A Coup is a Coup is a Coup

I’ve got to get the pot roast on for Sunday dinner and leave for church in a few minutes, but before I head out, I wanted to point you to Frank Rich’s column in today’s NY Times.

Rich explains that Musharraf’s recent coup in Pakistan should come as no surprise to Americans as we’ve been undergoing a coup ever since George W. Bush became president and in fact, Musharraf is simply following Dubya's example:

"More Machiavellian still, Mr. Bush has constantly told the world he’s championing democracy even as he strangles it. Mr. Bush repeated the word “freedom” 27 times in roughly 20 minutes at his 2005 inauguration, and even presided over a “Celebration of Freedom” concert on the Ellipse hosted by Ryan Seacrest. It was an Orwellian exercise in branding, nothing more. The sole point was to give cover to our habitual practice of cozying up to despots (especially those who control the oil spigots) and to our own government’s embrace of warrantless wiretapping and torture, among other policies that invert our values.

"Even if Mr. Bush had the guts to condemn General Musharraf, there is no longer any moral high ground left for him to stand on. Quite the contrary. Rather than set a democratic example, our president has instead served as a model of unconstitutional behavior, eagerly emulated by his Pakistani acolyte."

Yikes! The guy we elected president on a values platform no longer has any moral high ground left to stand on. Let’s think about that as we consider the candidates for 2008, especially those like Rudy Giuliani going through their contortionist’s fits to appeal to Pat Robertson, et al.

Gotta go. Your comments are always appreciated.

The Conservatives’ Veneration of Masochism

It’d been awhile since I last gave Margaret Thatcher a thought, although I may have caught a glimpse of her on TV at Reagan’s funeral (See her on YouTube from this site). Recently, her name has been popping up in the US presidential campaign in comparison to Hillary Clinton. In one of Giulani’s bizarre, convoluted attempts to ally himself with a conservative stalwart, he loudly asserted that “Clinton was no Iron Lady.”

Amplifying Giuliani’s sentiments, an article by Peggy Noonan appeared yesterday in the WSJ Opinion Journal titled: Things Are Tough All Over, But Mrs. Clinton is no Iron Lady.

According to Noonan’s detailed, rhapsodic description of Thatcher, we can hope that Clinton will never earn that designation. Here’s a sample of what Noonan considers meritorious about England’s one and only female PM:

In fact, she wasn't so much a woman as a lady. I remember a gentleman who worked with her speaking of her allure, how she'd relax after a late-night meeting and you'd walk by and catch just the faintest whiff of perfume, smoke and scotch. She worked hard and was tough. One always imagined her lightly smacking some incompetent on the head with her purse, for she carried a purse, as a lady would. She is still tough. A Reagan aide told me that after she was incapacitated by a stroke she flew to Reagan's funeral in Washington, went through the ceremony, flew with Mrs. Reagan to California for the burial, and never once on the plane removed her heels. That is tough.

Wow! Now that’s impressive: a woman in her old age so adapted to enduring the torture of high heels for the sake of appearance, that she won’t take them off and treat herself to a few minutes’ relief during a plane trip.

Makes you wonder if conservatives, along with sexists in general, consider masochism an admirable trait for women in leadership positions. That would explain their rabid defense of eight men (with the exception of Richardson) personally attacking Clinton in the October 30th debate and wondering why anyone would question their right to do so.

Aren't women supposed to suffer in silence?

Noonan did jog my memories of Thatcher’s tenure as PM and my impression of her at the time. I recall feeling sad and disappointed that one of the few world leaders of my gender would try so hard to outdo the most mindless, intemperate macho males in the universe: "Here I am ready for war at a moment's notice."

Recall that Newsweek’s headlines in the spring of 1982 declared, “The Empire Strikes Back” when Thatcher sent a naval task force to recapture the Falkland Islands that Argentina had claimed since the 1830s.

Thatcher, one of the longest serving PMs in England’s history, was eventually ousted by an internal party ballot over concerns including her tax policies, high interest rates, divisions within the Conservative Party, and European integration.

Wikipedia states:

Her {Thatcher’s} distaste for consensus politics and willingness to override colleagues' opinions, including that of Cabinet, emboldened the backlash against her when it did occur. Others cited her strong uncompromising personality. The dislike for Thatcher that had previously come primarily from her political opponents was now being expressed by some members of her own party.

The obvious differences between Thatcher and Clinton are even more reason to elect Clinton as president. Clinton’s judgment, ability to get things done, competence, leadership skills, wisdom, knowledge, and experience have all been well demonstrated over the years.

Thatcher may have had little in common with Hillary Clinton, but in reviewing the biography of England’s first woman PM, I was suddenly struck by how many traits she shared with our current president, also noted throughout his tenure for his disdain for consensus politics, his willingness to override colleagues’ opinions, and his uncompromising personality that many have described as his stubborn streak.

And about that Newseek headline, "The Empire Strikes Back," Dubya and cohorts have also emulated Thatcher’s leadership by attempting to build the empirical presidency — the US Constitution be damned.

The Far-Reaching Effects of the Quagmire in Iraq

Brent Budowsky’s hard-hitting op-ed in Tuesday’s edition of the Hill begins:

Democrats in 2008 have an issue more powerful than Kennedy’s campaign against Nixon and the missile gap in 1960, and Reagan’s campaign against Carter championing military strength in 1980.President Bush is so obsessed with Iraq that he damages the war in Afghanistan, contributes to destabilizing Pakistan, fails to kill Osama bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda, and does grave harm to our military and troops.

There’s no let up from Budowsky:

The quagmire in Iraq and grave damage to our mission in Afghanistan continues. The escape of Osama bin Laden and resurgence of al Qaeda continues. The ability of Iran to exploit the Bush blunders in Iraq continues. The damage to our military, the ugly divisions in our nation, and the global loathing of our president are escalating.

There’s more:

Of course, the real war to kill bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda is failing because the obsession with Iraq has stolen manpower, money and unity that is necessary to win this war, and this is the one television ad Democrats should run throughout America.

Budowsky’s piece seems intended to light a fire under the Democrats, but in fact, it should ignite the entire country in preparation for the coming presidential election. This is one op-ed that deserves to be read in its entirety.

What Bush’s Successor Must Face

Founding Father George

Famously could not tell lies

George Bush: not so much

...haiku by Arianna Huffington

As I’ve followed the presidential campaign over the past several months, I’ve consciously measured each candidate by envisioning how she or he would be able to clean up the mess George W. Bush will inevitably leave behind. But I’ve not as yet sat down and listed separately the nightmarish components of Bush’s likely legacy.

Not to worry. The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson has accomplished that task in his column today. Here’s Robinson’s take on the situation Bush’s successor will inherit:

Throughout much of the world, the United States is seen as an arrogant bully whose rhetoric about freedom and the rule of law is disgracefully empty. The lawyers and students who are being tear-gassed in the streets of Pakistan's cities will long remember that, when push came to shove, Bush chose to stick with a cooperative dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, rather than live up to his words about the universal value of democracy.

The next president will be left with more than 100,000 U.S. troops bogged down in Iraq, with an unfinished war in Afghanistan -- and, between those two crises, a strengthened and emboldened Iran that hopes to dominate the world's most dangerous region. Nice work.

Bush's successor will, incredibly, assume control of a United States government that interrogates suspected terrorists with "enhanced" techniques known throughout the world by a much simpler term: torture. The new commander in chief will almost surely take custody of hundreds of people detained without formal charges and on questionable evidence, and held for years in secret CIA prisons or at Guantanamo. The next president will take over a government that claims the right to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens without meaningful judicial oversight.

Whoever takes office in January 2009 will be left with a more polarized economy -- an America where the rich have been made richer during the past six years with generous tax cuts, while more than 40 million people struggle without
health insurance. The new president will be left with a government that not only failed miserably in its response to the most extensive natural disaster the nation has ever faced but that also reneged on Bush's pledge to rebuild a better New
Orleans -- and to make it possible for all those who lived in the city to return.

The next occupant of the White House will find the nation's coffers depleted by Bush's wars -- the price tag doubtless will have reached $1 trillion by Inauguration Day -- and by
whatever it eventually costs to keep the housing market afloat.

Robinson concludes: “He or she will inherit, in short, a dismal mess. It will take most of the new president's first term to begin to set things right.”

Every item on Robinson’s list makes me shudder, but it’s the “enhanced” interrogation, our compassionate conservative’s euphemism for torture, that strikes me as the very dregs of Bush’s legacy. How low has America sunk under this evil man’s leadership?

In casting our vote for the next president we’d best ask ourselves which candidate has the integrity, wisdom, courage, experience, knowledge, leadership skills, and strength to restore America and lead us forward. As I've said before, never mind the “likeability” factor. That’s what gave us Bush in the first place.

Follow-up on Turkey

Thanks to Sara from Groveland who left a comment in response to David Brunet’s recent post: Turkey: An Endangered Bridge Between East and West.

Sara mentioned Rick Steves’ travel blog, which lists on its homepage three posts on Turkey in reverse order: Thorny Turkish Issue #3: If You Mix Turkey into Europe, Will It Curdle? Thorny Turkish Issue #2: Turks and Kurds; Thorny Turkish Issue #1: Armenia

In reply, Brunet, a former Fulbright scholar in Turkey, said he has always liked Steves’ travel notes. And he appreciated that in the above essays Steves identifies Turkey as a constitutionally secular government.

Commenting further, Brunet says “Steves talks about the Kurds being scattered throughout Turkey and notes that most of them are not PKK and don't favor a separatist state.” Brunet recalls, “When we lived in Izmir one of my favorite shopkeepers was Kurdish. I would stop and talk with him almost daily, and when I left Izmir to come home to the US, I went to his shop to say goodbye. I considered him a friend, and it had nothing to do with whether or not he was Kurdish.”

I checked out Steves' essays on Turkey, and I agree with Sara from Groveland and Brunet that they provide background information helpful in understanding the issues the Turks are now facing.

A Torturous Discussion

In my last post yesterday, I commented on recent rituals of the religious right loudly proclaiming their preferred presidential candidates: Sen. Brownback endorsed John McCain, and Pat Robertson proudly announced his support of Rudy Giuliani (watch Robertson and Giuliani on YouTube from this site).

After reflecting in my post on the apparent fragmentation of evangelical Christians, the GOP’s key block of voters, I raised a question popular among this group, “What would Jesus do?” and left it there.

My thoughts later drifted back to childhood Sunday school lessons when we were taught that Jesus’ kingdom was not of this world; he wasn’t interested in political power. But as I recall, Jesus had a lot to say about loving our neighbor, including the foreigner in our midst, famously illustrated in the story about the good Samaritan. In that light it’s a little jarring to read the Fox News summary of Roberts’ reasons for supporting Giuliani:

Robertson on Wednesday said Giuliani is the best candidate to handle the War on Terror. He said Giuliani understands the need for a conservative judiciary, and that he is a "true fiscal conservative" who is tough on crime.

"The overriding issue before the American people, is the defense of our population against the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists," Robertson told the National Press Club audience. "Our world faces deadly peril...and we need a leader with a bold vision who is not afraid to tackle the challenges ahead."

Robertson said Giuliani is "a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans ... It is my hope and prayer that he will lead the Republican Party to victory in November of 2008."

In today’s Los Angeles Times, Rosa Brooks reminds us that Giuliani’s “hopeful vision for all Americans” includes his boast to use torture whenever it suits America’s needs:

Giuliani's main selling point with GOP stalwarts is his toughness on terrorism, symbolized by his "gloves-off" approach to interrogations. In the campaign's first GOP presidential debate, Giuliani told a cheering crowd that if the U.S. captured a suspect believed to be planning a terrorist attack, "I would tell the people who had to do the interrogation to use every method they can think of." Pressed on whether that would include waterboarding, Giuliani repeated, "Every method they could think of, and I would support them in doing that." More recently, Giuliani claimed that whether or not waterboarding is torture "depends on who does it."

I make no claims to being a traditionally defined Christian, but as a peace-loving, theistic Unitarian-Universalist, I respect the social justice teachings of Jesus, and I’m appalled that a segment of our society, led by the likes of Pat Robertson, continues to distort his teachings and exploit gullible followers to promote cruelty and inhumane treatment of other human beings in our own country and throughout the world.

Giuliani and McCain Each Grab a Splinter of the Religious Right

Two headlines today report seemingly contradictory developments in the Bush era’s love affair between the GOP and the religious right.

First we learn in Laurie Goodstein’s article in the NY Times that Senator Charles E. Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is investigating six prominent evangelistic ministries to determine whether they have illegally used donations to finance opulent lifestyles.

Grassley is questioning these preachers about their compensation, housing allowances, checking and savings accounts, cars, airplanes and overseas trips.

Goodstein quoted Sen. Grassley from a telephone interview: “Jesus comes into the city on a simple mule, and you got people today expanding his gospel in corporate jets. Somebody ought to raise questions about is it right or wrong.”

While Grassley is reminding six high-living preachers of the humble lifestyle of Jesus, Republican presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani, despite a few liberal social views, and John McCain are celebrating endorsements today by a couple of other prominent leaders of the evangelical Christian movement.

CNN reports that Pat Robertson, the television evangelist and Christian Coalition founder — not seen recently astraddle a mule — endorsed Republican White House hopeful Rudy Giuliani for president when the two men appeared together at the National Press Club in Washington on Wednesday.

In more breaking news from CNN, former White House hopeful Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican who is the leading voice for Christian conservatives in the Senate, will endorse Sen. John McCain for president, McCain's campaign announced Wednesday.

The headlines cited above in the NY Times and CNN appear to support rumors of the splintering of the religious right. If so, Giuliani and McCain have each latched onto a remaining well-funded splinter, hoping it will contribute to the success of their respective campaigns.

Dare I ask, "What would Jesus do?"