Yeah. Like Bizarro Superman. Superman's exact opposite, who lives in the backwards bizarro world. Up is down. Down is up. He says "Hello" when he leaves, "Good bye" when he arrives.
- Jerry (Jerry Seinfeld) to Elaine (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) in "The Bizarro Jerry" episode of "Seinfeld," written by David Mandel and first aired on Oct. 3, 1996
Let me get this out of the way, right off the top, so there is no misunderstanding: Iran has a dangerous, reprehensible, oppressive, religiously-fanatic government that represents a bigger threat to the world than virtually any other nation on earth (calm down, North Korea, you guys are one-A to Iran's number one ranking). Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is, at best, insane, and, at worst, evil, and in any case is potentially capable of atrocities at the level of Hitler and Stalin.
And, Russia's recent slide from democracy, including the news in a New York Times article yesterday that President Vladimir Putin supports an extension of presidential terms and a strengthening of executive power, not to mention Russia's threats regarding plans for NATO missiles in Eastern Europe, is quite troubling.
Or, put another way, I will not be heading to Tehran or Moscow on vacation anytime soon. Hell, I'm uncomfortable walking past Persian restaurants and subways headed to Brighton Beach.
That is why I found it so incredibly infuriating when I read recent statements about the U.S. from Ahmadinejad and Putin over the last two days, and I couldn't even argue with them. Based on the damaging policies of President George W. Bush, we no longer have the moral authority to oppose these dangerous individuals.
Yesterday, a Yahoo!/AP article reported that Ahmadinejad said about his country's nuclear program, "It is too late to stop the progress of Iran." The article later related that Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini suggested that the U.S. had no right to criticize Iran, claiming in a written statement, "Instead of offering inefficient suggestions, America should assess its own tactics — secret prisons, mistreatment and even inhuman treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib."
Similarly, in the Times article, Putin offered a defense of his democratic record, saying, "Let’s see what is happening in North America — sheer horror: torture, the homeless, Guantánamo, detention without a trial or investigation."
Sure, both men were missing the point. Even if the U.S. is engaging in reprehensible conduct, it does not make it right for other countries to do so, as well. It's like the little kid who gets caught stealing a candy bar arguing that it's okay because his buddy had stolen one, too. And, of course, the comparison is not equal on its face, as the Iranians and Russians would like you to believe. As potentially harmful as Bush's incursions on American democracy have been, they do not rise to the level of the threats to democracy posed by Putin, and certainly not to the oppression of his own people practiced by Ahmadinejad and his government.
But, has it really come to this? Has it reached a point that a dangerous tyrant and a potentially dangerous leader with a questionable record can speak out, knowing that the country that was once the moral authority in the world can say nothing because it has, itself, slipped into the club of governments that don't respect the rule of law?
With all the failures of the Bush presidency, potentially the most damaging and dangerous by-product of the administration's policies is that, in perception and in fact, the U.S. is no longer a country that occupies the moral high ground as the white knight of democracy in the world.
I fully understand that 20th Century American history is littered with odious incidents of the U.S. improperly exerting its power in far-flung parts of the world in the name of furthering democracy. Just ask the people of Chile, Cambodia and, of course, Iran about that. And, we absolutely failed democratic movements in other countries, supporting absolute governments that were loyal to the U.S. even as they denied rights to the majority of their people (again, Iranians can tell you all about this).
But, within the borders of the U.S. and in our conducting of wars, democracy and the rule of law ran supreme. Not anymore. Now we conduct warrantless wiretaps on our own citizens. Now we have a Patriot Act that rolls back civil liberties to a level that I'm sure made the bones of Jefferson and Adams spin in unison in their graves. Now we have a prison at Guantanamo Bay where people are held for years without being charged, just like in the countries we criticize like Iran and Russia. Now we pile naked Iraqis into human pyramids and have prisoners die in our custody, when we used to point to Japanese and Vietnamese prison camps as improperly treating Americans. Now, although we push and pull the language until it's more bent out of shape than a Stretch Armstrong toy after a few hours with a pit bull, we torture people, either by doing it ourselves (waterboarding is not an X Games competition) or by sending them to torturers in "friendly" countries. These are just a few of the items on the Bush administration rap sheet.
Bush tells us that these affronts to democracy are necessary to protect our way of life from the terrorists. But, if we keep taking away basic human rights, what is left to protect? He is stripping America of what made it special as a beacon of democracy.
During the Cold War, it was easy to distinguish right from wrong. "News" that came from the Kremlin was generally devoid of facts and came from the imagination of a propaganda machine. Now, when Hosseini or Putin call the U.S. on its atrocities, they're not spinning fiction. They're stating facts, and in doing so, they can divert the discussion from their own atrocities and dangerous policies. Ironically, that is the very tactic used so effectively by the Bush White House.
The result is potentially calamitous. In the 20th Century, the U.S., while hardly perfect, had clean hands when it said to countries that committed human rights violations against its citizens, "You're doing it wrong. Be more like us." Now, thanks to Bush, when we say that, the countries can respond, "Wait, we ARE more like you." And that's reprehensible. It's bad enough that Bush's folly in Iraq has left us militarily unprepared to confront Iran, but the immoral way in which he has run the country has left us with diminished moral authority to oppose this dangerous nation. If, thanks to Bush, we cannot stand up to Iran's nuclear program or Russia's move towards absolutism, who will?
It's like we've entered the Superman bizarro world that formed the basis of the "Seinfeld" episode I quoted at the top of this piece. In the world I grew up in, the U.S. was the good guy, and the other countries, like Iran and the Soviet Union, were the clear villains. But now? Iran, for sure, is still a super villain, and a more powerful one at that, but it's hard to argue that the U.S. is a superhero. Not much of what Bush has done has stood for "truth, justice and the American way."
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Libby Off to Jail, Bush and Cheney Remain At Large
People who occupy these types of positions, where they have the welfare and security of nation in their hands, have a special obligation to not do anything that might create a problem.
-U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton in sentencing I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, according to a Yahoo!/AP article
I have one question for President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney: How do you sleep at night?
Okay, I just realized that the question needs context, since there are probably tens or hundreds of things they've done that would keep a person with any kind of moral center and respect for the democratic process tossing and turning in bed until the alarm goes off. This question has to do with today's sentencing of the Vice President's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to two-and-a-half years in prison and a $250,000 fine for his role in the Valerie Plame scandal.
For those of you who are aware of the name but not the details, the Plame Affair Wikipedia entry provides a decent overview of the facts. But, at heart, this case is pretty simple: A man named Joseph Wilson, a former diplomat who served in Iraq and Africa, revealed in a New York Times op-ed piece that contrary to a charge aired in the State of the Union address, Iraq did not seek to buy uranium from Niger, and the Bush administration had exaggerated the threat to justify the war in Iraq. Shortly thereafter, an article by conservative columnist Robert Novak revealed that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was an undercover operative for the CIA.
It is widely believed that the outing of Plame was the Bush administration's retaliation for Wilson's article. Bush, laughably, said in a New York Times article four days after Novak's column ran that, "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration. I don't know all the facts; I want to know all the facts." The quote is laughable on many counts, but two jump to mind.
First of all, Bush defended Libby at every stage of the investigation, even after his conviction, saying in a statement released by the White House that he was "very disappointed with the verdict." Second, is there any person on earth that honestly believes that Scooter Libby acted on his own in this case? (To be clear, Libby was convicted of lying and obstructing justice in the investigation, not actually leaking the name.) It's not like the Bush administration does not routinely use the power of the government to accomplish political goals (just ask the eight fired U.S. Attorneys). Even the most partisan Republican has to admit that it looks awfully unlikely that Cheney had no idea what was going on.
But what cannot be stated often enough is that a Presidential administration revealed the name of an active, undercover CIA agent to settle a political score. The revelation ended Plame's elaborately set up false identity (fake company, job, etc.) and, presumably, compromised investigations she was working on. Revealing the identity of agents can put other agents' lives at risk. Sure, the fired U.S. Attorneys lost their jobs. Thanks to the leak, undercover agents could lose their lives (and civilians, if an attack is not foiled because of the outing).
The Republicans constantly tell us that they are the ones to protect us, that left in the hands of Democrats, we are at greater risk. They don't just imply it, they tell us explicitly. Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani was quoted in the New York Times as saying that the U.S. would suffer "more losses" if a Democrat was elected president, and that Democrats “do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.” But, it was not a Democratic administration that ignored warnings in 2001 that Al Qaeda was planning to fly planes into buildings. It was not a Democratic president that let the terrorists run wild in Afghanistan and elsewhere while he pursued a doomed (and terrorist unrelated) war in Iraq. And, it was not a Democratic administration that leaked the name of an active CIA agent.
Libby is taking the fall for actions committed by the administration. Was leaking Plame's name an idea that came from his immediate boss, Cheney? From Karl Rove? We may never know for sure. But we can be quite sure that the decision came from higher than Scooter Libby.
So, while Scooter Libby empties out his bank account (assuming one of the many defense funds set up by conservatives for him does not pay the fine for him) and prepares to spend some time at a federal country club prison (you have to figure that even in a minimum-security lock-up, it can't be helpful to be known as "Scooter"), Bush and Cheney go about their business, trying to destroy everything that was ever great about this country. Of course, Libby may not ever serve a day if Bush pardons him.
And I'll ask the question again: How can Bush lie in bed next to Laura, see Scooter Libby walking into the courthouse on his plasma-screen television (he hit CNN by accident while trying to get the baseball scores), turn off the set, kiss Laura on the cheek, snuggle under his 500-thread-count sheets, and start having pleasant dreams about cowboy hats, oil and Jesus, without feeling guilty? How can Cheney crawl into his coffin, pull his Haliburton blanket over his head, and activate his heart resuscitation machine before drifting off to thoughts of punching liberals in their faces, without wondering if it is okay to stab a CIA agent in the back? Have they not a drop of morality? Does it bother them at all that a flunky is taking the fall for them? And, as a country, how can we sleep, knowing that these are the men running our nation?
Are they content because they know a pardon is coming? Even if that's true, Libby's life has been damaged, if not ruined.
The judge's quote that started off this article was directed at Libby, but it is equally applicable to Bush, Cheney and anyone else who had a hand in outing Valerie Plame. And, since Bush holds the power, it seems unlikely that anyone (except for Libby) will have to pay the price. But, of course, there is one group of people that does have the power to change things: The American electorate.
I hope that in November of 2008, when Americans cast their votes, they remember what Bush and his administration have done. If they do, there may finally be some justice meted out to those responsible for the Plame leak. While they won't be personally held accountable, their policies and beliefs will be. While that leaves a bit of a bitter taste in my mouth, it's fine, because the greater good of the country is more important than the fate of a few rich guys. If only the Bush administration believed in that idea.
[NOTE: After I published this article, a friend of mine sent me a link to a pile of letters sent to the court on Scooter Libby's behalf by people who have held high-ranking government positions (e.g. Donald Rumsfeld and Henry Kissinger). It's fascinating, but be advised: Wear high boots, because the level of cow dung in these pleas is exceedingly high.]
-U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton in sentencing I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, according to a Yahoo!/AP article
I have one question for President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney: How do you sleep at night?
Okay, I just realized that the question needs context, since there are probably tens or hundreds of things they've done that would keep a person with any kind of moral center and respect for the democratic process tossing and turning in bed until the alarm goes off. This question has to do with today's sentencing of the Vice President's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to two-and-a-half years in prison and a $250,000 fine for his role in the Valerie Plame scandal.
For those of you who are aware of the name but not the details, the Plame Affair Wikipedia entry provides a decent overview of the facts. But, at heart, this case is pretty simple: A man named Joseph Wilson, a former diplomat who served in Iraq and Africa, revealed in a New York Times op-ed piece that contrary to a charge aired in the State of the Union address, Iraq did not seek to buy uranium from Niger, and the Bush administration had exaggerated the threat to justify the war in Iraq. Shortly thereafter, an article by conservative columnist Robert Novak revealed that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was an undercover operative for the CIA.
It is widely believed that the outing of Plame was the Bush administration's retaliation for Wilson's article. Bush, laughably, said in a New York Times article four days after Novak's column ran that, "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration. I don't know all the facts; I want to know all the facts." The quote is laughable on many counts, but two jump to mind.
First of all, Bush defended Libby at every stage of the investigation, even after his conviction, saying in a statement released by the White House that he was "very disappointed with the verdict." Second, is there any person on earth that honestly believes that Scooter Libby acted on his own in this case? (To be clear, Libby was convicted of lying and obstructing justice in the investigation, not actually leaking the name.) It's not like the Bush administration does not routinely use the power of the government to accomplish political goals (just ask the eight fired U.S. Attorneys). Even the most partisan Republican has to admit that it looks awfully unlikely that Cheney had no idea what was going on.
But what cannot be stated often enough is that a Presidential administration revealed the name of an active, undercover CIA agent to settle a political score. The revelation ended Plame's elaborately set up false identity (fake company, job, etc.) and, presumably, compromised investigations she was working on. Revealing the identity of agents can put other agents' lives at risk. Sure, the fired U.S. Attorneys lost their jobs. Thanks to the leak, undercover agents could lose their lives (and civilians, if an attack is not foiled because of the outing).
The Republicans constantly tell us that they are the ones to protect us, that left in the hands of Democrats, we are at greater risk. They don't just imply it, they tell us explicitly. Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani was quoted in the New York Times as saying that the U.S. would suffer "more losses" if a Democrat was elected president, and that Democrats “do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.” But, it was not a Democratic administration that ignored warnings in 2001 that Al Qaeda was planning to fly planes into buildings. It was not a Democratic president that let the terrorists run wild in Afghanistan and elsewhere while he pursued a doomed (and terrorist unrelated) war in Iraq. And, it was not a Democratic administration that leaked the name of an active CIA agent.
Libby is taking the fall for actions committed by the administration. Was leaking Plame's name an idea that came from his immediate boss, Cheney? From Karl Rove? We may never know for sure. But we can be quite sure that the decision came from higher than Scooter Libby.
So, while Scooter Libby empties out his bank account (assuming one of the many defense funds set up by conservatives for him does not pay the fine for him) and prepares to spend some time at a federal country club prison (you have to figure that even in a minimum-security lock-up, it can't be helpful to be known as "Scooter"), Bush and Cheney go about their business, trying to destroy everything that was ever great about this country. Of course, Libby may not ever serve a day if Bush pardons him.
And I'll ask the question again: How can Bush lie in bed next to Laura, see Scooter Libby walking into the courthouse on his plasma-screen television (he hit CNN by accident while trying to get the baseball scores), turn off the set, kiss Laura on the cheek, snuggle under his 500-thread-count sheets, and start having pleasant dreams about cowboy hats, oil and Jesus, without feeling guilty? How can Cheney crawl into his coffin, pull his Haliburton blanket over his head, and activate his heart resuscitation machine before drifting off to thoughts of punching liberals in their faces, without wondering if it is okay to stab a CIA agent in the back? Have they not a drop of morality? Does it bother them at all that a flunky is taking the fall for them? And, as a country, how can we sleep, knowing that these are the men running our nation?
Are they content because they know a pardon is coming? Even if that's true, Libby's life has been damaged, if not ruined.
The judge's quote that started off this article was directed at Libby, but it is equally applicable to Bush, Cheney and anyone else who had a hand in outing Valerie Plame. And, since Bush holds the power, it seems unlikely that anyone (except for Libby) will have to pay the price. But, of course, there is one group of people that does have the power to change things: The American electorate.
I hope that in November of 2008, when Americans cast their votes, they remember what Bush and his administration have done. If they do, there may finally be some justice meted out to those responsible for the Plame leak. While they won't be personally held accountable, their policies and beliefs will be. While that leaves a bit of a bitter taste in my mouth, it's fine, because the greater good of the country is more important than the fate of a few rich guys. If only the Bush administration believed in that idea.
[NOTE: After I published this article, a friend of mine sent me a link to a pile of letters sent to the court on Scooter Libby's behalf by people who have held high-ranking government positions (e.g. Donald Rumsfeld and Henry Kissinger). It's fascinating, but be advised: Wear high boots, because the level of cow dung in these pleas is exceedingly high.]
Monday, June 4, 2007
Creationism Museum Says: "Thou Shalt Not Believe Science"
If everything seems credible then nothing seems credible. You know, TV puts everybody in those boxes, side-by-side. On one side, there's this certifiable lunatic who says the Holocaust never happened. And next to him is this noted, honored historian who knows all about the Holocaust. And now, there they sit, side-by-side, they look like equals! Everything they say seems to be credible. And so, as it goes on, nothing seems credible anymore! We just stopped listening!
- TV producer Eddie Langston (Lewis Black) in Barry Levinson's "Man of the Year," starring Robin Williams as a political comedian who, thanks to a computer glitch, is elected president
In modern American politics, it's not what you say, but how you say it. Controlling the dialogue means controlling the issue. The Bush administration has been a master of this. They expertly control the national debate by naming the issues.
For example, Bush bested the Democrats in the battle over Iraq funding legislation by slapping the label of "endangering the troops" on them. So, the Congressional Democrats, the ones trying to get the soldiers out of harm's way, are branded as hurting them, while the President, who continues to keep them in the middle of a civil war with a lack of equipment and manpower (not to mention sending Reserve and National Guard units on tour after tour, failing to provide them with enough in the way of benefits, and sticking too many of the injured ones in substandard medical facilities) is portrayed as the great protector. With up being down and left being right, it's all enough to make you dizzy.
But, it works. Bush got the exact legislation he wanted as the Democrats cowered at the risk of being labeled. Then, Bush got to bask in the glow of articles that somehow both talked about him winning the battle (e.g. "Bush Celebrates Victory After Signing Iraq War Bill") and described the deal as a compromise (like in this Yahoo!/AFP article), as if Bush was a moderate guy who gave in part of the way. Again, with all the facts working against Bush, he used rhetoric to scare the Democrats into surrender.
I watched the movie "Man of the Year" on DVD over the weekend, and when Lewis Black's television producer character made the speech set out at the top of this article, I grimly nodded along. It made me think of a news item that slipped by last week without getting too much attention. In Kentucky, a creationism museum opened, drawing 4,000 guests on its first day. According to a Yahoo!/AP article, the "museum features high-tech exhibits designed by a theme-park artist, including animatronic dinosaurs and a wooden ark at least two stories tall, plus a special effects theater and planetarium."
You might ask, So what if a bunch of religious fanatics want to get together and build a building that says that animals were vegetarians until Adam committed the first sin in the Garden of Eden? The danger is in the "Man of the Year" quote. Thousands of people will walk through the halls of something that looks like any other museum, with information presented just like in other museums. Only, unlike other museums, the information will be false.
Or, as a physicist who visited the museum was quoted as saying in the Yahoo!/AP article, "It's really impressive — and it really gives the impression that they're talking about science at some point. ... [On a scale of one to five,] I'd give it a 4 for technology, 5 for propaganda. As for content, I'd give it a negative 5."
Like the quotes from the physicist and "Man of the Year" suggest, this museum will look and feel like a Holocaust museum or a slavery museum, or the Museum of Natural History, and the message is, "The information in this museum is credible." But, of course, the creationism museum is not credible. The "facts" provided by this museum can be scientifically proven to be wrong. The people offering these "facts" are basing it on the bible, not exactly an objective scientific source.
Sure, today most people will look at the creationism museum and know that its founders were pushing an agenda. But, what about the thousands who visit it in the years to come? There is a danger that, over time, looking at this legitimate-looking structure will have people think, "Hmmm, maybe the earth really is just a few thousands years old." For our society to grow and develop, we have to deal in facts, not lies, theories and beliefs dressed up like facts. Whether it's Iraq or tax cuts for the rich, the Bush administration has successfully made ideas and lies look like facts, and the Democrats have played along, acting scared at the lies as if they were facts. It has to stop.
The founders of the creationism museum were just exercising their First Amendment rights to tell the world about their crackpot beliefs. The idea behind free speech is that that best way to fight bad speech is with more speech, not with suppressing the speech. I support that ideal. I would just like to see more of the "more speech" on all of the big issues. People need to stand up and express their beliefs that there are lies in the creationism museum (the article said that there were protesters at the opening, which is a great example of "more speech"). More importantly, the Democrats have to start living up to the "more speech" part of the bargain. Now that they control Congress, they have to be strong, not scared off by Bush's labeling and rhetoric.
I'm not holding my breath, though. As I watched Robin Williams's character in "Man of the Year" take over a Presidential debate and say the things politicians are too afraid to say, I thought to myself, "If only ..." After all, who knows more about "more speech" than Robin Williams?
- TV producer Eddie Langston (Lewis Black) in Barry Levinson's "Man of the Year," starring Robin Williams as a political comedian who, thanks to a computer glitch, is elected president
In modern American politics, it's not what you say, but how you say it. Controlling the dialogue means controlling the issue. The Bush administration has been a master of this. They expertly control the national debate by naming the issues.
For example, Bush bested the Democrats in the battle over Iraq funding legislation by slapping the label of "endangering the troops" on them. So, the Congressional Democrats, the ones trying to get the soldiers out of harm's way, are branded as hurting them, while the President, who continues to keep them in the middle of a civil war with a lack of equipment and manpower (not to mention sending Reserve and National Guard units on tour after tour, failing to provide them with enough in the way of benefits, and sticking too many of the injured ones in substandard medical facilities) is portrayed as the great protector. With up being down and left being right, it's all enough to make you dizzy.
But, it works. Bush got the exact legislation he wanted as the Democrats cowered at the risk of being labeled. Then, Bush got to bask in the glow of articles that somehow both talked about him winning the battle (e.g. "Bush Celebrates Victory After Signing Iraq War Bill") and described the deal as a compromise (like in this Yahoo!/AFP article), as if Bush was a moderate guy who gave in part of the way. Again, with all the facts working against Bush, he used rhetoric to scare the Democrats into surrender.
I watched the movie "Man of the Year" on DVD over the weekend, and when Lewis Black's television producer character made the speech set out at the top of this article, I grimly nodded along. It made me think of a news item that slipped by last week without getting too much attention. In Kentucky, a creationism museum opened, drawing 4,000 guests on its first day. According to a Yahoo!/AP article, the "museum features high-tech exhibits designed by a theme-park artist, including animatronic dinosaurs and a wooden ark at least two stories tall, plus a special effects theater and planetarium."
You might ask, So what if a bunch of religious fanatics want to get together and build a building that says that animals were vegetarians until Adam committed the first sin in the Garden of Eden? The danger is in the "Man of the Year" quote. Thousands of people will walk through the halls of something that looks like any other museum, with information presented just like in other museums. Only, unlike other museums, the information will be false.
Or, as a physicist who visited the museum was quoted as saying in the Yahoo!/AP article, "It's really impressive — and it really gives the impression that they're talking about science at some point. ... [On a scale of one to five,] I'd give it a 4 for technology, 5 for propaganda. As for content, I'd give it a negative 5."
Like the quotes from the physicist and "Man of the Year" suggest, this museum will look and feel like a Holocaust museum or a slavery museum, or the Museum of Natural History, and the message is, "The information in this museum is credible." But, of course, the creationism museum is not credible. The "facts" provided by this museum can be scientifically proven to be wrong. The people offering these "facts" are basing it on the bible, not exactly an objective scientific source.
Sure, today most people will look at the creationism museum and know that its founders were pushing an agenda. But, what about the thousands who visit it in the years to come? There is a danger that, over time, looking at this legitimate-looking structure will have people think, "Hmmm, maybe the earth really is just a few thousands years old." For our society to grow and develop, we have to deal in facts, not lies, theories and beliefs dressed up like facts. Whether it's Iraq or tax cuts for the rich, the Bush administration has successfully made ideas and lies look like facts, and the Democrats have played along, acting scared at the lies as if they were facts. It has to stop.
The founders of the creationism museum were just exercising their First Amendment rights to tell the world about their crackpot beliefs. The idea behind free speech is that that best way to fight bad speech is with more speech, not with suppressing the speech. I support that ideal. I would just like to see more of the "more speech" on all of the big issues. People need to stand up and express their beliefs that there are lies in the creationism museum (the article said that there were protesters at the opening, which is a great example of "more speech"). More importantly, the Democrats have to start living up to the "more speech" part of the bargain. Now that they control Congress, they have to be strong, not scared off by Bush's labeling and rhetoric.
I'm not holding my breath, though. As I watched Robin Williams's character in "Man of the Year" take over a Presidential debate and say the things politicians are too afraid to say, I thought to myself, "If only ..." After all, who knows more about "more speech" than Robin Williams?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
