I sent this letter to the editor of my local newspaper in Southwestern Virginia:-------------------------------------------------------------------
If this message sounds the least vituperative, please know I do not mean it to be that way. I am passionately involved with politics because I see the ship of state in danger of being sunk by a tsunami of ideology, and it scares me to death.
So, what about this VP pick, Sarah Palin? I heard her speech last night. You know, the only reason I can see why she was chosen was this "narrative" thing her party's strategists seem to think they can pull over on the American public.
She was glib and patently dismissive of Obama’s real experience and community service. She could stand in for Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter any day. In fact, “conservative” spin doctors have been spinning the outrageous (and cynical, which is antithetic to John McCain's essence) claims that she has more experience than the entire Democratic ticket combined, and much of the folks for whom red meat is red meat regardless of where it is from, will swallow it.
Here's what they're basing that claim on: the positions of mayor and governor are executive branch positions. Never mind the fact that the town had 7,000 people and the state of Alaska is one of the least populous states in the union, she has had to make "executive decisions." According to the town's meeting minutes, the most momentous decision she had to make as town mayor was where to move the town dump.
Let's forget for a moment that she is a woman, and look at the qualifications. John McCain has never been a mayor, a governor, or the head of a company. He has never made an executive decision in his life, so following their own logic, Sarah Palin has more experience than John McCain!!!
So, that shows you how much value their statement about the Democrats versus her experience contains -- none. She was not chosen for her statesmanship, but for her ability to attack. Fact is, she has a bachelor's degree in journalism (VS. Obama's graduate law degree and professorship for over a decade, teaching constitutional law), is an extreme-fringe evangelical who wants creationism taught in public schools, and believes Jesus will soon return, as soon as the Apocalypse happens (I suspects she wants it to). This from a woman who says the war in Iraq is “God’s task.” Never mind that oil and war profiteering have long been proven to be the true reasons we’re there.
She has often been observed hunting wolves and bear from a helicopter, does not believe global climate change is caused by humans, and wants to take the polar bear off the endangered species list. As mayor, she tried to ban books from the local library. Six months ago, Palin told members of the Alaska Independents Party — who advocate for a vote on secession from the union — to "keep up the good work" and wished the party luck on what she called its “inspiring convention." Do your own digging, if you don't believe it.
Just recently, a Dutch intelligence team who had infiltrated the Iranian nuclear industry for purposes of sabotage were tipped off that an American attack on Iran was imminent, and fled Iran. And in the midst of all this, Sarah Palin would be a literal heart beat away from having to take over the presidency if McCain, the oldest candidate ever for presidency, who has had several bouts with melanoma, can no longer perform his duties.
You'll have to excuse me if I find that quite worrisome. I think that would worry anyone who truly ponders the facts as they are, not as they are portrayed on television most of the time. "Straight talk" is fine and dandy if the shortest, most simple answer makes you feel better, but the real world is a great deal more nuanced than that.
I want a president who will weigh the options in an international crisis from a standpoint of knowledge and understanding of differing global zeitgeists, not one of the ideology of military strength. The idea is to defuse or contain the bomb, literal or cultural, not to let it wreak destruction, damn the likelihood of collateral damage.
McCain could have chosen from any number of supremely qualified Republican women, who could indeed step in and be an effective president. I find this choice ill conceived and cynical.Darn right, I am upset. I don't think a bosun’s mate can captain the ship of state.
Three more thoughts, when it comes to citizen versus corporate culture: Thomas Jefferson warned the continental congress against the proliferation of corporate takeover of the commons, which is why we have socialized institutions like public education, libraries, law enforcement and fire protection, highway infrastructure, and defense. Why the phobia about socialized medicine, I don't know. Yes, the Canadian system is far from perfect, but the Danish, Swedish and English systems are exemplary, according to citizens of those countries. We don't need to pattern single-payor medicine after the worst example. Pick the best points of the best examples, and fine-tune it to the American way of life.
Point two: Republican Teddy Roosevelt warned the American public that there is a global "shadow government not beholden to any citizen or country." Yes, he really said that, as have many others of both parties. It is not conspiracy theory, but fact. Follow the money: who is pulling the strings?
Point three: Republican Ike Eisenhower warned the American public against the proliferation of the military-industrial complex. Ever since the onset of neoconservative ideology in American government, there has been a total disregard for this warning.
I've studied history. Back in Ike's day, I would have at least felt safe under a Republican administration. Now, I don't. How inconvenient, under the present ideology, that under the rules of the Geneva convention, habeas corpus applies and has value to protect our servicemen and women precisely because it protects enemy combatants. It has existed since the thirteenth century, when the Magna Carta was signed, and is considered a mainstay of modern civilization. These cheap neocon chiselers keep chipping away at the cornerstones of our beloved country, while pulling the wool over the eyes of the vulnerable and I’ve had enough!
This is why I support a true patriot, a constitutionalist who will preserve the constitutional intent of our founding fathers: Barack H. Obama.HH
I used to love watching John McCain on The Daily Show. In contrast to the other white-haired conservatives who would drone through Rove-authored talking points during their appearances, McCain seemed more real, ready to poke fun at himself and let unvarnished political truths slip through a knowing smile. His tit-for-tat exchanges with left-leaning host Jon Stewart often made for impressively frank and stimulating political discourse—something that was (and still is) very difficult to find on “real” news programs, particularly during election season. But right around the beginning of last year, as he was no doubt preparing his next run for president, McCain’s Daily Show appearances began to sink into a depressingly familiar archetype. He still made light of his advanced age and showed mock-surprise when the studio audience of college kids and other liberals booed his opinions on certain issues, but when it came to discussing policy with his sharp-minded host, the smoldering honesty was gone. He began parroting absurd positions of the Bush Administration, uttering lines like (I’m paraphrasing here), “Actually, the Iraq War is going quite well.” Lines usually reserved for mindless partisan hacks like Ari Fleischer and Ann Coulter. In a matter of months, John McCain went from being one of my favorite guests to watch on the show to being the most disappointing. The changes in John McCain the politician viewed through the lens of his Daily Show appearances have laid bare a sad truth: in an attempt to get elected president, he has become one of the miserable Republican automatons he used to condemn. Eight years ago, I respected John McCain and even liked him. I admired his strength of his convictions and the pragmatic give-and-take of many of his positions on the issues. He was the conservative uncle familiar to many young liberals: strident and stubborn in his right-wing views, but realistic and intelligent enough to deserve respect and admiration, regardless of the disagreements you may have with him. The John McCain of 2000 was confident in his out-of-the-mainstream standing in his party. He had new ideas about what it meant to be conservative in America, ideas that often clashed with the neoconservative policies that traveled through a pipeline from a Washington think tank to the Bush ’00 campaign headquarters. The John McCain of 2008 is a shadow of his former self. Cautious and thoughtful reasoning on important issues has given way to scare tactics and name-calling. He claims to have never questioned his opponent’s love of country while his campaign speeches and television ads do exactly that. His time spent in a Vietnam prison camp, once a fragile badge of courage and patriotism, has become a heavy and imprecise political weapon used to bludgeon valid attacks on his policies into silence without entering into any real discussion of the issues.
It is with heartfelt sadness that I make these observations—to see one of my favorite politicians on the national stage and the only Republican I have ever considered voting for forsake his best qualities is disheartening. There will always be party loyalists who, early in their careers, exchange their own intellectual honesty and moral conscience for political advancement and a taste of power. There are more Cheneys and Gonzalezes and Rumsfelds in our political system than one person can count, but until eighteen months ago, John McCain was not one of them. I can only speculate that I speak for Jon Stewart as well as myself when I ask, Et tu, Senator McCain?
Also visit: Time Magzine's take on the two John McCains in the context of an August 28, 2008 interview. [Transcript excerpts and full audio of interview]
www.antiwar.com
"Rebuilding America's Defenses (RAD)" is a policy document published by a neoconservative Washington think tank called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Its pages have been compared to Hitler's Mein Kampf in that they outline an aggressive military plan for U.S. world domination during the coming century. And just as Hitler's book was not taken seriously until after his catastrophic rise to power, so it seems that relatively few Americans are expressing alarm at this published document that is a blueprint for many of the present actions of the Bush administration, actions which have begun to destabilize the balance of power between the nations of the world. There is, indeed, much reason for alarm because PNAC is not an ordinary think tank and "RAD" is not an ordinary policy paper. Many PNAC members now hold key positions in the White House, Defense and State Departments, among them Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, Lewis Libby, and John Bolton, along with others in lesser positions. William Kristol, writer for the conservative magazine, the Weekly Standard, is chairman of the group. Some of these men have been advocating for a strong military posture since the ending of cold war hostilities with the Soviet Union. Wishing to capitalize on the fact that the US had emerged as the world's preeminent superpower, they have lobbied for increases in military spending in order to establish what they call a Pax Americana that will reap the rewards of complete military and commercial control of land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. This, they said, would be accomplished by the waging of "multiple simultaneous large-scale wars" and one of their first orders of business was always the removal of Saddam Hussein, thereby giving the US a toehold in the oil-rich Middle East. During the Clinton presidency, when the Republicans were out of power, this militaristic wing in American politics became highly organized and efficient. They formed the PNAC in 1997 And published "RAD" in September 2000. Determined to have their world empire, they offered an eerie prophecy on page 52 of that document about how it might be accomplished, "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." Their dream of a catalyzing event could not have been better actualized than in the events of 9/11. Although there could have been many responses to the tragedy of 9/11, the Bush administration seized upon that event to mold public opinion into accepting many ideas embodied in "RAD". The overthrow of Saddam Hussein, was being proposed by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz one day after 9/11, even before anyone knew who was responsible for the attacks. As soon as the war against Afghanistan was completed, the focus of US policy became regime change in Iraq, with all of the tragic consequences we are now seeing in that country. Policies advocated in "RAD" are being enacted with terrifying speed, such as denigration of the UN, importance of Homeland Security, abrogation of international agreements, revamping of the US nuclear program and the spread of American military power into all corners of the globe by preemptive engagement. In Iraq we have seen the embodiment of "RAD" directives that call for the subjugation of regimes considered hostile to US interests and the prevention of military build-up in countries that may challenge US power. Bush's "Axis of Evil" nations Iraq, Iran and North Korea are mentioned numerous times as potential trouble spots and there is repeated insistence that the US establish military outposts in the Middle East and East Asia. Most frightening is its complete isolation from any ideas of world unity and cooperative action. The authors appear to be intent on waging war as an answer to the problems of our planet, tragically imagining that peace can be won by enforcing American values on every other nation. A more chilling statement of the PNAC devotion to militaristic domination cannot be found than in Richard Perle's concept of "total war". "No stages," he said, "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now." This article is a summarization of "RAD." I believe it is of importance to become familiar with this document because it is determining US policy decisions which will have far reaching repercussions for decades to come. Subject areas are arranged under three topics: A. Pax Americana, outlining the rationale for global empire, B. Securing Global Hegemony, pinpointing regions that are considered trouble spots for US policy, C. Using the Military to Gain Empire, outlining military plans for complete world domination. My personal comments are in italics; page numbers are from the original document. See URLs at the end for further reading.
The building of Pax Americana has become possible, claims "RAD," because the fall of the Soviet Union gave the United States status as the world's preeminent superpower. Consequently the US must now work hard, not only to maintain that position, but to spread its military might into geographic areas that are ideologically opposed to its influence, waging "multiple simultaneous large-scale wars" to subdue countries that may stand in the way of US global preeminence. Rationales offered for going to war with other nations are the preservation of the "American peace" and the spread of "democracy."
On Preserving American Preeminence "It is not a choice between preeminence today and preeminence tomorrow. Global leadership is not something exercised at our leisure, when the mood strikes us or when our core national security interests are directly threatened; then it is already too late. Rather, it is a choice whether or not to maintain American military preeminence, to secure American geopolitical leadership, and to preserve the American peace" (p. 76). "The Cold War world was a bipolar world; the 21st century world is – for the moment, at least – decidedly unipolar, with America as the world's 'sole superpower.' America's strategic goal used to be containment of the Soviet Union; today the task is to preserve an international security environment conducive to American interests and ideals. The military's job during the Cold War was to deter Soviet expansionism. Today its task is to secure and expand the 'zones of democratic peace;' to deter the rise of a new great-power competitor; defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the Middle East; and to preserve American preeminence through the coming transformation of war made possible by new technologies" (p. 2).
Four Vital Missions "RAD" lists four vital missions "demanded by US global leadership": "Homeland Defense. . . . the United States . . . must counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter US military action by threatening US allies and the American homeland itself. Of all the new and current missions for US armed forces, this must have priority. "Large Wars. Second, the United States must retain sufficient forces able to rapidly deploy and win multiple simultaneous large-scale wars and also to be able to respond to unanticipated contingencies in regions where it does not maintain forward-based forces. "Constabulary Duties. Third, the Pentagon must retain forces to preserve the current peace in ways that fall short of conducting major theater campaigns. . . . These duties are today's most frequent missions, requiring forces configured for combat but capable of long-term, independent constabulary operations. "Transform US Armed Forces. Finally, the Pentagon must begin now to exploit the so-called 'revolution in military affairs,' sparked by the introduction of advanced technologies into military systems; this must be regarded as a separate and critical mission worthy of a share of force structure and defense budgets" (p. 6). ". . . the failure to provide sufficient forces to execute these four missions must result in problems for American strategy. And the failure to prepare for tomorrow's challenges will ensure that the current Pax Americana comes to an early end" (p. 13).
On Usurping the Power of the UN "Further, these constabulary missions are far more complex and likely to generate violence than traditional 'peacekeeping' missions. For one, they demand American political leadership rather than that of the United Nations, as the failure of the UN mission in the Balkans and the relative success of NATO operations there attests. Nor can the United States assume a UN-like stance of neutrality. . . . American troops, in particular, must be regarded as part of an overwhelmingly powerful force" (p. 11).
B. Securing Global Hegemony
"RAD" takes the posture that only the US should manipulate international relations and points out "trouble spots" that may cause future problems, like all of East Asia, and Iraq, Iran, and North Korea (now labeled by George Bush as the "Axis of Evil"). There is concern that several nations might come together to challenge US interests. Consequently any nation that produces nuclear weapons or engages in significant arms buildup will be viewed as a potential threat. "America's global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace, relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energy-producing region, and East Asia; and the general stability of the international system of nation-states relative to terrorists, organized crime, and other 'non-state actors.' "A retreat from any one of these requirements would call America's status as the world's leading power into question. As we have seen, even a small failure like that in Somalia or a halting and incomplete triumph as in the Balkans can cast doubt on American credibility. The failure to define a coherent global security and military strategy during the post–Cold War period has invited challenges; states seeking to establish regional hegemony continue to probe for the limits of the American security perimeter" (p. 5).
Axis of Evil "The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself. The blessings of the American peace, purchased at fearful cost and a century of effort, should not be so trivially squandered" (p. 75).
Iraq and the Persian Gulf "Although the no-fly-zone air operations over northern and southern Iraq have continued without pause for almost a decade, they remain an essential element in US strategy and force posture in the Persian Gulf region. Ending these operations would hand Saddam Hussein an important victory, something any American leader would be loath to do" (p. 11). "The Air Force presence in the Gulf region is a vital one for US military strategy, and the United States should consider it a de facto permanent presence, even as it seeks ways to lessen Saudi, Kuwaiti and regional concerns about US presence" (p. 35).
East Asia "Raising US military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the rise of China to great power status. "The prospect is that East Asia will become an increasingly important region, marked by the rise of Chinese power….A similar rationale argues in favor of retaining substantial forces in Japan. In recent years, the stationing of large forces in Okinawa has become increasingly controversial in Japanese domestic politics, and while efforts to accommodate local sensibilities are warranted, it is essential to retain the capabilities US forces in Okinawa represent. If the United States is to remain the guarantor of security in Northeast Asia, and to hold together a de facto alliance whose other main pillars are Korea and Japan maintaining forward-based US forces is essential" (p. 18). "Reflecting the gradual shift in the focus of American strategic concerns toward East Asia, a majority of the US fleet, including two thirds of all carrier battle groups, should be concentrated in the Pacific. A new, permanent forward base should be established in Southeast Asia" (p. 39).
Europe "Despite the shifting focus of conflict in Europe, a requirement to station US forces in northern and central Europe remains. The region is stable, but a continued American presence helps to assure the major European powers, especially Germany, that the United States retains its longstanding security interest in the continent. This is especially important in light of the nascent European moves toward an independent defense 'identity' and policy; it is important that NATO not be replaced by the European Union, leaving the United States without a voice in European security affairs" (p. 16).
Regime Change "American military preeminence will continue to rest in significant part on the ability to maintain sufficient land forces to achieve political goals such as removing a dangerous and hostile regime when necessary" (p. 61). "America's adversaries will continue to resist the building of the American peace; when they see an opportunity as Saddam Hussein did in 1990, they will employ their most powerful armed forces to win on the battlefield what they could not win in peaceful competition; and American armed forces will remain the core of efforts to deter, defeat, or remove from power regional aggressors" (p. 10).
C. Using the Military to Gain Empire
One stated objective of "RAD" is "to outline the large, 'full-spectrum' forces that are necessary to conduct the varied tasks demanded by a strategy of American preeminence for today and tomorrow" (p. 5). Much of the document is an elucidation of those missions and includes specific recommendations about weaponry, deployment patterns, increased personnel and defense spending. It envisions a future in which the United States is in complete control of land, sea, air, space and cyberspace of planet Earth and urges a new rendition of Reagan's "Star Wars" defense shield program. "Until the process of transformation is treated as an enduring military mission – worthy of a constant allocation of dollars and forces – it will remain stillborn" (p. 60). "If an American peace is to be maintained, and expanded, it must have a secure foundation on unquestioned US military preeminence" (p. 4). "In sum, the 1990s have been a 'decade of defense neglect'. This leaves the next president of the United States with an enormous challenge: he must increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership, or he must pull back from the security commitments that are the measure of America's position as the world's sole superpower and the final guarantee of security, democratic freedoms and individual political rights" (p. 4).
Army "American landpower remains the essential link in the chain that translates US military supremacy into American geopolitical preeminence. . . . Regimes are difficult to change based upon punishment alone. If land forces are to survive and retain their unique strategic purpose in a world where it is increasingly easy to deliver firepower precisely at long ranges, they must change as well, becoming more stealthy, mobile, deployable and able to operate in a dispersed fashion. The US Army, and American land forces more generally, must increasingly complement the strike capabilities of the other services. Conversely, an American military force that lacks the ability to employ ground forces that can survive and maneuver rapidly on future battlefields will deprive US political leaders of a decisive tool of diplomacy" (p. 30).
Air Force "Because of its inherent mobility and flexibility, the Air Force will be the first US military force to arrive in a theater during times of crisis; as such, the Air Force must retain its ability to deploy and sustain sufficient numbers of aircraft to deter wars and shape any conflict in its earliest stages. Indeed, it is the Air Force, along with the Army, that remains the core of America's ability to apply decisive military power when it pleases. To dissipate this ability to deliver a rapid hammer blow is to lose the key component of American military preeminence" (p. 37).
Navy/Marine Corps "The end of the Cold War leaves the US Navy in a position of unchallenged supremacy on the high seas, a dominance surpassing that even of the British Navy in the 19th and early parts of the 20th century. With the remains of the Soviet fleet now largely rusting in port, the open oceans are America's, and the lines of communication open from the coasts of the United States to Europe, the Persian Gulf and East Asia. Yet this very success calls the need for the current force structure into question. Further, the advance of precision-strike technology may mean that naval surface combatants, and especially the large-deck aircraft carriers that are the Navy's capital ships, may not survive in the high-technology wars of the coming decades. Finally, the nature and pattern of Navy presence missions may be out of synch with emerging strategic realities. In sum, though it stands without peer today, the Navy faces major challenges to its traditional and, in the past, highly successful methods of operation" (p. 39).
Overseas Bases to Advance American Geopolitical Interests "There should be a strong strategic synergy between US forces overseas and in a reinforcing posture: units operating abroad are an indication of American geopolitical interests and leadership, provide significant military power to shape events and, in wartime, create the conditions for victory when reinforced. Conversely, maintaining the ability to deliver an unquestioned 'knockout punch' through the rapid introduction of stateside units will increase the shaping power of forces operating overseas and the vitality of our alliances. In sum, we see an enduring need for large-scale American forces" (p. 74). "As a supplement to forces stationed abroad under long-term basing arrangements, the United States should seek to establish a network of 'deployment bases' or 'forward operating bases' to increase the reach of current and future forces. Not only will such an approach improve the ability to project force to outlying regions, it will help circumvent the political, practical and financial constraints on expanding the network of American bases overseas" (p. 19).
Nuclear Expansion "…of all the elements of US military force posture, perhaps none is more in need of reevaluation than America's nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons remain a critical component of American military power but it is unclear whether the current US nuclear arsenal is well-suited to the emerging post–Cold War world. . . . there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep underground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries" (p. 8). If the United States is to have a nuclear deterrent that is both effective and safe, it will need to test." (pp. 7–8). "But what should finally drive the size and character of our nuclear forces is not numerical parity with Russian capabilities but maintaining American strategic superiority – and, with that superiority, a capability to deter possible hostile coalitions of nuclear powers. US nuclear superiority is nothing to be ashamed of; rather, it will be an essential element in preserving American leadership in a more complex and chaotic world" (p. 8).
Space Command – Control of the "International Commons" ". . . control of space – defined by Space Command as 'the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space' – must be an essential element of our military strategy" (p. 55). "The ability to have access to, operate in, and dominate the aerospace environment has become the key to military success in modern, high-technology warfare. . . . How well the Air Force rises to the many challenges it faces – even should it receive increased budgets – will go far toward determining whether US military forces retain the combat edge they now enjoy" (pp. 38–39). "Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international commerce – defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new 'international commons' be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the 'infosphere' will find it difficult to exert global political leadership" (p. 51). "As Space Command also recognizes, the United States must also have the capability to deny America's adversaries the use of commercial space platforms for military purposes in times of crises and conflicts. Indeed, space is likely to become the new 'international commons', where commercial and security interests are intertwined and related. (Pp. 54–55).
Star Wars "Building an effective, robust, layered, global system of missile defenses is a prerequisite for maintaining American preeminence" (p. 54). ". . . effective ballistic missile defenses will be the central element in the exercise of American power and the projection of US military forces abroad. Without it, weak states operating small arsenals of crude ballistic missiles, armed with basic nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction, will be in a strong position to deter the United States from using conventional force, no matter the technological or other advantages we may enjoy. Even if such enemies are merely able to threaten American allies rather than the United States homeland itself, America's ability to project power will be deeply compromised" (p. 12).
Cyberspace or 'Net War' "If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then 'cyberspace', and in particular the Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new 'global commons'. "Although many concepts of 'cyber-war' have elements of science fiction about them, and the role of the Defense Department in establishing 'control', or even what 'security' on the Internet means, requires a consideration of a host of legal, moral and political issues, there nonetheless will remain an imperative to be able to deny America and its allies' enemies the ability to disrupt or paralyze either the military's or the commercial sector's computer networks. Conversely, an offensive capability could offer America's military and political leaders an invaluable tool in disabling an adversary in a decisive manner. "Taken together, the prospects for space war or 'cyberspace war' represent the truly revolutionary potential inherent in the notion of military transformation. These future forms of warfare are technologically immature, to be sure. But, it is also clear that for the US armed forces to remain preeminent and avoid an Achilles Heel in the exercise of its power they must be sure that these potential future forms of warfare favor America just as today's air, land and sea warfare reflect United States military dominance" (p. 57).
"McCain has been perceived to be relatively hawkish on foreign policy . . . In February 2000, during a Republican debate, McCain and others candidates were asked what foreign policy they would change immediately if they became president. "I’d institute a policy that I call ’rogue state rollback,’" McCain said. "I would arm, train, equip, both from without and from within, forces that would eventually overthrow the governments and install free and democratically- elected governments."[2]
McCain’s 2006 foreign policy rating, compiled by the Almanac of American Politics (2008) , was 58% conservative, 40% liberal. 2005 figures were similar: 54% conservative, 45% liberal.[3] In March 2008, McCain said that the United States should "strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact -- a League of Democracies -- that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests." He said that the United States did not single-handedly win the Cold War, but that rather that the NATO alliance did so, "in concert with partners around the world." [4] Among McCain’s advisors is Robert Kagan, commonly considered to be a member of the group of neo-conservatives who were influencial in implementing the Iraq War.[5]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain
Hillary and Bill and John McCain are neocons who will continue a series wars under the guise of spreading democracy. Senator Obama needs to explain to the general public, in simple terms, exactly what that foreign policy is all about.
I don't expect everyone will read the PNAC's lengthy report, but I'm hoping someone (Mr. Obama are you listening?) will, at least, outline their agenda and present it. That outline needs to also present the connection to the monotheists' internal wars.
GREETINGS OBAMITES!Some of you know that I lead an ongoing "charge" against the insidious journalism practiced by FOX NEWS and SHAWN HANNITY. I have taken it personally, as have many of you, when these Neoconservatives apply these dangerous, misleading and offensive practices to our candidate. While the attached letter was sent to over 80 newspapers, Editors and pundits, I took the liberty of forwarding it, separately, to Mr. Keith Olbermann and COUNTDOWN at MSNBC. I did so, because I know NO OTHER PUNDIT who could vocalize the feeling of indignation that so many of you have told me that you have felt. It warranted, I felt, the castigating tone that is one of Mr. Olbermann's "to the point" hallmarks. I was honored in that he conveyed my message "loud and clear." This, my friends, was beyond imperrative, because Mr Hannity's incidiary tone could have reasonably been expected to incite radicals who, in an a "John Wilkes Booth-like" show of mutated patriotic bigotry, could very well attempt to do PHYSICAL harm to Senator Barack Obama or to members of his family. Keith, however, took it ONE STEP FURTHER, and exposed the expressions of SANCTIONED HATE that have come forth from FOX owner, RUPERT MURDOCH and the patrons of his public-opinion boards and blogs. I have posted the TWO relevant links in the "boxed" section immediately following this one, as well as at the points of relevance in the main body of this piece for easy reader correlation. It may interest you to know that, yesterday, it was made clear, that Democratic Governor, and staunch Clinton supporter, Governor Ed Rendell, of Pennsylvania, has endorsed…FOX NEWS! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23889508#23889508). The Governor described it as "a fair and balance"news service. Keith immediately bestowed upon him the same "testimonial" earned only by the members of that most "exclusive of exclusive," "members only" order; THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD! Subsequent letter: Shawn Hannity: STOP the anti-OBAMA “FOX-VIRUS” NOW (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rickbasora/gGBnpb)
GREETINGS OBAMITES!
Some of you know that I lead an ongoing "charge" against the insidious journalism practiced by FOX NEWS and SHAWN HANNITY. I have taken it personally, as have many of you, when these Neoconservatives apply these dangerous, misleading and offensive practices to our candidate. While the attached letter was sent to over 80 newspapers, Editors and pundits, I took the liberty of forwarding it, separately, to Mr. Keith Olbermann and COUNTDOWN at MSNBC. I did so, because I know NO OTHER PUNDIT who could vocalize the feeling of indignation that so many of you have told me that you have felt. It warranted, I felt, the castigating tone that is one of Mr. Olbermann's "to the point" hallmarks. I was honored in that he conveyed my message "loud and clear." This, my friends, was beyond imperrative, because Mr Hannity's incidiary tone could have reasonably been expected to incite radicals who, in an a "John Wilkes Booth-like" show of mutated patriotic bigotry, could very well attempt to do PHYSICAL harm to Senator Barack Obama or to members of his family. Keith, however, took it ONE STEP FURTHER, and exposed the expressions of SANCTIONED HATE that have come forth from FOX owner, RUPERT MURDOCH and the patrons of his public-opinion boards and blogs. I have posted the TWO relevant links in the "boxed" section immediately following this one, as well as at the points of relevance in the main body of this piece for easy reader correlation. It may interest you to know that, yesterday, it was made clear, that Democratic Governor, and staunch Clinton supporter, Governor Ed Rendell, of Pennsylvania, has endorsed…FOX NEWS! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23889508#23889508). The Governor described it as "a fair and balance"news service. Keith immediately bestowed upon him the same "testimonial" earned only by the members of that most "exclusive of exclusive," "members only" order; THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD!
Subsequent letter: Shawn Hannity: STOP the anti-OBAMA “FOX-VIRUS” NOW (http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/rickbasora/gGBnpb)
KEITH OLBERMANN presents: THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD
March 19, 2008 - Hannity's Site Features Outrageous Obama Posts http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23716643#23716643 March 21, 2008 - FoxNews.com HATE SPEECH http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23716643#23750779
March 19, 2008 - Hannity's Site Features Outrageous Obama Posts
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23716643#23716643
March 21, 2008 - FoxNews.com HATE SPEECH
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23716643#23750779
From: Rick Basora [the_dragonwolf@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:23 AM
To: KEITH OLBERMANN & COUNTDOWN [countdown@msnbc.com]
Subject: FW: SHAWN HANNITY - THE PINNACLE OF IRRESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM AT ITS WORST
The very “worstest” person in the world
Keith, You are my absolute “bestest PUNDITARIAN hero.” I’ve circulated this “modestly” but my deepest hope is that it gets to you. Kindly note the “Olbermannisms.”
SIC’EM!
Nothing can excuse the extremes of irresponsible journalism exhibited by Shawn Hannity and FOX on the 3/9/08 edition of Hannity's America. There, he deliberately attempted to vilify a Presidential candidate with tabloid-worthy disinformation. This is how tyranny is raised; by feeding it. I wrote this letter and sent it to the journalistic world in order to expose this un-American "jester". I am forwarding it to the respectable and credible Keith Olbermann, in hopes that he may use it as a "belt" with which to "spank" this buffoon for discrediting your legitimate profession of "informers of the world." If this “Roman Circus” of an election campaign succeeds in its apparent objective of robbing America of its “popular” will, let all Americans know, that Shawn Hannity stands charged and convicted of complicity.
From: Rick Basora Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 11:26 PM
To: Hannity@foxnews.com; Feedback@foxnews.com; yourcomments@foxnews.com
Cc: 'americasnewsroom@foxnews.com'; 'Myword@foxnews.com'; 'Friends@foxnews.com'; 'Jamie@foxnews.com'; 'Newswatch@foxnews.com'; 'Foxreport@foxnews.com'; 'Atlarge@foxnews.com'; 'JER@foxnews.com'; 'Lineup@foxnews.com'; 'Martha@foxnews.com'; 'Ontherecord@foxnews.com'; 'Special@foxnews.com'; 'Cavuto@foxnews.com'; 'editor@ajr.org'; 'mailto:editor@ajr.org'; 'rrieder@ajr.org'; 'rsmolkin@ajr.org'; 'tkunkel@ajr.org'; 'executive-editor@nytimes.com'; 'managing-editor@nytimes.com'; 'washington@nytimes.com'; 'national@nytimes.com'; 'metro@nytimes.com'; 'news-tips@nytimes.com'; 'public@nytimes.com'; 'president@nytimes.com'; 'CEO-CarolineLittle@wpni.com'; 'executive.editor@washingtonpost.com'; 'wsj.ltrs@wsj.com'; 'a.murray@wsj.com'; 'a.latour@wsj.com'; 'd.pettit@wsj.com'; 't.cullen@wsj.com'; 'j.fry@wsj.com'; 'darren.mcdermott@wsj.com'; 'ombudsman@washpost.com'; 'metro@washpost.com'; 'national@washpost.com'; 'tips@tribune.com'; 'ctc-tribletter@tribune.com'; 'publiceditor@tribune.com'; 'EAchenbaum@tribune.com'; 'ctc-editor@tribune.com'; 'bdold@tribune.com'; 'TMcNulty@tribune.com'; 'gdelama@tribune.com'; 'JCWarren@tribune.com'; 'aaguilar@tribune.com'; 'aahmed@tribune.com'; 'KAlleynemorris@tribune.com'; 'LBAnderson@tribune.com'; 'rranderson@tribune.com'; 'kataiyero@tribune.com'; 'NBendavid@tribune.com'; 'lbowean@tribune.com'; 'SChapman@tribune.com'; 'LCohen@tribune.com'; 'JChase@tribune.com'; 'JCrewdson@tribune.com'; 'HDardick@tribune.com'; 'MDorning@tribune.com'; 'askamy@tribune.com'; 'national@latimes.com'; 'tvtimes@latimes.com'; 'op-ed@latimes.com'; 'letters@latimes.com'; 'info@ap.org'; 'mediainquiries@msnbc.com'
Subject: SHAWN HANNITY - THE PINNACLE OF IRRESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM AT ITS WORST
To Shawn Hannity and to the Management of Fox Broadcasting;
Last night, as I watched Shawn Hannity, on Hannity’s America, corrupt the minds of “the corruptible” with a program that tendered accusations of “terrorist” affiliations between Barack Obama and William Ayers of the former Weathermen, I was reminded of the collective “brainwashing” that, as a child, I was taught to believe was a characteristic only of “evil” nations like the former Soviet Union and of former Nazi Germany. As a child, I recall being assured by my 6th grade teacher that such a robbery of the human “will” would never be tolerated in America. FREEDOM, she said, could only be achieved by a people who were empowered with TRUTH as the element that, along with a sense of identity, made valid their RIGHT to CHOOSE it. Last night, your Shawn Hannity usurped that right from those Americans susceptible to the inflammatory; from those vulnerable to the politics of FEAR and from those ignorant BY CHOICE to the REALITIES of the Presidential candidates at large.
Mr, Hannity, I am compelled to remind you that, despite your reluctance, we still reside in a country where the rule of law prescribes that a person is innocent, and not by association, until proven guilty. I feel further obligated to engage your cynical racial and religious bigotry by reminding you that, if African Americans find refuge in institutions and churches whose very names herald a predictable WELCOME, it is because the sins of our fathers have forced them, however subconsciously, to find refuge in an identity. (Keith Olbermann's observations - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23716643#23750779) No, Mr. Hannity, a church with a name that speaks to a black congregation is not a racist statement; it is a statement of fraternity that you and our forefathers insisted on disallowing white America from fully participating in…and yet…they welcome us. Further, you “mouth” the word “Muslim” as if it were the very “sound” of social and religious leprosy. You might recall that legitimate Muslims are a peaceful people in non-complicity with the fanatics that did us and still wish us harm. Your message, sir, is one that has a history of inciting lynch mobs and, just in case Jenna, LA taught you nothing, ALL OF AMERICA will put that mob DOWN. While I am certain that Senator Obama would strongly sensor my statement, I will ask you that, if you must hate the mutations of religious principal, then, Sir, hate the religion of The Crusades, of the THOUSAND YEARS of European Inquisition, of Waco, Texas and of The Salem Witch Trials. Hate whatever fed the narcissism of Reverends Jim Baker and Jim Jones and you can start by hating the perversion of 10,000 pedophile priests, the Institutions that fed them our children. Hate those who sanctioned their rape and that, in doing so, stripped many of us of the comfort that one should find in the words “In God We Trust.”
As it has become commonplace with radical Conservatives, last night Mr Hannity invoked the late President Reagan and his anecdote of a father who, back in the days of the “cold war”, declared that he would prefer to see his two little daughters dead…rather than to see them live under a faithless and godless Communist regime. With that story, Mr. Hannity attempted to rouse his audience to a “pitch” of nationalistic outrage. It appeared to me that he was IMPLICIT LY charging Senator Obama of practicing a communist-like godlessness. Allow me to remind FOX and Mr. Hannity that it was Mrs. Hillary Clinton’s Wellsley College thesis honoring her ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT mentor, Saul Alinsky and his MARXIST teachings, that earned her the appellative “Alinsky’s daughter.” The document necessitated its being SEALED to the public by a 1993 special Presidential order issued by her husband who considered it a political liability because of its “radical” content. This document was “unsealed” in 2001 after the Republicans took office and is currently available for your scrutiny and review. What happens to human convictions after 40 years have passed is known only to those minds that contain them and to God Himself who made them; not to Shawn Hannity.
He went on to showcase President Reagan in a clip from his “Star Wars” speech, where he indicated that America was “a country that did not start wars.” Gentlemen, if this was Shawn Hannity’s way of weaving “illusions of war-mongering” with which to surround a Presidential candidate who stands on a platform of DIALOGUE as his preferred weapon of pre-emption of war, you may want to advise him about the fact that we ARE, in fact, in a war unjustly started; a war that he endorsed and that he is a member of the political party that started it. Senator Obama was the legislator who attempted unsuccessfully to galvanize an effective movement to avoid it. History has proven him to have been STRATEGICALLY CORRECT and no degree of Mr. Hannity’s resenting him for it will grant him access to that elite minority reserved solely for the JUDGEMENTALLY SOUND.
As the pariah of last nights “Hannity’s America” unfolded, it was clear that Mr. Hannity extended warm and humane concern for the life and wellbeing of one Britney Spears. In stark contrast, was his misguided and malicious presentation of the character, principals, religion and persona of one Barack Obama; a legitimate Senator of the United States, respected by what most polls reflect as the majority of our country’s electorate. In doing so, this contemporary carpetbagger has insulted the MILLIONS whose voices are the mandate that drives his candidacy. Hannity has slapped the essential face of Democracy; of the decent journalists and pundits of FOX and of our media. He attempted a coupe on the people’s right for TRUTH to be allowed to guide the American Electoral process. Most of all, Mr. Hannity has provided the most educated minds in America, described by Frank Newport of the Gallup Organization as being the core of Senator Obama’s support, with irrefutable evidence that any legitimate opposition to Senator Obama’s Presidential bid can only find momentum in feeble minds inspired by synthesized realities delivered by “tabloid” journalists beholden to tyrants who, regardless of their party affiliation, are certainly worthy of the descriptive, “MONSTERS.” It is no wonder, gentlemen that we are referred to in Europe as “hypocritical contradictions of ourselves.”
Perhaps, Mr. Hannity, you may want to discuss issues that are current and of legitimate concern to America. I might suggest that you begin with programming devoted to the more than TEN MILLION DOLLARS in Saudi, Middle Eastern and Taiwan contributions received by the Clintons and disclosed by The Washington Post, The NY Times, Jihad Watch and more. Some good questions to begin with would be; how will this impact “President” Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy decisions regarding the war on terror if she and her husbands personal interests are funded by the world’s largest supporters of it? How will this Saudi endorsement affect her right to speak to women’s rights? How will Taiwan’s “offering” temper her engagement of China as the possible new “owner” of America? There are REAL issues, I assure you, that scream for addressing; issues of far greater nobility than your need for tabloid ratings. If, however, that is all that we can expect from you, you might consider a piece on the story that just broke on New York’s Governor Spitzer admitting to involvement in a prostitution ring. It is, as you know, yet another scandal from a State plagued by the seemingly polar opposites of unspeakable hardship and of chronic corruption by its politicians. That should be sordid enough to satisfy your personal and/or political libations, Sir.
Take heed of these, my closing words. The irresponsibility of Shawn Hannity’s “rabble rousing journalism” could very well inspire right wing radical extremists to commit acts in PATENT SUPPORT of his bastardized rant. Because you, Mr. Hannity, are in contempt of the most basic of professional standards and of the ethics of personal decency, we, the majority of America’s electorate hold you and The Fox Network personally responsible for any such actions and further hold you accountable for promoting them and for inspiring them. (KEITH OLBERMANN'S observations - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23716643#23716643)
If we are to learn the lessons willed to us by the American “giant” that was Robert F. Kennedy, it behooves us to recognize that YOU, Mr Hannity, are THE EXTREMIST.
“What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents.” Robert Francis Kennedy
Rick Basora
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 6:00 PM
To: letters@time.com; WebEditors@newsweek.com; Letters@newsweek.com; letters@usnews.com
Cc: 'Atlarge@foxnews.com'; 'Hannity@foxnews.com'; 'JER@foxnews.com'; 'Lineup@foxnews.com'; 'Martha@foxnews.com'; 'Ontherecord@foxnews.com'; 'Special@foxnews.com'; 'Cavuto@foxnews.com'; 'yourcomments@foxnews.com'; 'editor@ajr.org'; 'rrieder@ajr.org'; 'rsmolkin@ajr.org'; 'tkunkel@ajr.org'; 'president@nytimes.com'; 'executive-editor@nytimes.com'; 'managing-editor@nytimes.com'; 'washington@nytimes.com'; 'national@nytimes.com'; 'metro@nytimes.com'; 'news-tips@nytimes.com'; 'public@nytimes.com'; 'letters@nytimes.com'; 'CEO-CarolineLittle@wpni.com'; 'executive.editor@washingtonpost.com'; 'letters@washpost.com'; 'ombudsman@washpost.com'; 'metro@washpost.com'; 'national@washpost.com'; 'wsj.ltrs@wsj.com'; 'a.murray@wsj.com'; 'a.latour@wsj.com'; 'd.pettit@wsj.com'; 't.cullen@wsj.com'; 'j.fry@wsj.com'; 'darren.mcdermott@wsj.com'; 'tips@tribune.com'; 'ctc-tribletter@tribune.com'; 'publiceditor@tribune.com'; 'EAchenbaum@tribune.com'; 'ctc-editor@tribune.com'; 'bdold@tribune.com'; 'TMcNulty@tribune.com'; 'gdelama@tribune.com'; 'JCWarren@tribune.com'; 'aaguilar@tribune.com'; 'aahmed@tribune.com'; 'KAlleynemorris@tribune.com'; 'LBAnderson@tribune.com'; 'rranderson@tribune.com'; 'kataiyero@tribune.com'; 'NBendavid@tribune.com'; 'lbowean@tribune.com'; 'SChapman@tribune.com'; 'LCohen@tribune.com'; 'JChase@tribune.com'; 'JCrewdson@tribune.com'; 'HDardick@tribune.com'; 'MDorning@tribune.com'; 'askamy@tribune.com'; 'national@latimes.com'; 'tvtimes@latimes.com'; 'op-ed@latimes.com'; 'letters@latimes.com'; 'ctc-TribLetter@Tribune.com'; 'info@ap.org'; 'headlinenews@cnn.com'; 'mediainquiries@msnbc.com'; 'letters@msnbc.com'; 'Nightly@NBC.com'; 'Dateline@NBCUNI.com'; 'transnet87@aol.com'; 'countdown@msnbc.com'; 'race08@msnbc.com'; 'Inquirer.Letters@phillynews.com'; 'views@phillynews.com'; 'letters@post-gazette.com'; 'opinion@tribweb.com'; 'mm-tips@mediamatters.org'; 'barrett_td@yahoo.com'; 'wholesalershoppers@yahoo.com'; 'karendillard@hotmail.com'; 'dplouffe@barackobama.com'; 'john@greenskydesign.com'; nancymillinger@theamericaninitiative.org; Blackberry Muppet; Mutt; Sis; Cousin Jeannette; Marmaduke's Office; Marmaduke ; Mike Beauregard; Rick Basora ; Tuneta; Gizmo Chula; Broomrider; The Wielder of the Wand; Wiccan Bride of the Elder God
Subject: Shawn Hannity - STOP the anti-OBAMA FOX VIRUS NOW
Dear Mr. Hannity;
By now you must certainly be aware that a NATIONAL MOVEMENT is in motion against you and against what America has come to know as THE FOX VIRUS that comes forth from the RADICAL EXTREMIST NEO-CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN mouthpiece that you and FOX have become. Presenting our voice to the media of America now comes in the form of the Robert Greenwald film “Fox Attacks Obama (Spreading the Virus)” which, as you can see, is the envelope sent “special delivery” and containing the national petition now underwritten by moveon.org and their Political Action’s Adam Green.
After the travesty of ethical journalism perpetrated by FEMA on October 26, 2007, where it hosted its own “staged” televised news conference reporting on the state of EMERGENCY SERVICES to victims of Hurricane Katrina, it was brought to the attention of America that, not only was the person addressing this “skit” a FEMA official, but so were those asking the questions who, while posing as reporters, were exposed by Al Kamen of The Washington Post in his article FEMA Meets the Press, Which Happens to Be . . . FEMA. The fact that the article alleges that you carried this charade LIVE, and then passed on the video to MSNBC and other news outlets, renders FOX Television, and its agents, complicit in the efforts of what Christy Hardin Smith, of FIREDOGLAKE, calls The Department of Planting Your Own Propaganda And Hoping No One Notices assigned to the Bush administration.
Mr. Hannity, neither you, nor your colleague-at-arms, Rush Limbaugh, can be allowed, by a nation on the very brink of social, economic, political and global chaos, to continue manipulating puppet strings, pushing buttons and pulling levers the outcome of which you CLEARLY know nothing about. Mr. Limbaugh’s disgracefully titled attempt at hijacking the current Presidential election has earned him the dubious distinction of being named WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23908634#23908634) by MSNBC's KEITH OLBERMANN. It now appears on his own website with the headline Operation Chaos Under Assault.
As you frantically attempt to continue the milking of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright controversy, synthetically created by your Conservative minions, you appear less than pathetic before an increasingly intolerant nation that, as you can see, by Senator John McCain’s attainment of the honorable position of The Republican Presidential Nominee, America has declared you and your Neoconservative “cult”, politically, philosophically, morally and subversively UNDESIREABLE.
I, and America, continue to observe your frenzied contribution to the engineering and staging of a premeditated and choreographed conspiracy aimed at discrediting the legitimacy of Senator Barack Obama as a Presidential candidate, as well as the WONDER of the grass-roots movement taking shape around him. We watch in dismay as you question your guests, carefully selected to provide the most desirable answers for the damming of the voice of HOPE that FOX radio has described as “sounding like Hitler.” Yet, when Democratic Analysts, Tanya Acker and Bob Beckel, as well as your own Alan Colmes, have asked you questions as simple as “So, are you saying that every child whose parents took them to the Trinity United Church of Christ is, therefore, disqualified from growing up to aspire to one day becoming President of the United States,” you conspicuously, and at every turn, refuse to answer the question. You are fully aware that, answering that question, honestly, would reduce you to the hypocritical contradiction of yourself that you are. Take note, Mr. Hannity, your refusal to respond implicitly convicts you in spite of you.
I was held in utter disbelief … which then slowly grew to anger when, last night, you summoned former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, to join in the spreading of THE FOX VIRUS. I found two things to be in poignant opposition with your intention of subverting America. The first was Mr. Gingrich’s repeated insistence that he did NOT question Senator Obama’s integrity, his loyalty to America or his non-alignment with Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s apparent anti-American rants. Later in the same program, and despite your best efforts, this same opinion was echoed, with even greater emphasis and eloquence, by Senator John McCain, who insisted on addressing issues of legitimate concern to our country and clearly, refused to participate in your scripted outcomes. You must, as a consequence, Sir, be torn between wondering if the walls of correctness are closing in on you or whether they, in fact, are spreading so far apart that your only company would be the members of your own League of Liars.
The second observation, born of your program’s intentions, last night, was your patent set-up of “JUDGMENT” as the supposedly flawed characteristic displayed by Senator Barack Obama in his choosing to continue to attend Wright’s Trinity church. You spoke the word “JUDGMENT,” with diacritical accentuation, no less than a dozen times and consistently modified it with adjectives such as “flawed,” “poor,” etc in your transparent attempt to pre-empt the Senator’s platform of SOUND JUDGEMENT in the furtherance of his Presidential bid. I will excuse myself from redundancy and I will quote my own words from the letter that, on March 16, 2008, I sent to you and Fox Management titled SHAWN HANNITY - THE PINNACLE OF IRRESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM AT ITS WORST:
“Gentlemen, if this was Shawn Hannity’s way of weaving “illusions of war-mongering” with which to surround a Presidential candidate who stands on a platform of DIALOGUE as his preferred weapon of pre-emption of war, you may want to advise him about the fact that we ARE, in fact, in a war unjustly started; a war that he endorsed and that he is a member of the political party that started it. Senator Obama was the legislator who attempted unsuccessfully to galvanize an effective movement to avoid it. History has proven him to have been STRATEGICALLY CORRECT and no degree of Mr. Hannity’s resenting him for it will grant him access to that elite minority reserved solely for the JUDGEMENTALLY SOUND.”
Last night, what achieved the “apex of the offensive,” Sir, was that you utilized former Speaker, Newt Gingrich, to assist you in making the point of presenting Senator Obama’s judgment as, somehow, flawed. Might I remind you that Newt Gingrich headed the 1998 charge to impeach President William Jefferson Clinton on charges stemming from the extramarital affair that he sustained with one Monica Lewinsky. In a March 8, 2007 Associated Press article featured on your very own FOX News, titled "Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich Acknowledges ...Having Affair During Clinton Impeachment," we are presented with an interview with James Dobson of Focus on the Family that reveals the following:
“Gingrich argued in the interview, however, that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite for pursuing Clinton's infidelity.”
"The president of the United States got in trouble for committing a felony in front of a sitting federal judge," the former Georgia congressman said of Clinton's 1998 House impeachment on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. "I drew a line in my mind that said, 'Even though I run the risk of being deeply embarrassed, and even though at a purely personal level I am not rendering judgment on another human being, as a leader of the government trying to uphold the rule of law, I have no choice except to move forward and say that you cannot accept ... perjury in your highest officials."
Sir, translated into common English, this says…There are rules and laws that apply to ALL, including the President of The United States, but that I, because my name is Newt Gingrich, a Neoconservative, reserve the right to exempt myself from them. No, Mr. Hannity, your show, your network, your self-righteous, pontificating ploys called supporting guests, your intentions, your manic obsession with imposing dynastic rule… but most of all, YOU… are tacitly UNACCEPTABLE as is your effort to present this morally diseased neoconservative “fowl” as someone qualified to “judge the judgment” of EAGLES. I am taking the liberty of forwarding this correspondence to Representative Henry Waxman, who, last year moved to have yours and Mr. Rush Limbaugh’s actions investigated, as well as to Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Kevin Martin, who, I am advised, has been put on notice of the nature of your endeavors, that now appear to many, as being contrary to our very national security.
America will NEVER belong to your minion of disguised patriotic indigence, Sir, and, least of all, to YOU. I would suggest that you listen to a song, considered by many of my generation as an American Anthem, and that I recently sent to the Democratic Superdelegates as well. In ’64 Bob Dylan spoke of times that were “a-changing. I submit to you, Shawn Hannity, that there is an unmistakable wind of CHANGE in the air and MILLIONS, like me, bear witness to its hopeful reality. To you, and to those like you, frantically trying to stop this will be like trying to stop the wind. We have paid for this campaign and for this movement, unlike the politicians of yesteryears and of today, with our own monies, 5, 10, 25 dollars at a time. I know that you must resent the force that such a movement presents. Your colleagues must , as well, fear the threat to their lifetime relationships with lobbyist dollars that will scatter like fallen leaves on this wind. Yes, Mr Hannity, make no mistake. More than times a-changing, Sir, the times …THEY DUN HAVE CHANGED!
Come senators, congressmen Please heed the call Don't stand in the doorway Don't block up the hall For he that gets hurt Will be he who has stalled There's a battle outside And it is ragin'. It'll soon shake your windows And rattle your walls For the times they are a-changin'.
From the song The Times They Are A-Changin’ by Bob Dylan (1964)
Complete lyrics - http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/times.html
Listen to it here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vou4qUu5YY
RICK F. BASORA
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 11:26 PM
To: 'Hannity@foxnews.com'; 'Feedback@foxnews.com'; 'yourcomments@foxnews.com'
Mr, Hannity, I am compelled to remind you that, despite your reluctance, we still reside in a country where the rule of law prescribes that a person is innocent, and not by association, until proven guilty. I feel further obligated to engage your cynical racial and religious bigotry by reminding you that if African Americans find refuge in institutions and churches whose very names herald a predictable WELCOME, it is because the sins of our fathers have forced them, however subconsciously, to find comfort in an identity. No, Mr. Hannity, a church with a name that speaks to a black congregation is not a racist statement; it is a statement of fraternity that you and our forefathers insisted on disallowing white America from fully participating in…and yet…they welcome us. Further, you “mouth” the word “Muslim” as if it were the very “sound” of social and religious leprosy. You might recall that legitimate Muslims are a peaceful people in non-complicity with the fanatics that did us and still wish us harm. Your message, sir, is one that has a history of inciting lynch mobs and, just in case Jenna, LA taught you nothing, ALL OF AMERICA will put that mob DOWN. While I am certain that Senator Obama would strongly sensor my statement, I will ask you that, if you must hate the mutations of religious principal, then, Sir, hate the religion of The Crusades, of the THOUSAND YEARS of European Inquisition, of Waco, Texas and of The Salem Witch Trials. Hate whatever fed the narcissism of Reverends Jim Baker and Jim Jones and you can start by hating the perversion of 10,000 pedophile priests, the Institutions that fed them our children. Hate those who sanctioned their rape and that, in doing so, stripped many of us of the comfort that one should find in the words “In God We Trust.”
Take heed of these, my closing words. The irresponsibility of Shawn Hannity’s “rabble rousing journalism” could very well inspire right wing radical extremists to commit acts in PATENT SUPPORT of his bastardized rant. Because you, Mr. Hannity, are in contempt of the most basic of professional standards and of the ethics of personal decency, we, the majority of America’s electorate hold you and The Fox Network personally responsible for any such actions and further hold you accountable for promoting them and for inspiring them. If we are to learn the lessons willed to us by the American “giant” that was Robert F. Kennedy, it behooves us to recognize that YOU, Mr Hannity, are THE EXTREMIST.
“What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." Robert F. Kennedy
It seems less and less apparent that Hillary Clinton will prevail over Barack Obama to get the Democratic nomination for president. Particularly if we Obama supporters continue to campaign for Barack and do the work to GOTV for Barack in the remaining state by state contests, to show our support for his campaig through to the convention in Denver in August, I just don't see the Democratic Party going against the will of Democratic voters throughout the country.
Obama needs to keep working hard to win constituencies in the remaining contests, but he also needs to start looking forward to the general election, as John McCain has already started running against Barack. Tom Hayden's piece in today's The Nation is important to consider in this regard. Read it and head it here:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080303/hayden
Hayden calls for peace activists to counter the coming neoconservative onslaught. He says:
It will be messy and ugly, with right-wingnuts calling Obama by his middle name as often as possible. ...
The opportunity for the peace movement is to engage in open political and intellectual battle, from precincts to public forums, against the neoconservative agenda for a permanent war against Muslim radicals and on behalf of American access to oil with dire consequences at home.
Lets get on it.
