CarolHoenig’s whereIstand Blog

In this week’s The New Yorker’s The Talk of the Town, there is an article that takes a closer look at Barack Obama, quoting a speech he gave on October 2, 2002 to a small group of Chicagoans who were protesting the impending war. Here is a snippet from the speech:

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support, will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

How enlightening these words are, especially when John McCain likes to dismiss Obama as one who has little idea about foreign policy. McCain is supportive of this Iraq war and ignores the reality, just as George W. Bush did and does. As it happens, five days after Obama spoke to the protesters, Bush made his own speech, which, too, was telling. In part he said that there was “clear evidence of peril” and that “we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

Can we forget how many of his cronies ran with that last phrase, relying on the recent memory of 9/11 and inducing more fear into the American people? Obama’s speech doesn’t say anything about having us greeted as liberators, since he knew that wouldn’t be the case. Yet, Obama and others like him were drowned out by the administration’s banging drum of faux patriotism. Obama didn’t have the media’s attention the way he does now, but his take on our going into Iraq cannot be debated, since his prediction was on target, which is odd since he didn’t have the advantage that the president of the United States did, being surrounded by those ostensibly more knowledgeable about the Middle East. Of course, this goes to show that when one man inserts friends into power with the intention of being kowtowed to, debacles follow.

whereIstand Tags

• GeorgeWBush
• BarackObama
• JohnMcCain
• Did the American news media appropriately handle coverage leading up to the war in Iraq?
• Is war ever justified?
• Will Iraq become a stable democracy?
• Has the War on Terror been effective?
• Based on the information available now, was the invasion of Iraq justified?
• Has the invasion of Iraq been successful?
• Will coalition forces’ efforts in Iraq help spread democracy throughout the Middle East?

Actually, the title of this post should be Cheap, Lying Pickens for Swift Boat Veterans and Exxon Valdez Victims. In case you missed this story, let me catch you up:

Dallas billionaire T. Boone Pickens has rejected contentions from 10 men who served in Vietnam with John Kerry that information in the controversial Swift Boat campaign during the 2004 presidential race was false.  

That means the men won’t be paid the $1 million that Mr. Pickens offered last fall to anyone who could prove that the anti-Kerry ads – which he helped bankroll – contained falsehoods.

The veterans who knew that lies about John Kerry were being spread during his run for president took the challenge made by Boone Pickens, a billionaire Texas oilman, but now this lowlife has decided they didn’t follow his guidelines.

“Unfortunately, key aspects of my offer of $1 million have not been accurately reported,” Mr. Pickens wrote in a letter to the crewmen. “My offer, reiterated in a letter to Senator Kerry not long after the challenge was made, was to pay $1 million for information that would prove any of the ads – which I helped fund – inaccurate. In reviewing your material, none of the information you provide speaks specifically to the issues contained in the ads.” Conservative blogs reporting on his offer last fall described it as applying to anything Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said, not just the group’s TV ads.

This latest development aside, the shame is that Kerry’s reputation was slandered by a group that had a chunk of change to promulgate untruths across the airwaves. (This is one reason why Barack Obama decided to forfeit public funding.)  It’s interesting to this day, how many people still believe that these lies were in fact true. What is tragic is that this bankrolled lie put the inept George Bush into office and drove our economy and good standing with other countries in the ground. This isn’t to say Kerry would have been flawless, but it’s quite likely that we wouldn’t be where we are today. Yet, once again, it shows that those who have money get heard, whether their words are honest or not.

And speaking of money, it looks like one of the biggest oil companies in the world got off cheap to what they’d done some years back to the Alaskan people, not to mention its wildlife.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reduced what had once been a $5 billion punitive damages award against Exxon Mobil to about $500 million. The ruling essentially concluded a legal saga that started when the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker, struck a reef and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into the Prince William Sound in Alaska in 1989.

Even though Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. did not take part in this decision since he owns Exxon stock, this Supreme Court is Bush’s creation in many ways and one wonders how that affected the outcome.

Jeffrey L. Fisher, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said there was “a great deal of sadness” among his clients. “What is painful,” Mr. Fisher said, “is that there seems to have been some disagreement between the dissenters and the majority on how reprehensible Exxon’s conduct was.” 

In a statement, Rex W. Tillerson, the chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil, said: “The company cleaned up the spill and voluntarily compensated more than 11,000 Alaskans and businesses. The cleanup was declared complete by the State of Alaska and the United States Coast Guard in 1992.”

The cleanup was declared complete? Excuse me, but I still cannot get those images of the oil-soaked wildlife out of my head. In addition, this oil spill damaged careers and ruined lives, lives that were hoping for a second chance with monies from Exxon’s egregious error. Now they’ve been let down.

What these two stories show is that if one has the money, one rarely has to pay the price for damages done. Something wrong with that system, I say.

whereIstand Tags

• GeorgeWBush
• BarackObama
• TBoonePickensJr
• JohnKerry

It does appear as though some evangelicals, especially those on the very far right, believe our country should be a theocracy. Focus on the Family’s James Dobson is one.

Just days after Senator Barack Obama met quietly with religious leaders, including the son of the Rev. Billy Graham, another of the evangelical movement’s most prominent names, James C. Dobson, has sharply attacked Mr. Obama, accusing him of having “a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution” and twisting the meaning of both the Old and New Testaments.

Why is it that Dobson believes his interpretation of the Bible is correct while others are wrong? He tends to forget how many translations this book has gone through. Not only that, but he also ignores the contradictions and unanswered questions, found and not found, in this book. Still, he uses his beliefs to justify attacking Barack Obama.

Mr. Dobson expressed particular irritation at a section of the speech in which Mr. Obama paired him with the Rev. Al Sharpton as an example of religious leaders with conflicting views. Mr. Dobson said he found the comparison with Mr. Sharpton, whom he considers an extremist, “offensive.”

If Dobson considers Sharpton an extremist while ignoring his own extremism, therein lies a major problem. It is Dobson who demands everyone follow the interpretation of the Bible as he sees it, which is an arrogant position to take. We need a unifier, certainly not a divider, in this diverse planet.

Mr. Obama on Tuesday accused Mr. Dobson of reducing a complex subject to sound bites. “I do make the argument that it’s important for those like me who think that faith is important, that we try to translate that into a universal language,” he said.

At least Obama acknowledges that the Bible is complex, which is more refreshing than trying to pass it off as undisputable. On the other hand, Dobson is not raving about the Republican presumptive presidential candidate either. Apparently, Dobson wants an evangelical minister presiding over the country, which is a frightening thought. But Dobson is not the only one trying to dilute Obama’s message. One Karl Rove has made a recent comment about Obama that is almost amusing if it weren’t so pathetic, calling him a “coolly arrogant elitist.” ABC News’ Christianne Klein reported on Rove’s statement, which was said at the Capitol Hill Club.

Rove: “Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He’s the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.”

I’m not sure, but it sounds as though Rove has his men confused, since I can certainly see Bush, Jr. snickering away at anyone he doesn’t deem worthy. Rove is coming across as a sniping little brat who has been relegated to the back office, his words no longer mattering. That’s the good news since he should be behind bars with what he managed to get away with the last several years.

Meanwhile, one by one, Obama deflects the attacks and stays on course. If Americans really are looking for change, they will make this route less cumbersome and toss the insubstantial attackers to the curb. However, I’m not saying that Obama shouldn’t be questioned on issues of relevance, but voters should begin to discern the difference between character assassination and what is essential to make a good president.

whereIstand Tags

• KarlRove
• GeorgeWBush
• JamesDobson
• AlSharpton
• JohnMcCain
• Who will win the Democratic nomination for president in 2008?
• Who should win the Democratic nomination for president in 2008?
• Do people in the US have the right to freely choose and practice a religion or to have no religion at all?
• Should morality and religion play a role in the making of public policy?
• What is the most correct way to describe the main adversaries in the debate over abortion?

Without a doubt, Barack Obama has discovered how challenging it is to be a candidate without causing disappointment to some. His recent decision to opt-out of public funding caused much controversy and debate. One obvious point that politicians should realize is that they must have as much clarity about every possible position before taking a stand so that they are not considered a flip-flopper when taking a different point of view. I tend to cut some slack to politicians, Democrat or Republican, if they change a stance due to further exploration of an issue. However, I do find it troubling if they change said stance when it suddenly benefits him or her, which is possibly the situation with Obama suddenly opting out of public funding. Yet, he still has my vote.

The latest problem now for this presumptive Democratic candidate now, according to The New York Times, is losing the Muslim vote.

When Mr. Obama began his presidential campaign, Muslim Americans from California to Virginia responded with enthusiasm, seeing him as a long-awaited champion of civil liberties, religious tolerance and diplomacy in foreign affairs. But more than a year later, many say, he has not returned their embrace.

 

While the senator has visited churches and synagogues, he has yet to appear at a single mosque. Muslim and Arab-American organizations have tried repeatedly to arrange meetings with Mr. Obama, but officials with those groups say their invitations — unlike those of their Jewish and Christian counterparts — have been ignored. Last week, two Muslim women wearing head scarves were barred by campaign volunteers from appearing behind Mr. Obama at a rally in Detroit.

I do understand how the Muslim community might feel, but I also understand why Obama is hesitant, even though any explanation he would make could insult another constituency. However, he’s not stupid and he knows that one photo-op of him standing in a mosque with Muslims surrounding him would be used by the opponents to spread more fuel to the fire about him being a Muslim, which to many small minded people equates terrorism. Obama knows that such an equation is not true, but unfortunately ignorance runs rampant in this country and one photo could be used to precipitate that ignorance.

Unfortunately, though, no matter how ideal a politician comes to the election process, he will eventually realize that some compromises must be made, compromises often stemmed from perception rather than reality. One of these perceptions is that many Americans cannot separate Muslim from terrorism, in spite of a recent religion survey that was just released. According to this survey, Americans are not only tolerant of other religions, but believe that there is more than one way to eternal salvation. I find that interesting and wonder just how honest those surveyed were. In spite of what this survey suggests, though, Obama still needs to walk a fine line if he wants to be the next president. It is my hope that the steps he takes will be ones that help dismiss much of the ignorance and unify our country while showing it can have a foundation of diversity.

whereIstand Tags

• BarackObama
• Should the President have unilateral authority to respond to terrorism?
• Has the War on Terror been effective?
• Should the phrase “war on terror” be used?
• Do people in the US have the right to freely choose and practice a religion or to have no religion at all?
• How should presidential campaigns be funded?

Now

What is sad is that the cable “news” programs have 24 hours a day to air news and yet they fill it with dribble and repetition because it saves money. It’s not about getting stories that matter on the air, but paying the bills. So, while people were dying in these wars, the media found it necessary to talk up one reporter’s death, making viewers believe it had an impact on them. Asking themselves the question of whether they paid too much attention to Russert’s death was an interesting approach, but in reality it was nothing more than a red herring distracting us from what should matter.