When I began this blog in 2001, I was appalled by President Bush's headlong rush to an illegal war (we were not in fact under attack). As time wore on and Bush began his assault on the Constitution and any people bold enough to criticize, I believed that "the republic is endangered more by actions of our own government than by those of any terrorist." With the election of a high-minded, compassionate, intelligent man like Barack Obama, my fears have ceased.
"Honor them with peace, not war"
United for Peace
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
I stayed up too late last night to hear the opening speeches of the Democratic Convention. They first brought on former President Jimmy Carter, the best ex president we ever had.
He has been setting an example ever since 1980 on how a former US chief can use all that influence for good in the world. Carter was legitimized somehow by winning a Nobel Peace Prize and until that point, went unrecognized by his party, but then, as one of the commentators on PBS noted, he ran against the insiders in Washington, and perhaps never was really part of the party.
Carter lit into Bush with facts and humanitarian principles.
Asked by a reporter if he thought Bush was solely responsible for all those things (what a question!) Carter said its hard to know fromthe outside who caries the most influence on any given issue, but that the inner circle of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et all. may all contribute (but other than Cheney, they are not elected).
None of this is new to anyone who has been reading their news online and checking into the so-called "liberal blogs."
But if all your news came from TV, you would be left stunned, asking where Carter got all this stuff from -- why didn't we read about it? For my part, I was surprised to hear one of the commentators remark in advance of the speech that Carter has been very critical of Bush. I think I read once that he haed offered a critique of some aspect, but only once.
The guy who said that was commenting in advance of Carter's speech, trying to reconcile that critical stance with what he had beentold by someone in the Kerry group, that all the convention would focus on what Kerry will do right, and avoid Bush-bashing. But it is a measure of how far the press has been devoured by the Bush spinmeisters that they consider any criticism whatever "Bush bashing." What about free debate? What about legitimate differences of opinion on how to conduct our foreign policy?
Bush has brought Democrats together in a way no Democrat ever has. We despise him for what he has done to this country and the cynical, lying way he has done it, for his lack of concern for any human values at the same time preaching his ersatz religion.
Yet Carter's remarks were never out of line. He did not attack the man personally, merely his failed policies. That is exactly where the debate should be.
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
Pres. Carter
I stayed up too late last night to hear the opening speeches of the Democratic Convention. They first brought on former President Jimmy Carter, the best ex president we ever had.
He has been setting an example ever since 1980 on how a former US chief can use all that influence for good in the world. Carter was legitimized somehow by winning a Nobel Peace Prize and until that point, went unrecognized by his party, but then, as one of the commentators on PBS noted, he ran against the insiders in Washington, and perhaps never was really part of the party.
Carter lit into Bush with facts and humanitarian principles.
- He took him to task for abandoning the anti-terrorism fight in Afghanistan to pursue his personal goal of going into Iraq.
- He took him to task for the "unnecessary" Iraq war.
- He took him to task for abandoning all the allies created through 50 years of US diplomacy and the good will from the world following 9-11.
- He criticized him for departing from world treaties govering international justice, the environment, and nuclear containment.
Asked by a reporter if he thought Bush was solely responsible for all those things (what a question!) Carter said its hard to know fromthe outside who caries the most influence on any given issue, but that the inner circle of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et all. may all contribute (but other than Cheney, they are not elected).
None of this is new to anyone who has been reading their news online and checking into the so-called "liberal blogs."
But if all your news came from TV, you would be left stunned, asking where Carter got all this stuff from -- why didn't we read about it? For my part, I was surprised to hear one of the commentators remark in advance of the speech that Carter has been very critical of Bush. I think I read once that he haed offered a critique of some aspect, but only once.
The guy who said that was commenting in advance of Carter's speech, trying to reconcile that critical stance with what he had beentold by someone in the Kerry group, that all the convention would focus on what Kerry will do right, and avoid Bush-bashing. But it is a measure of how far the press has been devoured by the Bush spinmeisters that they consider any criticism whatever "Bush bashing." What about free debate? What about legitimate differences of opinion on how to conduct our foreign policy?
Bush has brought Democrats together in a way no Democrat ever has. We despise him for what he has done to this country and the cynical, lying way he has done it, for his lack of concern for any human values at the same time preaching his ersatz religion.
Yet Carter's remarks were never out of line. He did not attack the man personally, merely his failed policies. That is exactly where the debate should be.
Palema
7:11 AM
Comments:
Post a Comment
Copyright © 2001-03 Pam Shorey
(except the specific sources credited in quotes)
|
|