COLUMNS FROM THE 2008 PRESIDENTI

Ask the Right Questions in 2009 (1/1/09)

The year 2008 gave us many answers to questions we may have asked. At the start of the year, we wondered who would be elected President of the United States, for instance. During the year, questions came up like where the war in Iraq was going and how the economy would do.

We have our answer as to who will become president next year: Barack Obama. For those of you who do not like this answer, I sympathize with the problem of having to wait four years to try again with a presidential candidate you like better. In the meantime, how about asking:

If I don’t give President Obama a chance to carry out his goals, how can I expect the Democrats to give the next Republican president a chance?

Before you start telling me how mean the Democrats were to President George W. Bush, consider the fact that he got the tax cuts and No Child Left Behind policies that he wanted. Be reasonable and give Obama at least a year before you start hammering him.

As for the war in Iraq, we will probably not get an answer to the question as to why we really went there. We just know that over 4,000 troops and countless Iraqis have died for that reason(s). But instead of asking about this war, we could ask:

What are valid reasons for going to war? How much evidence of a threat to us should we consider before sending troops somewhere?

We elect leaders to exercise their judgment in these matters, but we have every right to demand a real discussion on foreign policy. We should do it now before we start dropping bombs on anyone because by that time, we will be urged to “support the troops now, ask questions later.”

Speaking of the troops, this election gave us much rhetoric from Senator John McCain about how we need to push to bring the troops home victorious (i.e. continue the war) instead of “waving the white flag of surrender.” Dare we ask the following question:

Which is worse – surrendering an immoral cause or continuing to kill in its name?

If you really believe the war in Iraq is a moral cause, I hear the armed forces are looking for more than a few good men and women to fight it.

Meanwhile, we are still fighting in Afghanistan seven years after 9/11. We still have not captured Osama bin Laden. Reports have come to the public’s attention that the United States had a golden opportunity to capture him in Tora Bora in November 2001 but let it slip away. Never mind the Bush saying “Wanted dead or alive.” How about asking:

Is bin Laden worth more to the United States dead or alive?

I wonder what John McCain, who during the campaign claimed to know where bin Laden was, would say to that.

Speaking of dead, our economy is as bad as most people can ever remember it. Unemployment will continue to rise as the number of companies going bankrupt goes up. Retirement savings will be reduced or lost. The dollar will fall compared to most currencies around the world. Instead of bemoaning these problems, we could ask:

How will we benefit from a poor economy?

Those who want less government will receive less government. Those who deplore illegal immigration will see less of it. Those who want change, especially in the form of innovative policies, will receive that. Maybe we will get really bold ideas along the lines of Social Security, which came from the days of the Great Depression. It won’t all be bad.

Any questions?

Peace without Profits (12/7/08)

President-elect Obama said on a recent day that he would go over the entire United States budget thoroughly, including military and intelligence spending. An attack on India took place the following day in which U.S. and U.K. citizens were allegedly targeted by Pakistani terrorists. Coincidence?

Now some talk of yet another war between Pakistan and India. But maybe we can stop the drumbeat of war this time.

We can have world peace. We just need to think about the consequences that will entail. I predict that world peace will come at about the same time we stop a legalized form of war called prizefighting.

The similarities between war and boxing are striking.

Both require two well-armed opponents. Otherwise, no one pays much attention for very long.

Both require promoters. War promoters are also known as politicians and patriots.

Both require a reason. Boxers want to crush the other guy and be the champion or at least wealthy. War requires a message (not necessarily true) that will convince the public to support it.

Both draw money from those who want it. Boxing fans go ringside or pay-per-view. Wars draw from the public account (tax dollars).

Both can go on and on as long as the referees and promoters allow it. Boxing allows up to fifteen rounds and countless rematches. Some wars never end.

Both make fabulous amounts of money for some but can even kill others. Several boxers have died as a result of hits to the head in the boxing ring. We may never know the full account of all who have died in wars throughout history, even recent ones.

The way to end boxing is to first, identify those who make money from it – the promoters, the advertisers, the boxers, the boxers’ managers, etc. We should tell them that from now on, all profits from boxing will be placed into a public trust fund which will be used to disburse payments to the victims of this sport – boxers who become injured and the families of those who die.

We should do the same thing for war profiteers – those who make the weapons, those who hold stock in the companies that make the weapons, politicians who get campaign money funneled from these sources, etc. Tell them that all money earned as a direct result from war will be tracked and accounted for by the IRS. When casualties from wars, overt or covert, are reported, a hefty percentage of the war profits would go directly to all harmed on either side of the conflict.

With recent wars such as the war in Iraq started under false pretenses and with evidence that Franklin Roosevelt knew about the attacks on Pearl Harbor ahead of time and allowed them to happen, we ought to put a stop to United States participation in war. If people like war so much, make them pay for it!

Press for a Prosecution (11/17/08)

I had the opportunity to speak to famed prosecutor and true crime author Vincent Bugliosi about his recent book, Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. Bugliosi spoke of Bush as a murderer for taking the nation to war based on lies and causing the death of over four thousand U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis.

Bugliosi has written several best selling books, such as Helter Skelter and Outrage and won 105 out of 106 felony cases as a Los Angeles County district attorney, including the murder case of Charles Manson. You would think this book would get all of the attention his others have received and that it would be a best seller with Bugliosi all over the talk shows.

But the silence of most of the media has been deafening. Maybe they see the subject of Bush as old news or they just want him to go away quietly. Maybe there are other forces at work when it comes to the Bush family that are not present when the topic is of other disgraced figures such as O.J. Simpson.

Whatever the case, an outstanding word-of-mouth campaign is propelling this book. And there are great alternative news sources, like Press for Democracy, who hosted the meeting in which I spoke to Bugliosi, that are available and willing to inform us of these types of works.

With an unjust war having taken place for five-and-a-half years, we have waited far too long to demand justice for the Iraqis and the United States troops wrongfully killed for reasons that are still not altogether clear. The great prosecutor reminds us, though, that motive makes no difference in proving murder. His book provides ample proof of the intent and conduct necessary to call Bush for the murderer that he is.

We can stand still and call names as we wait impatiently for the new president to take the oath of office. Or we can take action to make sure that no future president even thinks about sending troops to battle without clear justification and support from those at home.

We can let history judge President George W. Bush by settling upon a lie. Or we can make history by calling attention to mass murder and demanding the prosecution and the judgment that it deserves.

We can ignore the law that we say no one is above. Or we can rise above our ignorance and hold everyone, even the president, accountable for their actions.

Protecting Our Hopes (11/7/08)

Numerous threats on the life of Barack Obama have been reported. With his election on Tuesday, these threats will probably escalate. Is his assassination possible?

Since the advent of Secret Service protection of politicians over one hundred years ago, two presidents have been killed (McKinley and Kennedy), three have been shot at (Truman, Ford and Reagan) and one president-elect has been shot at (Franklin Roosevelt).

No one can stop assassins or would-be assassins from taking shots. Some of them, fortunately, have proven to hold little skill in marksmanship or planning. Local police and the Secret Service killed and wounded President Truman’s assailants before they could get to him. And Secret Service agents grabbed Squeaky Fromme’s handgun before she could fire at President Ford.

But the protection has failed before when the attempts have taken place in more difficult circumstances. President Kennedy rode in a motorcade through Dealey Plaza in Dallas, which should have alerted the Secret Service that would-be assassins would have several opportunities to shoot at him.

Unfortunately, the Secret Service failed some its duties to the President. Some of the agents assigned to protect Kennedy went to bars and drank alcohol against the Service policy just hours before the assassination. Also, the Secret Service failed to close all windows above the path of the President, including the one allegedly open on the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Lastly, agents failed to stand as “human shields” between the President and the crowd to deter shots.

Why did the Secret Service neglect to protect JFK in a way that may have caused the killing to take place? Some suggest they undertook or took orders from another party to “stand down” to allow the assassination to happen. If the Secret Service, the “praetorian guard” of the highest ranking officials, ever turned against the President, there is little anyone could do to stop them.

What we should be on alert for is a series of events that would cause the Secret Service to become complacent. If hate groups continue to call in threats to Obama, these threats probably would not materialize because these groups rarely connect to anyone in power. But groups of people who want to stop Obama because he may end the war in

Iraq

must be taken more seriously because they could wait for a wave of death threats, then take advantage of a Service with its guard down or even compromise key agents.

We spend so much time talking about the enemies outside our nation or the hate groups outside the mainstream of public opinion. We need to focus more upon corruption and negligence within our society. And right now, for Obama to have a chance to expand hope and promote ideas that work for our nation, there should be no greater concern than ensuring his protection.

Representing my local Democratic club, I debated the president of the local Republican club. Here are questions based on issues that actually came up during the debate. How do you answer them?:

1. Who wrote the “traditional” definition of marriage? – Was it a gay person?

2. Does the view that the

United States

was formed based on Judeo-Christian values trump the First Amendment to the Constitution?

3. If you do not think much of Senator Obama’s experience, what do you know about George W. Bush’s experience before he became president?

4. Even if we could agree that Charles Manson is not worthy of parole, should the same no-parole policy apply to everyone else convicted of heinous crimes?

5. Do you value the

United States

flag more than the freedom not to wear it that it symbolizes?

6. Is it sexist to say that someone who promotes herself as a “woman of the people” should not dress well beyond the capabilities of the average woman?

7. If the words of Reverend Wright bother you, do you want to live in a society where people only sing the praises of our nation?

8. What are the armed forces protecting us from? Does your answer stem from your own research or what the government tells us?

Socialists – which is all of us because our tax money goes to the government and comes back to us mostly in social programs that affect all of us, such as street pavement, traffic light maintenance, air quality, etc. Oh, and that bailout the government did for the banking industry smacks of socialism.

Arabs – Witness John McCain’s statement unchallenged by other Republicans that “Obama is not an Arab. He is a good man.” As if the ideas were mutually exclusive.

Muslims – similar to Arabs even though not all Muslims are Arabs or vice-versa. Witness the fact that thirteen percent of

United States

citizens still believe that Obama is a Muslim. It isn’t Democrats who deride Obama by saying his middle name of Hussein and make Freudian slips of the name “Osama.”

Urban and Suburbanites – Witness Sarah Palin, in a trip to rural areas, referring to small towns as the “real

America

.”

Polar Bears – They will go from “endangered” to “extinct” if Palin gets her way.

Courtesy – Witness McCain’s failure to even look at Obama during the first debate and his reference to Obama as “that one” in the second.

Community organizers – Witness half of the GOP Convention devoted to condemning people like Senator Obama, who gave up a lucrative salary after law school to help the poor.

Women’s rights – How can they help the cause of competent female employees to get fair pay when they promote an unqualified one to be the Vice-Presidential candidate?

Consistency – Before the coming of Palin, they said that Obama was not qualified or experienced. Then, Palin said he “palled around” with terrorists. With Palin shown by polls to be a burden to the ticket, the GOP switched to calling Obama a socialist (see #1).

Independence – McCain the “maverick” wanted Joe Lieberman to be his running-mate, according to sources. But, under pressure from the conservative, pro-life wing of his party, he caved in and chose Palin.

Thinking Republicans – see the link Republicans for Obama and read the names of prominent Republicans who have endorsed Barack Obama for President:

After the latest debate, the Democrats predictably hailed Senator Joe Biden as the winner and the Republicans said the same of Governor Sarah Palin. Incredibly, both sides may have gotten this one right:

Biden answered the questions and demonstrated superior knowledge of the issues inquired about. When Palin kept complaining about a vote Obama made that supposedly cut funding for the troops, Biden made clear the whole context that Obama disagreed with a proposal because it contained no deadline for withdrawal of the troops.

Palin simply gave her own answers, mostly sound bites that she had memorized, such as “McCain is a maverick, let’s put him in the White House!” She appeared charming, she smiled and even winked on a number of occasions. Ultimately, she came across at times as a comedian (“Say it ain’t so, Joe!”) or a cheerleader (“Drill, Baby, Drill!”).

Biden appealed to voters who want assurances that the next Vice-President be prepared to step in for an incapacitated or deceased president. In that sense, he won.

Palin appealed to conservative men who want the next VP to be a pin-up and to conservative women who think it is chauvinist for men to say a woman is not qualified.

If elected, Barack Obama or John McCain will swear to uphold the Constitution. Here are the questions, numbered in reference to each of the Constitution’s first ten Amendments, the media ought to ask them in the upcoming debates:

The fact that few of our leaders publicly question the official story of 9/11 does not make it true. The public has no idea what our leaders say privately about this matter.

A recent book by David Talbot, Brothers: the Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, gives us a glimpse into one official who publicly endorsed the Warren Commission Report of the John Kennedy assassination but who privately pursued alternative theories as to what had happened. This man approached his arch-enemies and asked them point-blank if they (or their people) had anything to do with the assassination. His tenacity in finding the truth may well have cost him his own life.

That man was the President’s brother, Robert Kennedy. The younger brother distrusted most of the leaders of government agencies, some of whom he suspected of participating in or approving of the murder in Dallas. So he quietly enlisted the help of his “brothers,” his closest friends, to get information.

The author speculates that the younger Kennedy’s public assurances that he thought Lee Harvey Oswald killed his brother was all he and other leaders could say in order to ensure the real killers, presumably still alive, did not target them. But accounts of his private meeting with Jimmy Hoffa, who had previously vowed to kill RFK, convinced the author that Kennedy needed a cover for his private investigation.

We’ll never know how the former Attorney General of the United States would have gotten in identifying the conspirators. But we can imagine that he would not accept the theory that on September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers boarded four separate planes, hijacked them and smashed them into buildings without any government assistance. Not without some investigating.

Like a good attorney, he would probably assemble evidence to support the conclusion of government involvement and assess the evidence that works against it:

With President Bush hundreds of miles from the command center where Cheney spent much of 9/11, the Vice President took the role of acting Commander-in-Chief.

President Bush, in a statement, named Vice President Cheney to be in charge of "[a]ll federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies…” (www.whitehouse.gov)

The Vice President controlled computers that could add to screens FAA was using – He says that “blips” were deliberately inserted onto FAA and military radar screens. These fake blips looked just like the blips representing the real planes and simulated planes from the war game. (Michael Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon, p. 336)

These screens suddenly received several dots that confused the FAA and delayed response

Vice President had control over several war game exercises going on at same time as flights – this fact, plus specific foreknowledge of attacks, calls VP into question for not postponing the exercises.

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta’s testimony under oath that he heard VP telling another man that “the order still stands.” VP kept on saying that and shortly thereafter a plane hit the Pentagon, leading Secretary to believe VP gave order NOT to shoot down plane.

The CIA maintained contact with ISI of Pakistan, who gave $100,000 to Mohammed Atta (alleged ringleader) shortly before 9/11 (circumstantial evidence that Vice President, as member of National Security Council, would have knowledge of this connection).

Strikes on buildings, especially Pentagon, took place where casualties were less than would be expected if terrorists.

There is credible evidence of government foreknowledge of attacks and failure to respond. Israel was specific (Morgan and Henshall, 9/11 Revealed – Unanswered Questions, p. 195).

270 degree turn into Pentagon not likely within capabilities of new pilot “hijackers.”

Crews at the behest of Mayor Rudy Giuliani and FEMA, took the pieces of the World Trade Center away to be recycled, according to the New York Daily News of April 16, 2002. This quick clean up of debris from WTC happened before investigators could test theory of demolition.

It is natural presumption that someone inside plane controlled – rebuttable presumption

Passenger phone calls refer to violence on the plane (though not specific as to who committed it) – question of authenticity

Civilian casualties tend to be acts of terrorism (but could have been higher if controller struck targets in different areas) - circumstantial

DNA proof of hijackers was announcement that all “non-hijackers” had been identified – authentication needed

List of 19 “hijackers” left at Logan Airport in Boston is suspect because it is too easy for FBI to find. At least 7 of names on list are names of people still alive

Even if WTC result of planes and fire rather than demolition, it does not disprove GC theory; the key is who controlled the planes

Barbara Olsen “call” from plane to husband has been disproved by FBI – this call gave official theory the box cutters for the “hijackers” (David Griffin, 9/11 Contradictions)

United 93 (fourth flight) black box was missing the final three minutes, which calls into question the “heroes rush cockpit” story that some use as proof of hijacker theory

The same people who shot RFK's brother found an opportunity to shoot him before he could identify them and work to bring them to justice. He had risked his life to find the truth about what mattered most to him and his country. There is little doubt he would approach people like Dick Cheney to ask them if they participated.

Our current leaders who keep blaming bin Laden for 9/11 are wise to recall that speaking out against the official story has its consequences. But their reluctance to pursue the truth as Robert Kennedy did puts the rest of us closer to danger.

Democrats cannot touch her image as displayed at the GOP Convention tonight. She stood there with her five children, the husband holding the little boy with special needs. She was the boss and the new generation was poised to go about its business: the oldest daughter, Bristol and her husband-to-be (and baby-to-be) and the oldest son ready to go to Iraq. Never mind the speech, she is untouchable!

We have been involved in a war that nearly everyone now believes was started under false pretenses by President Bush, workers continue to work more in return for less from their employers and environmental concerns such as global warming are being taken seriously by a greater portion of the population.

Enter Obama. He made his opposition to the war in Iraq the prime basis for his candidacy and he has not wavered. With the war still looming over our nation as a disaster in foreign policy, the voters will side with the candidate most in tune with their beliefs about the war and its consequences if they go with Obama. The opposing candidate, John McCain, is out of touch for his continued support for the war.

While the economy is not necessarily the fault of the one in power, a president who appears to care about the problems of average people will get their votes. An alarming number of people do not have health insurance and cannot take care of themselves or family members if they become ill. Obama has a plan to cover almost everyone, but also speaks the language of hope to those who have so little.

Both Obama and McCain have identified the dangers of global warming, but Obama has done more about it. He has voted several times for federal funding for alternative sources of energy that will reduce global warming. McCain, on the other hand, missed most of these votes.

For months, McCain has labeled Obama as too inexperienced. But Obama has responded by naming a thirty-six year veteran of the United States Senate, Joe Biden, to be his running-mate. And now McCain has chosen a running-mate, Sarah Palin, who has less political experience than Obama. What can the Republicans say now about the topic? It was, of course, the Republicans who gave us a one-term Congressman who went on to become a legendary president, Abraham Lincoln.

It is telling to look at how the candidates view issues. For example, McCain’s campaign claimed that many former Hillary Clinton supporters were switching to McCain because he chose a woman for vice president. What did they mean by that?

If McCain believes that women will necessarily vote for a woman without concern for ideas on issues, he insults women. Clinton and McCain are about as far apart on issues as can be. If this logic really works, why did the ticket of Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro fail so miserably in 1984?

Obama has pointed out that McCain has voted with President Bush over 90% of the time when voting in the Senate. He correctly points out that mass support on the issues indicates McCain will not likely do anything much differently than Bush. Unless, of course, he “flip-flops.”

Last argument in the case for Obama and Biden: When describing his youth, Obama admitted he made mistakes, such as drug use. He did not blame anyone. On the other hand, McCain, when he describes his adultery and divorce from his first wife, or defends against charges that he knew questions he would receive ahead of a forum, or many other problems, brings up his experience as a prisoner-of-war in Viet Nam.

We have already had a president who does not believe he makes mistakes for the past eight years. I have had enough of that. Haven’t you?

Now that we have Barack Obama's choice for a running-mate, Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, Democrats can stop looking at their emails and text messages and focus on the campaign. It won't be too soon because Obama took one step forward and two steps back.

Nothing is wrong with Biden. He comes across as sincere and likeable on television and is apparently respected in the Senate. And he does meet requirement number one to be Obama's VP (see below) in that he has tremendous foreign policy experience and is well-known around the world.

But he takes away a major plus from Obama's arsenal of reasons to get rid of GOP rule: he supported the use of force resolution in 2002 which led to the Iraq war debacle that Obama has decried. Now, to avoid implicit criticism of Biden, Obama and Biden may have to reconcile a compromise position about the Bush foreign policy blunders that McCain seems poised to follow.

As for upstaging Obama, some may say that Biden's ability to attack the opponent will serve the ticket well. But it should not come at the price of changing the image of the man who upset Hillary Clinton for the nomination. Obama is a diplomatic candidate with the chance to unite the public on improving our nation's image overseas, getting healthcare for more and stopping much of the internal feud over non-issues like who is most patriotic that destroy our society.