whom he served, about the dangers of the military industrial complex. The Democratic Party grew comfortable with it over time.
But McGovern never did.
When America launched its war in Iraq, a lot of Democrats signed on. McGovern opposed it. “I oppose the Iraq war, just as I opposed the Vietnam War, because these two conflicts have weakened the U.S. and diminished our standing in the world and our national security,” he wrote.
He was right again.
After Obama took office, McGovern wrote him an open letter, published in Harper’s magazine, that said, “When I entered the U.S. Senate in 1963, the defense budget was $51 billion. This was at a time when our military experts felt it necessary to have the means to win a war against the combined powers of Russia and China. Today we have a military budget of over $700 billion, and yet neither Russia nor China threatens us, if indeed they ever did. Nor does any other nation.”
Once again, few Americans are listening.
It’s strangely common to think of men defeated in presidential elections as losers, though they are invariably men who’d be regarded as especially accomplished if they’d never run for the office. McGovern was a decorated combat veteran, a college professor, a three term senator, and a humanitarian who worked for years to alleviate global hunger, among other things. As he lays dying in hospice, his country remains as beholden to the military industrial complex as ever, years after the decisive defeat of its only credible geopolitical foe. When the obituaries are published, they’ll note McGovern’s electoral loss. It’s far less likely that they’ll note the two ruinous wars America would’ve been spared had its leaders and voters taken McGovern’s advice.
The failure wasn’t his, it was ours.
By: Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic, October 19, 2012
“In A Saner Era”: After Sept. 11 And Two Wars, There’s No Way For GOP To Defend Tax Cuts
Among the many ways the United States went berserk after the September 11 attacks, the least remarked upon, but most morally revealing, is what happened to Republican thinking about taxes during wartime.
Since that awful morning eleven years ago, the United States has been continually at war. But never before in our history has a political party made it a national priority to cut taxes for wealthy Americans at a time of war.
The obvious pattern has been the opposite — we’ve raised taxes to fund the extraordinary expenses war requires, as well as to make sure more fortunate Americans shoulder some of the burden as young soldiers, drawn mostly from middle and low income families, do the actual fighting.
But something snapped in the Republican mind after 9/11. We’ve now put a trillion dollars of war on our kids’ credit card, with Republicans leading the charge for tax cuts for the top the entire time.
In a saner era, the big 2001 Bush tax cutsenacted a few months before September 11 would have been immediately revisited, because we were now a nation at war.
In a saner era, it would have been unthinkable for a president to push for further tax cuts for the top in 2003, because by then we were a nation waging two wars. Instead, just two months after we invaded Iraq, Republicans, in a party line vote, enacted fresh tax cuts mostly benefiting high earners.
In a saner era, Republicans would never have held the debt limit hostage last year in order to get a deal that kept taxes low for the wealthiest Americans when we were still at war.
And in a saner era, a Republican presidential candidate worth $250 million who paid taxes at the rate of 13.9 percent on $20 million in income would never makefurther tax cuts for the top the centerpiece of his agenda when we still have nearly 80,000 troops in Afghanistan.
He’d see it as unseemly.
I’ve talked to friends who are military officers about this pattern and they find it grotesque. They live by a code of honor and an ethos of shared sacrifice that makes such choices seem obscene.
What were Republicans thinking? What is Mitt Romney thinking now? Only they know for sure, but what’s clear is that Republican leaders see no moral disconnect between the sacrifices borne by the tiny fraction of Americans who serve in the military (and their families), and repeated tax windfalls showered on a relative handful of well-to-do families at the same time.
Seen in this context, Romney’s failure to mention Afghanistan in his convention speech is even more troubling than we thought. It’s the supreme symbol of Republican compartmentalization. Instead of “Believe In America, ” the de facto GOP motto has become: “Let other people’s children fight our wars, funded by debt other people’s children can pay off later.”
Can anyone really defend this position? This isn’t what Republicans have stood for in the past. It’s the ultimate proof the GOP has gone off the rails.
The amazing thing is that Democrats almost never make the tax argument this way.
When I’ve done so on cable TV over the years, Republican guests react as if I’m from another planet. It’s so outside the well-worn grooves of the debate that they’re speechless for a moment. And then uncomfortable.
“Wait a minute,” I can hear them thinking, “he’s supposed to cry ‘fairness,’ and then I shout back ‘class warfare.’ What’s with this ‘nation at war’ business?”
Yet if the debate were framed around these realities, I think most Americans would react as my military friends do. They’d say it’s wrong. That we’ve lost our senses. That this isn’t how Americans behave. (Note to David Axelrod: This is a testable proposition).
That’s why President Obama should make this case forcefully during the debates. “We’ve been at war for over a decade, Mitt,” the president can say. “We’ve still got 80,000 troops in Afghanistan. Why have you and your party repeatedly made tax cuts for people like us your top priority at a time of war? We’ve never done that before in our history. Most Americans find it shameful.”
No answer that amounts to an evasion — “Well, even during a war, we need to grow the economy and give job creators incentives to expand” — will pass swing voters’ smell test.
Yet what other answer is there? Hammering this point could create the kind of eureka moment on which elections turn.
By: Matt Miller, Opinion Writer, The Washington Post, September 10, 2012
“I Voted To Send People To War”: Paul Ryan’s Big Foreign Policy Credential Is On The Wrong Side Of History
Defending himself against the perception that he has no significant foreign policy experience, Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has drawn fresh attention to one of the most controversial acts of the past decade: the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq before UN weapons inspections were completed. Ryan now points to his vote for war as a token of his readiness to serve in the White House, but he is on the wrong side of both history and public opinion.
The Wisconsin Congressman may come to regret his flippant response to Carl Cameron last Saturday, when the Fox News reporter asked how he would respond to critics who question his weak national security resume. “I’ve been in a Congress for a number of years,” he said. “That’s more experience than Barack Obama had when he came into office.” Perhaps he should have stopped there, but instead blundered on: “I voted to send people to war.”
Does Ryan believe that voting for war constitutes foreign policy experience? If so, it is a kind of experience that reflects very poorly on him. Even he must realize that the underlying premise of the war, Saddam Hussein’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, quickly proved to be nothing more than a Bush administration hoax, along with the secondary claim that Saddam’s regime had some connection with the 9/11 attacks. After casting his party-line vote for a ruinous war because he accepted a faked argument, Ryan never spoke up against its continuation. He ratified every troop escalation and every supplemental appropriation.
Unlike the American people, who turned decisively against the war years ago, and have condemned it by large majorities as a waste of blood and treasure, he apparently still believes it was a swell idea. Concerned as he supposedly is about excessive federal spending, Ryan believes that the Iraq misadventure was worth three trillion dollars it has cost so far (and presumably the lost and destroyed lives of Americans and Iraqis, all the dead, wounded, orphaned, and traumatized, as well).
Except among the neoconservative advisers cocooned in the Romney campaign, such enthusiasm for the war is a very peculiar and distinctly minority perspective. Over the past few years, polls have shown between one-third and one-fifth of voters agreeing that the war was “worth the cost.” Roughly two-thirds to three-fourths of the electorate rejects that assessment and supports President Obama’s withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. That lopsided margin is fair warning for any politician who stakes his reputation on the Iraq war.
What Ryan cites as his chief qualification to serve as commander-in-chief is a series of votes that represent the most fateful, expensive, inexcusable error in recent American history. For him to cite that vote to draw a contrast with President Obama, who got the Iraq issue right, is startling. It reveals something that Americans need to know before he gets any closer to executive power.
By: Joe Conason, The National Memo, August 20, 2012
“Feebled Minds”: Attention Donald Rumsfeld, Barack Obama Has Been President for 4 Years
The former defense secretary says he prefers Mitt Romney because the Republican has more executive experience. Did he miss the top line on Obama’s resume?
Appearing on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, Donald Rumsfeld made two comments of note about President Obama and the upcoming election.
HUGH HEWITT: You’ve been involved in government for a long time, Mr. Secretary. Is President Obama the weakest president of your lifetime?
DONALD RUMSFELD: He may very well be. I suppose the other one that stands out is President Jimmy Carter as a person who had a somewhat different attitude about America and its role in the world, and felt that we needed to kind of be in decline and withdrawal, and not contribute to the peace and stability that exists in the world.
What’s striking here is the emphasis on the alleged attitudes and feelings of Carter and Obama. It would be easy enough to cite actions that they took or policies that they implemented, and to say, “This hastened America’s decline,” or “That did not contribute to peace or stability.” Instead Rumsfeld plays armchair psychologist, guessing at inner thoughts that none of us can know, and that contradict the avowed motivations of the two men he is discussing.
Note too that Rumsfeld served under a president on whose watch Al Qaeda successfully attacked us, and who launched wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. And here he is complaining that the Obama Administration’s policies “do not contribute to the peace and stability that exists in the world.” Is Rumsfeld suggesting that he was prioritizing “peace and stability” as defense secretary?
But it’s actually this second exchange that most seriously calls into question Rumsfeld’s analysis.
HUGH HEWITT: And a last question, what do you make of Mitt Romney’s qualifications to be president?
DONALD RUMSFELD: Well, I must say, I do feel that a person who’s been in an executive position has an advantage. A lot of legislators run for the presidency and for governor positions, and I think someone who has that background of having to be an executive would come into that office with a head start. I would add that I think that it is, I’m told, I’ve read articles, I assume they’re correct, to the effect that today in the White House, we have the smallest percentage of people who have any background in business whatsoever. And I think that people who think that this country is about government are wrong.
I think this country is about the private sector. It’s about risk taking and investment and initiative, and industriousness and the values that built this country. And I think someone who’s been in business, as Governor Romney has, brings to it that nice mixture of executive experience and government as well as a business background, which is a stark contrast to a community organizer, and a person who served in the United States Senate for about fifteen minutes. (emphasis added)
Yes, aside from the four years Obama has spent as commander in chief and head of the executive branch, what possible experience does he have that would prepare him to be commander in chief and head of the executive branch? Rumsfeld’s analysis would make a lot of sense if it were 2008, and Romney was running against Senator Obama. In 2012, if you think the person with more experience relevant to the presidency should win the election, it’s bizarre to conclude that the candidate who has never actually been president is that more experienced person.
By: Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic, June 5, 2012
“Pin The Tail On The Donkey”: Mitt Romney Should Put Up Or Shut Up On Syria
It’s time for Mitt Romney to put up or shut up.
It’s irresponsible for Romney to criticize President Obama for not being aggressive enough with Syria and then fail to tell Americans how he would handle the crisis if he became president.
It’s time for Americans to pin the tail on Romney and make him accountable for his bellicose statements.
Romney is all hat and no cattle on national security problems. The last time we elected a governor without foreign policy experience, George W. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to lead us into a tragic war that cost Americans dearly.
Romney has only two things on his thin foreign policy resume. He has millions of dollars stashed in bank accounts in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. And he sent American jobs overseas while he ran Bain Capital.
Romney’s demonstrated that he was clueless when the former governor and former liberal identified Russia as our number one geopolitical enemy. The party boys in China must have had a hearty laugh when they heard that. My guess is they chuckled in Moscow, too. The commissars in the Kremlin know better than anyone that Russia has as much control over international politics as Charlie Sheen has over his temper.
Romney is clearly out of touch with Americans on defense spending. Thanks to President Obama, we are out of Iraq and close to an exit in Afghanistan. But the former moderate and current conservative GOP presidential candidate wants to increase defense spending. Americans are tired of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on wasted wars and overpriced weapons systems. Defense contractors love Romney as much as bankers, billionaires, and oil company executives do. The military industrial complex is alive and well in Romneyworld.
National surveys indicate that Americans give Barack Obama good grades as commander in chief of the armed forces. Americans credit the president for his handling of national security problems because he has an impressive record.
Barack Obama was able to do something in two years (kill Osama bin Laden) that President Bush couldn’t get done in eight. The former president sacrificed the lives of more than 4,500 brave young Americans and spent hundreds of billions of dollars to depose Saddam Hussein.
The current commander in chief built an international coalition which drove Muammar Qadhafi out of power without the loss of a single American life. The would-be president might want to think about the current president’s success with Libya before he gets the United States into another drawn out and costly war.
The United States is playing high stakes poker in the world and Mitt Romney would show up at the game without cards and without a clue.
By: Brad Bannon, U.S. News and World Report, May 31, 2012
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 