November 1, 2004 — If President Bush is re-elected tomor row, the victory will have come de spite the best efforts of two erstwhile American journalistic icons — the Grey Lady of Times Square and Edward R. Murrow’s Tiffany Network: The New York Times and CBS News.
If nothing else, the notion that “objectivity” animates America’s media elite has been exposed this year for what it truly is — at best, a quaint myth; at worst, a pernicious lie.
Meanwhile, a new element has been injected into American politics: the Web-based truth-squadders who exposed Dan Rather for the sad partisan hack that he has become while deconstructing one elite-media hit after another throughout an agonizingly long election season.
Read the entire editorial on the New York Post website.
You’re posting an article about media bias–written by the New York Post? Is this supposed to be highly ironic?
It took me exactly 2.5 seconds to see that what was linked to was not an “article” but a New York Post opinion/editorial. There is a difference. Though I can understand that watching CBS or reading the New York Times will eventually lead to confusion on that difference.
It’s an editorial. That’s why I wrote “Read the entire editorial…”
I’m starting my post-mortem analysis early. I anticipate that NYT and CBS bias will become a significant story as soon as the heat of the election dissipates.
It’s still from the NYPost. If you’re using it as a source to confirm your belief that the NYT et al are biased, I think it could only hurt your argument. I didn’t think anyone even considered it to be a credible paper.
It’s an editorial, not an article. It expresses an opinion, as all editorials do. Your first comment indicated you missed my reference that the posting was an editorial, and I think your assertion that I am using it to “confirm my belief that the NYT…is biased” builds on this oversight.
You could infer that I believe the NYT is biased (which I think it is, why post it otherwise?), but how this hurts my argument isn’t clear since I haven’t made one.
I think you jumped the gun on this one.
Writing ‘article’ instead of ‘editorial’ was definitely a mistake on my part, I wasn’t typing too carefully. But I do understand the difference, thanks 😉
If you’re posting a link to it, unless you indicate otherwise, most people would assume you agree with it’s POV. Now, if that’s not the policy of this blog, then I’m totally in the wrong here. But I didn’t see anything of that nature, so I would assume that you agree with the NYPost’s accusations in that editorial. Which leads me back to saying, although it’s an editorial, it’s still in the NYPost, which I trust about as much as a supermarket tabloid.
I’m not certain whether Varmazi’s is arguing against MSM’s liberal bias or the source that is pointing out the MSM’s liberal bias. If it is the latter then there’s not much to say since I have no doubt that Varmazi will not believe any source on this subject that might be tainted with conservatism. If it is the former then I must say that Varmazi is simply not looking at the real world.
Here is one person’s experience with MSM’s liberal bias, which leads MSM to report anything that might hurt Pres. Bush and squelch anything that might help him:
NBC STANDS FOR NEGATIVE BUSH COVERAGE
From a [National Review Online] reader at the University of Chicago:
I am a first-year here at the GSB … and a long time NR/NRO reader.
If some people have doubt about the bias in the main stream media, they should read this story.
Last night, my macroeconomics professor had a very interesting tale to tell. This guy is great, he is a libertarian and just loves to go on and on about gov’t spending, lower taxes, the Social Security/Medicare problem, etc. Anyway, to the story. Last Thursday, NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw (not Tom, but probably one of the network reps) contacted him as they wanted him to go on the air on Monday night to talk about the GDP numbers that were released last Friday. He said that he would and that he would need time to digest the report once it came out. Well, the report came out and he was very encouraged by the numbers as they went up for the past quarter. So, he waited for NBC’s call on Monday. When NBC called, they told him that they were not going to run the story now (Do you see where this is going?). After some prodding, NBC finally admitted that since the GDP numbers were up they were not interested in the story. If the numbers were down, they would ha ve run the story! Hmmmmm…
He was very disappointed and depressed about their actions. I was not surprised, but was disappointed at the same time. Worst of all, they would have run this story on Monday before the election. Isn’t the fact that GDP is up newsworthy? Not unless you have an agenda.
Arrgghhhh!”
The New York Post! Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle black.
Dan Rather has resigned as CBS anchorman and 4 of his producers have been fired, as they should have, over a story they reported about President Bush, and which was based on a fabricated and poorly authenticated memo. As the CBS internal review of this incident made clear this was a case of shoddy, slipdhod journalism, where in their haste to scoop the competition, Rather and his producers failed to perform even the most rudimenatry fact-checking steps taught at journalism school.
The Dan Rather indident however prompts us to think of what the consequences should be for executives who undertake momentous actions based on false and/or inadequetely researched information. For example, President Bush took this nation to war based on dire, almost frantic warnings of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, about to be used against the United States. Yesterday, we learned that the government has called off the search for those weapons because they no longer believe they ever existed.
See “Search for Banned Arms In Iraq Ended Last Month; Critical September Report to Be Final Word”. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2129-2005Jan11.html
“Four months after Charles A. Duelfer, who led the weapons hunt in 2004, submitted an interim report to Congress that contradicted nearly every prewar assertion about Iraq made by top Bush administration officials, a senior intelligence official said the findings will stand as the ISG’s final conclusions and will be published this spring.”
Over a American soldiers have been killed, over 900 of their children have lost a father or a mother. Thousands of soldiers have been gravely wounded and have suffered amputation, brain damage and psychological trauma. $200 billion that could have been spent to help Americans here at home has been spent instead in Iraq. America’s relations with its allies and it’s image in the Islamic world, particulary have been severly damaged.
If this war was initiated on the basis of false information shouldn’t there be repercusions for that, just as there were for Dan rather?
Also while accusations of “biased” news reporting are swirling in the air we should consider the case of right-wing commentator Armstrong Williams who accepted more than a quarter million dollars from the Bush administration to promote Bush policies on his show, but failed to disclose that financial relationship to his viewers until he was caught.
See “Columnist axed after taking cash to promote Bush plan”, http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/08/bush.journalist/
According to Williams there are many more in the media like himself, taking money to promote right-wing causes.
Saddam Had Burden of Proof Under United Nations Resolution:
Under the operative United Nations resolution Saddam Hussein had the burden of proof to demonstrate that he had destroyed certain specified weapons. In 1991 Saddam Hussein’s government produced an inventory of WMD, the existence of which was confirmed by inspectors. We know he had WMD because he reported he had WMD. Itwas the duty of Saddam Hussein to comply with his agreement and take steps to destroy the mountain of armaments. Saddam probably moved them to Syria during the ridiculously long build up to the war.
Ergo, the old song about Bush going to war on a lie is pure and unadulterated propaganda by Bush Haters. In 1998 led by the Clinton Administration Congress passed a bill stating that it was the policy of the United States to remove Saddam Hussein.
The corrupt governments of France, Germany, China and Russia opposed anything but resolutions for show BECAUSE THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS WERE COLLABORATING WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN TO DIVERT OIL MONEY INTO THEIR POCKETS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE.
Media Bias:
The CBS “investigative report” is deficient in many important ways. This is a particular disgrace for former prosecutor Richard Thornburg, whom I no longer respect. The report can properly be referred to as a whitewash.
First and foremost the “investigators” allowed the destruction and dispersal of critical evidence by failing to IMMEDIATELY SEIZE HARD DRIVES and SERVERS. This equipiment would contain records of e-mail communications giving a complete record of all transmissions in and out of CBS. CBS moved slowly giving Mapes and others plenty of time to wipe their drives. There was enough at stake to motivate someone to do so. CBS allowed Mapes to “continue working on the story.” She was still in the office, still near the computers with the records. This was something that CBS had complete control over, it was their equipment, they had the legal right to seize these drives without any court order.
Second, they failed to conclude that the documents were rank forgeries. The report is correct in that xerox copies of a document cannot be authenticated, but, they ignore the corresponding truism that xerox copies of a document can conclusively prove that the original document is a fake. The fact that the documents in question could be reproduced by the default settings on a Word word processing program is CONCLUSIVE PROOF that the documents are fraudulent.
Third, they failed to interview people or collect documents from anyone outside CBS. A reasonable investigation would have involved more than merely calling Burkett and asking him if he wanted to speak to the investigators. There is substantial evidence of collusion with the DNC, Max Cleland and Terry McAuliffe included, none of this was pursued.
Fourth, they shed no light on the identity of the “unimpeachable source” Dan Rather referred to. Many who have followed the scandal believe that Rather actually meant Max Cleland. Why would Dan Rather, an expert in Texas politics, give any credence to Burkett. Burkett was known among DEMOCRATIC PARTY CIRCLES AS A CRANK. Rather is too smart to base his story on that. Rather believed he had an unimpeachable source and he publicly stated he had an unimpeachable source. Who was that source?
The report is a legal whitewash, shielding CBS from as much liability as possible. it was vetted by CBS lawyers who made sure that the report itself would not provide outsiders with a basis for a legal action. Wonder how much Thornburg got paid, he should resign from any prosecutorial associations to which he belongs.
RE: 10. First, Bush didn’t promote the war on the basis on the violation of the UN Resolution, but on the “imminent threat” of weapons of mass destruction being used by Iraq against the American people. “The smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud”, said Condaleeza Rice, in only one of many examples of the over-heated hyperbole used by the Bush administration.
Second, Iraq had complied with the UN Resolution by allowing in Hans Blix and his team of inspectors and cooperating with them. It was the United States, not Iraq, that prevented Blix and his team from completing their work.
Third, we can speculate as to whether Iraq munitions were smuggled to Syria, but to date there is no hard evidence supporting such a charge, just vaporous theories.
Fourth, while we are speculating let’s speculate what would have happened if Blix had been allowed to finish his work and reported that, as we know now, the very few Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that could be found were wither dismantled or in disrepair. Saddam Hussein would have been revealed to the “paper tiger” we now know him to be, and that might have motivated his generals and internal enemies to move against him without our fuull-scale invasion. It now seems much more likely that Saddam Hussein may have actually promoted the idea that he was hiding WMD not to fool the United States, but to intimidate his neighbors and internal enemies.
Note 12
First, Bush spent sevearal months in the United Nations urging that body to enforce its own resolutions. The news was full of reports of actions of the United States in that body, to dismiss the importance of that activity is rank partizanship.
Second, Iraq kicked the inspectors out in 1998, even reason for every rational person to conclude that they had something to hide. It was not the United States that kicked out the inspectors in 1998, it was Saddam.
Third, the concept that the munitions were smuggled to Syria is not rank speculation. We have spy satellite cameras that can track truck shipments. The satellite cameras are so good they can read license plates on the trucks. We have considerable spy satellite evidence that Saddam made major military shipments to Syria in the last weeks before the war. We also have intelligence photos from the Bekaa Valley tracking those shipments.
Fourth, Saddam Hussein had been out of compliance for more than 5 years by the time Hans Blix went back in. It is your policy that makes a mockery of United Nations resolutions, not Bush’s. You have frequently promoted the United Nations as a form of super government. All well and good, except that laws without enforcement mean nothing. United Nations resolutions without enforcement mean nothing. Han Blix’s inspections were easily side stepped as he telegraphed everything he did. Saddam could easily hide things from Blix. Blix has since revealed himself by his own writing as an active anti-American.
Saddam had a country the size of California to hide things in. Just a few weeks ago, Americans found 10 fighter planes buried 10 feet under sand in the western desert. You cannot prove a negative by inspection. The inspection was not intended to be a cat and mouse game, it was intended to be the OBSERVATION OF EXPRESS DESTRUCTION BY SADDAM.
What inspections can and cannot do.
The 1991 United Nations resolutions called for Saddam to inventory his WMD. He did inventory his WMD and he filed that with the United Nations. It also called for Saddam to destroy his WMD in front of inspectors.
It was not the intend of the inspection program to engage in a cat and mouse game with Saddam and try to catch him hiding WMD. The inspectors role was to observe and confirm Saddam’s actions as he destroyed the weapons he agreed to destroy.
Give me 5 minutes notice and I can hide anything from an inspector. Saddam did for years. He laughed at us.
The Iraq Survey Group, led by Charles Duefler fouund that Saddam had destroyed his last weapons of mass destruction more than 10 years ago, and his capacity to build new ones had been dwindling for years by the time of the second Gulf war. The ISG report has to be considered the most authoritativeword on the subject.
The ISG did not report or suggest that any weapons hed been transferred to Syria.
Now considering that the ISG report has discredited every claim made by the Bush administration before March 2003 regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – the primary justification offered to take America to war, the question has to be asked again:
Why should George W. Bush not be held to the same standard as Dan Rather and asked to resign?
SADDAM LIED, NOT BUSH
Dean:
Read slowly and carefully.
(1) Saddam produced a report in 1991 claiming to own certain WMD. He filed it with the United Nations.
(2) Saddam promised, as a condition of the ceasefire, that he would publicly and in full view of designated inspectors, systematically destroy the WMD.
(3) Saddam, did in fact, destroy some WMD in view of inspectors.
(4) Hans Blix itemized certain stocks of weapons which Saddam had not accounted for in the spring of 2003, just prior to the war.
It was never the role of the inspectors to prove a negative, that would have been absurd. It was the role of the inspectors to confirm Saddam’s destruction of the weapons that he stated he owned.
The Dueffler report is very long, unless you can point me to a section in which Dueffler discusses the possibility of removal of the WMD, I don’t consider a summary sufficient.
Note 15. Last week you argued that Rather’s story was true even if the facts ostensibly proving it were wrong. Today, after attempting to create a factual and moral congruency between Rathergate and the faulty intelligence about WMDs, Rather is held as the example ostensibly proving Bush malfeasance. Which is it? Is Rather an angel or demon?
The only consistent idea I see driving these two contradictory arguments is your animus towards the Republican administration.
Dueffler Report and Saddam’s WMD: All Interested Parties Agreed Saddam Did not Account for Arms
The job of the inspections regime was to verify, based on the active cooperation of Iraqi officials. Saddam Hussein’s regime did no such thing.
by Daniel McKivergan 01/13/2005 4:00:00 PM
YESTERDAY, the Washington Post reported (“Search for Banned Arms In Iraq Ended Last Month”) that the conclusions reached in Charles Duelfer’s September 2004 report on Iraq’s weapons programs will be the “final word” on the subject. The New York Times editorial board weighed in today. The Times notes that what the “Iraqi invasion has actually proved is that the weapons inspection worked, that international sanctions–deeply, deeply messy as they turned out to be–worked, and that in the case of Saddam Hussein, the United Nations worked.”
One wonders if anyone at the Times bothered to read the hundreds of pages in the Duelfer report, let alone all the UNSCOM and UNOMIC reports to the U.N. Security Council going back over a decade. The job of the inspections regime was to verify, based on the active cooperation of Iraqi officials, that Iraq had destroyed its weapons and was actively complying with multiple U.N. disarmament resolutions. Saddam Hussein’s regime did no such thing, as Hans Blix stated to the Security Council on January 27, 2003:
Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance–not even today–of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world
and to live in peace.
President Clinton’s Defense Secretary William Cohen made Blix’s point five years earlier: “Hussein has said, ‘we have no program now.’ We’re saying, ‘prove it.’ He says he has destroyed all his nerve agent. [W]e’re asking ‘where, when and how?'” Cohen added: “The onus for this is firmly on Saddam Hussein”.
The uncontested fact is that there were unaccounted for weapons and bulk agent the day Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 19, 2003. According to UNMOVIC’s May 30, 2003 report, ” . . . the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was not shortened either by the inspections or by Iraqi declarations and documentation.”
Finally, on the question of sanctions, the September 2004 Duelfer report concluded that “as UN sanctions eroded there was a concomitant expansion of activities that could support full WMD reactivation.” In addition, “the steps the Regime took to erode sanctions are obvious in the analysis of how revenues, particularly those derived from the Oil-for-Food program, were used. Over time, sanctions had steadily weakened to the point where Iraq, in 2000-2001, was confidently designing missiles around components that could only be obtained outside sanctions . . . . ISG’s investigation also makes quite clear how Baghdad exploited the mechanism for executing the Oil-for-Food program to give individuals and countries an economic stake in ending sanctions.” The New York Times may choose to believe “the United Nations worked.” It didn’t.
Where are the Unaccounted For Weapons? That Should be the Question.
Report to the United Nations by one of its subcommittees.
The uncontested fact is that there were unaccounted for weapons and bulk agent the day Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 19, 2003. According to UNMOVIC?s May 30, 2003 report, ? . . . the long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was not shortened either by the inspections or by Iraqi declarations and documentation.?
Missourian writes: “The uncontested fact is that there were unaccounted for weapons and bulk agent the day Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 19, 2003.”
Any clerk who has worked in a warehouse knows that there is a distinction between physical inventory and book inventory. Hell, the U.S. government looses track of plutonium:
“The beleaguered Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is unable to account for 765 kilograms of plutonium — enough to make 150 nuclear weapons — according to a letter from nuclear watchdog groups to LANL Director G. Peter Nanos.”
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/missingpluto.htm
You think the Iraqis should have done better?
No. 15. There is no inconsistency. The memo Rather presented to demonstrate President Bush’s special treatment and failure to perform national guard duty was fabricated, (so Rather is guilty of shoddy journalism) but other sources obtained from Freedonm of Information Act requests independently confirm the same accusations.
See “Chronology on Bush Nat’l Guard Service, Associated Press”
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/10019563.htm?1c
“THE FACTS
Payroll records show Bush did not show up for any guard service between mid-April and late October 1972. At the time he was in Alabama working on the unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign of a family friend.
Air Force officials rejected Bush’s first request to train with an Air Force Reserve unit in Alabama because the unit did not fit Bush’s training requirements. In September 1972, Bush asked for and received permission to train for three months with the 187th.
Payroll records show Bush was paid for guard service twice in October 1972 and four times the next month. The pay records do not say where Bush served.
The dental record says Bush got his teeth examined at the 187th base in January 1973, a month in which he was paid for six days of duty. Bush was next paid for two days in April 1973.
A performance evaluation by Bush’s Texas commanders in May 1973 said Bush had not appeared at the Texas base for an entire year.
No Alabama Air National Guard records have surfaced showing Bush did any duty there. Former commanders and other members of the 187th in 1972 and 1973 say they don’t remember ever seeing Bush there.
One former member of the unit, retired Lt. Col. John Calhoun, has said he remembers Bush showing up for weekend training drills with the 187th during the summer and fall of 1972. Bush’s records, however, show he was never paid for any dates in 1972 when the 187th performed its weekend drills.”
Also see “Bush in the National Guard: A primer: The flap over dubious documents has obscured the real story. Here it is.”
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/20/bush_guard_records/index.html
“It may have been an irrational time for him, but Bush managed to focus intently on not serving in the Guard in any significant capacity again. His public records paint a portrait of a Guardsman who, with the cooperation of his Texas Air National Guard superiors, simply flouted regulation after regulation (more than 30 by Salon’s count) indifferent to his signed obligation to serve.
Upon being accepted for pilot training, Bush promised to serve with his parent (Texas) Guard unit for five years once he completed his pilot training. But Bush served as a pilot with his parent unit for just two years.
In May 1972 Bush left the Houston Guard base for Alabama. According to Air Force regulations, Bush was supposed to obtain prior authorization before leaving Texas to join a new Guard unit in Alabama. But Bush failed to get the authorization.
In requesting a permanent transfer to a nonflying unit in Alabama in 1972, Bush was supposed to sign an acknowledgment that he received relocation counseling. But no such document exists.
He was supposed to receive a certification of satisfactory participation from his unit. But Bush did not. He was supposed to sign and give a letter of resignation to his Texas unit commander. But Bush did not.
He was supposed to receive discharge orders from the Texas Air National Guard adjutant general. But Bush did not.
He was supposed to receive new assignment orders for the Air Force Reserves. But Bush did not.
On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his “permanent address.” But he wrote down a post office box number for the campaign he was working for on a temporary basis.
On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his Air Force specialty code. But Bush, an F-102 pilot, erroneously wrote the code for an F-89 or F-94 pilot. Both planes had been retired from service at the time. Bush, an officer, made this mistake more than once on the same form.
On May 26, 1972, Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, commander of the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, informed Bush that a transfer to his nonflying unit would be unsuitable for a fully trained pilot such as he was, and that Bush would not be able to fulfill any of his remaining two years of flight obligation. But Bush pressed on with his transfer request nonetheless.
Bush’s transfer request to the 9921st was eventually denied by the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, which meant he was still obligated to attend training sessions one weekend a month with his Texas unit in Houston. But Bush failed to attend weekend drills in May, June, July, August and September. He also failed to request permission to make up those days at the time.
According to Air Force regulations, “[a] member whose attendance record is poor must be closely monitored. When the unexcused absences reach one less than the maximum permitted [sic] he must be counseled and a record made of the counseling. If the member is unavailable he must be advised by personal letter.” But there is no record that Bush ever received such counseling, despite the fact that he missed drills for months on end.
Bush’s unit was obligated to report in writing to the Personnel Center at Randolph Air Force Base whenever a monthly review of records showed unsatisfactory participation for an officer.
But his unit never reported Bush’s absenteeism to Randolph Air Force Base.
In July 1972 Bush failed to take a mandatory Guard physical exam, which is a serious offense for a Guard pilot. The move should have prompted the formation of a Flying Evaluation Board to investigation the circumstances surrounding Bush’s failure. But no such FEB was convened.
Once Bush was grounded for failing to take a physical, his commanders could have filed a report on why the suspension should be lifted. But Bush’s commanders made no such request.
On Sept. 15, 1972, Bush was ordered to report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, the deputy commander of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery, Ala., to participate in training on the weekends of Oct. 7-8 and Nov. 4-5, 1972. But there’s no evidence Bush ever showed up on those dates. In 2000, Turnipseed told the Boston Globe that Bush did not report for duty. (A self-professed Bush supporter, Turnipseed has since backed off from his categorical claim.)
However, according to the White House-released pay records, which are unsigned, Bush was credited for serving in Montgomery on Oct. 28-29 and Nov. 11-14, 1972. Those makeup dates should have produced a paper trail, including Bush’s formal request as well as authorization and supervision documents. But no such documents exist, and the dates he was credited for do not match the dates when the Montgomery unit assembled for drills.
When Guardsmen miss monthly drills, or “unit training assemblies” (UTAs), they are allowed to make them up through substitute service and earn crucial points toward their service record. Drills are worth one point on a weekday and two points on each weekend day. For Bush’s substitute service on Nov. 13-14, 1972, he was awarded four points, two for each day. But Nov. 13 and 14 were both weekdays. He should have been awarded two points.
Bush earned six points for service on Jan. 4-6, 1973 — a Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
But he should have earned four points, one each for Thursday and Friday, two for Saturday.
Weekday training was the exception in the Guard. For example, from May 1968 to May 1972, when Bush was in good standing, he was not credited with attending a single weekday UTA.
But after 1972, when Bush’s absenteeism accelerated, nearly half of his credited UTAs were for weekdays.
To maintain unit cohesiveness, the parameters for substitute service are tightly controlled; drills must be made up within 15 days immediately before, or 30 days immediately after, the originally scheduled drill, according to Guard regulations at the time.
But more than half of the substitute service credits Bush received fell outside that clear time frame. In one case, he made up a drill nine weeks in advance.
On Sept. 29, 1972, Bush was formally grounded for failing to take a flight physical. The letter, written by Maj. Gen. Francis Greenlief, chief of the National Guard Bureau, ordered Bush to acknowledge in writing that he had received word of his grounding.
But no such written acknowledgment exists. In 2000, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Boston Globe that Bush couldn’t remember if he’d ever been grounded.
Bartlett also told the Boston Globe that Bush didn’t undergo a physical while in Alabama because his family doctor was in Houston. But only Air Force flight surgeons can give flight physicals to pilots.
Guard members are required to take a physical exam every 12 months.
But Bush’s last Guard physical was in May 1971. Bush was formally discharged from the service in November 1974, which means he went without a required physical for 42 months.
Bush’s unsatisfactory participation in the fall of 1972 should have prompted the Texas Air National Guard to write to his local draft board and inform the board that Bush had become eligible for the draft. Guard units across the country contacted draft boards every Sept. 15 to update them on the status of local Guard members. Bush’s absenteeism should have prompted what’s known as a DD Form 44, “Record of Military Status of Registrant.” But there is no record of any such document having been sent to Bush’s draft board in Houston.
Records released by the White House note that Bush received a military dental exam in Alabama on Jan. 6, 1973. But Bush’s request to serve in Alabama covered only September, October and November 1972. Why he would still be serving in Alabama months after that remains unclear.
Each of Bush’s numerous substitute service requests should have formed a lengthy paper trail consisting of AF Form 40a’s, with the name of the officer who authorized the training in advance, the signature of the officer who supervised the training and Bush’s own signature.
But no such documents exist.
During his last year with the Texas Air National Guard, Bush missed nearly two-thirds of his mandatory UTAs and made up some of them with substitute service. Guard regulations allowed substitute service only in circumstances that are “beyond the control” of the Guard member.
But neither Bush nor the Texas Air National Guard has ever explained what the uncontrollable circumstances were that forced him to miss the majority of his assigned drills in his last year.
Bush supposedly returned to his Houston unit in April 1973 and served two days.
But at the end of April, when Bush’s Texas commanders had to rate him for their annual report, they wrote that they could not do so: “Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report.”
On June 29, 1973, the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver instructed Bush’s commanders to get additional information from his Alabama unit, where he had supposedly been training, in order to better evaluate Bush’s duty. The ARPC gave Texas a deadline of Aug. 6 to get the information. But Bush’s commanders ignored the request.
Bush was credited for attending four days of UTAs with his Texas unit July 16-19, 1973. That was good for eight crucial points. But that’s not possible. Guard units hold only two UTAs each month — one on a Saturday and one on a Sunday. Although Bush may well have made up four days, they should not all have been counted as UTAs, since they occur just twice a month. The other days are known as “Appropriate Duty,” or APDY.
On July 30, 1973, Bush, preparing to attend Harvard Business School, signed a statement acknowledging it was his responsibility to find another unit in which to serve out the remaining nine months of his commitment. But Bush never contacted another unit in Massachusetts in which to fulfill his obligation.
Focus on the Reality of the Threat. September 11, 2001 was not a dream. Have you forgotten so soon?
What good will getting rid of Bush do for you if we don’t face the challenge that mounts daily from the Islamic world. Wake up. Think about your country, your civilization, your faith. We need to band together to defend these things.. Get over your fixation on Bush. Yes, I know he is too “country-western” for you. Get over it. If 9/11 doesn’t convince you that a threat exists nothing will.
From Woflgang Bruno at Dhimmiwatch.com
Let?s face it: There are no ?reformists? in the Iranian establishment. Despite Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi?s claims, the problem in Iran is essentially Islam itself. Ayatollah Khomeini was merely following the example set by Muhammad himself when Khomeini stated that the ?Quran says: kill, imprison! Why are you only clinging to the part that talks about mercy? Mercy is against God?; and, ?We need a Khalifa (leader of Islamic state) who would chop hands, cut throat, stone people.? Khomeini was not an ?extremist?; he was an honest Muslim. The much-talked-about power struggle between ?Modernist? President Khatami, who received a large majority of the votes in both previous elections, and ?Hardliners? such as the Supreme Leader and real power holder Khamenei, is a hoax. Genuine reformists, secularists and modernists are not allowed to run for President in Iran at all, as all candidates have to be screened and approved for their Islamic credentials and their commitment to the Islamic Republic by the conservative Guardian Council. The ?struggle? should be best viewed as a ?Good cop, bad cop? taqiyya game, intended to fool both Western and Iranian audiences. As such, the scheme has had some success. It has so far prevented a counter-revolution, and has provided European nations with an excuse for dealing with the mullahs. Perhaps it?s time we realize that some things are beyond repair. The Islamic Regime in Iran cannot be reformed, it can only be removed. Can the EU?s External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten explain to the parents of the 16 year old girl who was hanged in public for her “sharp tongue” what tangible results his ?dialog? has produced so far? Or the 14 year old boy who died after receiving 85 lashes for breaking his Ramadan fast? Reporters Without Borders calls Iran ?the biggest prison for journalists in the Middle East?.
Serious Commentators?
Jim, I still haven’t heard from you about your theory of breaking immigration law.
We have agreed that a Christian may find himself in a situation in which he must break a law in order to live with his conscience. We would agree that breaking laws supporting slavery, aparthied and persecution of Jews by the Nazis would be examples where Christians could, in good conscience, break the law. In each of these situations, the Christian is able to articulate exactly what it is about the law the offends his conscience and compels him to resist.
What is your position on breaking immigration laws, laws which are aimed at exerting control of the borders of a country?
What is your position on breaking laws mandating the reporting of income earned as wages and withholding taxes from that income?
What is your position on breaking laws restricting the rights of foreigners to hold jobs in the United States?
What is your position on breaking the laws setting a minimum wage?
Do you claim that a Christian has a conscientious right to break these laws? On what grounds? What about these laws is inherently offensive to the Christian conscience?
I would appreciate an answer.
Do you think that Scripture which commends helping “strangers in your land” should be extended from meaning persons lawfully traveling in your country, or persons lawfully visiting a new geographical area TO aiding and abetting felonious entry into a country, aiding and abetting felonious employment, aiding and abetting felonious tax evasion, etc.
Would like to hear from you on this.
Missourian writes: “Jim, I still haven’t heard from you about your theory of breaking immigration law.”
I live in an area that has a lot of agricultural work. Literally thousands of migrants come here every year to work the crops. Many of these people are in dire straits when they arrive, especially if the crops are late and there is no work. Sometimes you end up with entire families living out of cars. If they are able to find housing in a migrant labor camp, that’s good. But none of these camps is a place that you would want to live. I’ve volunteered with mobile medical clinics that visit these camps. In some cases the mobile clinics represent the only connection to medical care that these people have. I remember going to one camp and seeing a man with a strange smile on his face. When I looked closer at him I saw that his “smile” wasn’t really a smile, but an uncorrected cleft palate, a deformity that is surgically corrected in the U.S. during infancy.
In many cases the men have work permits. But they don’t want to be separated from their wives and children, and so the families accompany them. When you hear statistics about “illegal aliens” keep in mind that many of them are the wives and children of men who are here legally. These are the people who harvest our crops, who put food on our tables.
In my involvement with the local Hispanic community I have come across a number of interesting people. One of my friends is a fellow who originally came to the U.S. from El Salvador illegally, after both of his parents were murdered by death squads. He later obtained political asylum, and is now a citizen.
When I have dealt with these people I didn’t ask whether they had work permits.
On the only real “vacation” that I ever took I went to Mexico. My first stop was one of the “colonias” or slums of Juarez, called Anapra. There, about 40,000 people lived in shacks made of cardboard, scrap wood, whatever. The streets were all dirt. There was no running water, and people used discarded industrial barrels to hold water. In one house that I visited a baby had recently died. The baby had a fever, became overheated, and died because no medical care was available. While I was there people were very kind to me, and in the midst of their great poverty offered me food.
The interesting thing is that these people were not unemployed. Many of them were employed in one of the many maquiladoras, American border factories. As I recall, they earned less than a dollar an hour. That wage provided the means to live in a cardboard shack without running water. What these people did was assemble the consumer products that are shipped and sold in the United States. It was a revelation to me to realize that the appliances, electronics, cars, and medical products I buy are assembled by these people. Their poverty wage helps to subsidize my comfortable middle-class lifestyle.
When you go to a place like this you finally understand Luke chapter 6: “Blessed be you poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you that hunger now: for you shall be filled. Blessed are you that weep now: for you shall laugh.” It was a life-transforming experience. It was an experience that went far beyond politics, economics, policy, government, or man-made borders.
In the gospel of John Jesus says “You are my friends, if you do whatsoever I command you.” In the gospel of Matthew Jesus says “Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these, you did it to me.” So on the one hand we have to ask “what would Jesus do?” On the other hand we have to ask “what should we do to Jesus?”
For me the issue is not what I should do about the illegal immigrants that just got out of the car across the street. The issue is what should I do about Jesus who got out of the car with them. And I don’t ask for his green card. Inasmuch as I have a theory about illegal immigration, that’s it.
Matching Jim Holman Anecdote for Anecdote:
Too Humble to Praise My Own Compassion I Give You the Gift of my own Anecdote (which incidentally reveals the depth of my compassion for others)
Scene: Somewhere in Missouri. Jake Vickers extends a weathered and scarred hand to receive my payment of $40.00. His hands bear callouses earned through many hours of hard work as a landscaper. His lean frame is slightly stooped, showing the toll of many decades of intensely hard work. Jake was born to dirt-poor parents in the Ozarks and made it to a larger city. By sheer dint of persistence and hard work he built a small landscaping business with a few regular customers. His posessions consist of a small two-bedroom house and a battered pick-up truck and some tools. My husband comes around the corner and greet Jake. My husband casually asks Jake how it is going for him. Jake stares at his feet and says he lost another steady customer last week. We commiserate with Jake at his loss. Jake had worked for this customer for years. It was a real loss for him. Turns out that Jake cannot compete with illegals who work for cash at $2.00 an hour. Jake cannot even make the payments on his old battered truck at that rate. Jake doesn’t have the benefit of formal schooling and at 53 Jake doesn’t think he can learn a new trade. My husband and I are saddened to learn of Jake’s dilmena. Jake has obeyed the law faithfully his entire life, reporting all his income and paying his fair share of taxes.
As Jake drives away, one consoling thought arises. I realize that I am experiencing a high level of human compassion. How wonderful of me!!! How proud my husband must be to be married to a woman with such a high level of sensitive concern for my fellow human beings!!! Luckily I am too humble to praise my own compassion. I leave that to others.
Although the name Jake Vickers is made up the story about Jake is true. Jake does landscaping work for my in-laws and my husband and I have hired him for a few jobs.
***********************************************************************************
***********************************************************************************
Viewed objectively, your long anecdote is close to insulting to those reading the blog. Your point seems to be that you have the moral fiber to feel compassion for unfortunate people, while the rest of us do not.
Compassion is a good start. Compassion does not absolve you from responsibility for the predictable consequences of your actions. You have consistently refused to face and acknowledge the negative consequences of the policies you advocate. You don’t recognize that all policies have advantages and disadvantages which need to be debated and weighed in the balance. Thinking about consequences is something that adults do. You have placed yourself in the category of a child.
************************************************************************************
After wiping away the tears of admiration generated by the tale of your unusual compassion, I would like to ask you the following:
Why should there exist agricultural work camps of the kind you describe in the United States?
Why should employers who create such conditions be allowed to continue to operate outside the law?
Why doesn’t our government enforce the laws against hiring illegal aliens where it counts. A few high-profile prosecutions of large employers would do wonders.
Why are people who enable illegal immigration, people who encourage Mexicans to risk their lives crossing the border, considered compassionate?
If I encourage a small child to cross a dangerous highway by giving him candy after his crosses the highway, am I compassionate? Do I have the child’s best interests in mind?
How is it compasionate to enable people to cross a border when they will have to live an underground life?
How is it compassionate to assist Hispanic illegals who are driving down the wages of the least-skilled poor?
Do you think that Cesar Chavez would have had some luck in organizing farm workers if his efforts had not been washed away by waves of illegals? [Careful here, rational thought may kick in]
Why is an illegal alien more entitled to compassion than Jake?
Is Jake not entitled to compassion?
Answer: Both political parties are corrupt. Democrats want a new victim-group for their political base. Republicans want cheap labor that undercuts labor laws. Jim Holman wants someone to help him feel morally superior to those who actually grapple with formulating policies that work and are far to all.
Here’s an Idea:
Perhaps we should consider policies which could help Mexico improve its own economic status.
Perhaps we could help Mexico feed its own people.
Perhaps we could stop giving the corrupt government of Mexico a safety valve which hides their greed and incompetence.
Perhaps if we assisted Mexico in improving its own economic condition, we would not have illegal aliens driving down the honest work of people like Jake Vickers.
Perhaps if we assisted Mexico in improving its own economic condition, we could maintain a healthy level of legal immigration and avoid degrading the rule of law.
Buying a drink for an alcoholic is not compassion, it is enabling addictive behavior. Giving the corrupt government of Mexico a free pass for its failures is not compassion. Condoning exploitive working conditions by big employers is not compassion, it is a form of corruption.
Anecdotal Reporting at Its Best:
From a documentary by PBS on mandatory sentencing.
The program begins with a shot of a young black man getting out of bed and getting dressed in the morning. The narrator informs us that this is the day that the young man has to report to prison to serve a long term for selling cocaine. The camera shows us his tearful wife making him what the narrator tells us is his last breakfast outside of prison. The young man picks up his son and gives him a long hug. If you are drinking coffee, please put down the mug now…..The narrator explains that the young man sold cocaine as the only way he knew to support his family……
Oddly the documentary did not show the people to whom this family man sold cocaine. It didn’t show the incredible addictive power of cocaine. It didn’t interview drug counselors who could have informed the public that cocaine addiction may be the toughest addiction to break. It doesn’t follow the lives of this young family man’s customers. We don’t find out what effect the cocaine had on the customer’s lives. We don’t find out how many committed crime while high on cocaine. We don’t know about the crime victims. We don’t know how many customers beat their spouses or kids while high on cocaine. We didn’t see a picture of the young man fanning the wads of cash that he earned selling cocaine. Had the viewers been treated to a dramatization of this information, they undoubtedly would have cheered the arrival of the paddy wagon. Somehow these facts were omitted..
Note 15. No need to rehash the entire National Guard allegation Dean given that the election is over (and no need to provide the full content of an article either — a link will do) . It misses my point anyway which was this:
You argued last week that Dan Rather’s story slamming President Bush was true even through the facts he used to “prove” it were false; this week you argue that Rather is standard by which ostenstible malfeasance by President Bush should be measured. My question to you was: which is it? — Is Rather an angel or demon? (Your thesis also required a labored effort to build a moral and factual congruence between Rathergate and a failed intelligence apparatus, but let’s overlook this for now.)
I concluded the the only consistent idea within your contradiction was an animus toward President Bush. Judging by your response above (Note 15), it looks like I hit the nail on the head.
One final point. The attack on Bush’s National Guard service was an effort to neutralize the Swift Boat charges. Kerry mishandled that. An apology would have effectively laid the issue to rest. It was that simple.
Missourian writes: “Viewed objectively, your long anecdote is close to insulting to those reading the blog. Your point seems to be that you have the moral fiber to feel compassion for unfortunate people, while the rest of us do not.”
My views on immigration have been formed less by Paul Samuelson and Rush Limbaugh and more by certain personal experiences and encounters over the years, in addition to talking to people, both secular and religious, who work with these folks on a regular basis. The many problems related to illegal immigration are well-known and continually publicized. I live in an area that has experienced an influx of immigrants from Mexico, both legal and illegal, and one does not have to look very hard to see the problems. What is often less-known is why these folks come here, and what their lives are like. If you want this kind of information you have to go out and get it.
But as you suggest, the weakness of personal experience is that it may not lead to the development of a comprehensive and systematic policy on the issue in question.
What I have tried to do is to understand the situation through the lens of the gospels and the Old Testament. What became apparent to me very early on is that we can deal with these people as “issues” and “problems,” or we can deal with them as people. Based on my reading of the Bible, I believe that the latter is what is required.
Your story about Jake is certainly very instructive. He is a casualty of a situation in which thousands of people are compelled to undertake a long and sometimes dangerous journey in order to try to exist, through doing work that few Americans would be willing to do, in a country in which they are unwelcome. One feels terrible about someone like Jake being driven out of business. One also feels terrible about people who are so desperate that they will work for two dollars an hour.
Your list of suggestions — the “perhaps” list — is good. But we’re not there yet, and the reality of the situation is that people from Mexico are still coming here. And by the way, many of them who come here are here legally but are extremely poor nonetheless. The fellow who works for two dollars an hour may very well be here legally and doing what he has to do to keep food on the table.
Just to set the record straight, what you describe as my “unusual compassion” consists of trying to be nice to people as well as doing occasional volunteer work. That doesn’t seem very unusual to me.
To be honest, I’m a little confused by the tone of your response. You asked me a question. You insisted on an anwer. I gave you an answer. True, my answer came neither from the pages of Principles of Economics nor from the Heritage Foundation. It was an answer based on my own experience and on my understanding of the gospel. It’s the only answer I have, and it is impossible to explain myself without referencing the experiences that have been formative for me. For me these are not abstract or academic issues. My views are based on the migrants that I have known personally, and on the people I know who work with that community on a daily basis — people whose compassion far exceeds my own but who nonetheless serve as an example to me. I don’t have a “plan” or a “policy.”
As I mentioned yesterday I’m going be off-line for a few days. Talk to you later.
Jim Holman, A smear is a smear even when it cites the Gospel.
I stand by my analysis and my critique of your posts and approach.
Your essay was exactly what I described it as. It was a statement of moral superiority. As such, it was moral smear of me. In political discourse the equivalent technique is called “wrapping yourself in the flag.” It is the tactic used when logical arguments fail. In this case, you have “wrapped yourself in the Gospel” to evade accountibility for your statements.
Jake’s story demonstrates that one can find many cases of real human suffering and injustice resulting from lax immigration enforcement. It demonstrates my point that the assumption of moral superiority by the open borders crowd is a sham. Illegal Hispanics are worthy objects of human compassion, but U.S. citizens, like Jake, get the back of your hand. Wrong ethnic group I suppose.
Although you have never advanced a single policy solution to the immigration problem, you consider yourself to have the moral authority to criticize those who argue for immigration enforcement.You clearly object to immigration enforcement and you characterize its advocates as inhumane. You, of course, have never deigned to propose a solution.
Apparently you think it is some kind of moral insult to claim that someone gives credence to Paul Samuelson. Samuelson is a widely respected mainstream academic economist. Do you object to the academic study of economics? This is a typical example. You throw out Samuelson’s name as if anyone associated with him is morally inferior. I sure that would come as a surprise to Samuelson, probably would hurt his feelings.
Reduced to its essentials, you consider yourself morally superior to any who applies a modicum of logical analysis to a social issue. By condemning those who call for the enforcement of the law, you contribute in your own small way to a culture of lawlessness. Rest assured that a breakdown of law enforcement and the rule of law will hurt the poor first and will hurt them the most.
Missourian writes: “Your essay was exactly what I described it as. It was a statement of moral superiority. As such, it was moral smear of me.”
. . . which is an interesting interpretation to me, since I didn’t mention you in either post.
Missourian: “Jake’s story demonstrates that one can find many cases of real human suffering and injustice resulting from lax immigration enforcement.”
I don’t know what Jake’s story actually demonstrates, or how much we can read into a story about a single person. I don’t know if the people doing yard work are here legally or illegally. I don’t know if people have decided to do their own yard work. I don’t know if they are hiring neighbor children to do their yard work. I live in an area with thousands of migrants from Mexico, some legal, some not, and yet we also have a number of yard maintenance businesses. Personally, my yard could use some maintenance, but I’m too cheap to pay for it.
But you may very well be right as far as his business problems having resulted from competition with people who are working here illegally. If so, I don’t know if that can be entirely laid at the feet of lax enforcement. The economic interdependence between the U.S. and Mexico is very complex, and I don’t claim to grasp all the complexities.
Missourian: “Compassion is a good start. Compassion does not absolve you from responsibility for the predictable consequences of your actions. You have consistently refused to face and acknowledge the negative consequences of the policies you advocate.”
Let’s talk about the distinction between “my actions” and “the policies I advocate.” In the topic under discussion “my actions” consist largely of having tried in a small way to understand the situation of migrants and help people who are already here, whether or not they are here legally. Of course in most cases I have no idea if they are here legally. Therefore the “policy I advocate” is that we should help people even if we don’t know whether dad has a work permit, mom has one, whether one or more of the children is a citizen, the exact immigration status of all the family members, etc. And if I find out that a person is not here legally I try to help him or her anyway, whether adult or child. In my reading of the gospel the immediate need of people in our own communities, with whatever immigration status, trumps the interest of the government in controlling who gets across the border.
I really don’t know what your “actions” or “policies” are with respect to people who are already here.
Missourian: “You don’t recognize that all policies have advantages and disadvantages which need to be debated and weighed in the balance. Thinking about consequences is something that adults do. You have placed yourself in the category of a child.”
I am quite aware that policies have advantages and disadvantages, but we’re talking about an issue with a level of complexity such that it can be difficult to know how to weigh the relevant advantages and disadvantages. So I have placed myself in the category of those who refrain from making comprehensive policy recommendations.
Missourian: “In this case, you have ‘wrapped yourself in the Gospel’ to evade accountibility for your statements.”
But at least I’ve referenced the gospel. Michael Bauman recently said that “It would be nice to have the dialog framed by and informed by Christianity rather than political precepts and bias. It is percisely the difficulty in translating the Christian Gospel into public policy that makes this web site useful.”
What I’ve tried to do is to show how the gospel has influenced my thinking and actions on this issue. As Michael notes, the gospel needs to be the starting point. You note that there are other important considerations as well. And that’s fine. But in many discussions that I’ve had with conservative religious people over the years, the gospel isn’t even mentioned. I’ve heard religious people make all sorts of recommendations — up to and including shooting anyone who tries to cross the border illegally — that don’t seem to be related to anything in the gospel or Christian tradition.
Jim Holman: On Immigration and Christian Morality
Jim writes:
Missourian writes: ?Your essay was exactly what I described it as. It was a statement of moral superiority. As such, it was moral smear of me.?
. . . which is an interesting interpretation to me, since I didn?t mention you in either post.
Missourian replies: This is just silly. We have had an ongoing discussion of immigration policy for weeks.
***********************************************************************************
Missourian: ?Jake?s story demonstrates that one can find many cases of real human suffering and injustice resulting from lax immigration enforcement.?
I don?t know what Jake?s story actually demonstrates, or how much we can read into a story about a single person. I don?t know if the people doing yard work are here legally or illegally. I don?t know if people have decided to do their own yard work. I don?t know if they are hiring neighbor children to do their yard work. I live in an area with thousands of migrants from Mexico, some legal, some not, and yet we also have a number of yard maintenance businesses. Personally, my yard could use some maintenance, but I?m too cheap to pay for it.
But you may very well be right as far as his business problems having resulted from competition with people who are working here illegally. If so, I don?t know if that can be entirely laid at the feet of lax enforcement. The economic interdependence between the U.S. and Mexico is very complex, and I don?t claim to grasp all the complexities.
Missourian replies:
COMPASSION-O-METER HITS ZERO FOR JAKE (the dreaded “businessman”)
Notice the use of the term “business problems” when it comes to Jake. Let me put in in terms that might elicit your compassion. Jakes travels around and sells his personal physical labor to homeowners who need landscaping work done. His tools consist of some clippers, some shovels and a battered lawnmower. Maybe if I remove the word “business” from the story, you might find some compassion. When I say that he cannot compete, I mean that he may not be able to make basic payments on his truck or home and he may lose his home. Luckily for Jake, if he becomes homeless he will be the beneficiary of your generous compassion.
My story about Jake had two points.
First, it was a mirror to your story about the needy illegal alien you encountered in an agricultural camp. The story about the illegal alien served to highlight your personal compassion, it also served to suggest, not state, that persons who disagreed with you on policy matters also advocated the inhumane treatment of individual illegal aliens in the United States. This comment had the hallmarks we have come to expect from a Jim Holman post, an implied assertion of moral superiority and an implication that those who disagree with Jim were inhumane, coupled with a adamantine refusal to engage in serious discussions of policies.
Second, it demonstrated that it is possible to find real human suffering and unfairness which has resulted from lax enforcement of immigration laws. This was using the Jim Holman method of argument. Open borders advocates have claimed the “high moral ground.” Essentially, they attempt to use a shaming technique to silence criticism of the policies they advocate. I have demonstrated that the same shaming technique can be used in nearly any situation. You have dehumanized Jake by referring to his imminent homelessness as “business troubles.”
You have a surprising “unknowing” position about the extent and impact of illegal immigration.Reputable sources have put the size of the illegal population at between 8 million and 20 million. Newspapers are full of articles about the problems associated with illegals congregating on street corners and illegally solicited work in cities all over America. It would take about 15 minutes and a few inquiries to find the illegal alien “hiring hall” in any city in America.
********************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
Missourian: ?Compassion is a good start. Compassion does not absolve you from responsibility for the predictable consequences of your actions. You have consistently refused to face and acknowledge the negative consequences of the policies you advocate.?
Let?s talk about the distinction between ?my actions? and ?the policies I advocate.? In the topic under discussion ?my actions? consist largely of having tried in a small way to understand the situation of migrants and help people who are already here, whether or not they are here legally. Of course in most cases I have no idea if they are here legally. Therefore the ?policy I advocate? is that we should help people even if we don?t know whether dad has a work permit, mom has one, whether one or more of the children is a citizen, the exact immigration status of all the family members, etc. And if I find out that a person is not here legally I try to help him or her anyway, whether adult or child. In my reading of the gospel the immediate need of people in our own communities, with whatever immigration status, trumps the interest of the government in controlling who gets across the border.
I really don?t know what your ?actions? or ?policies? are with respect to people who are already here.
Missourian replies:
OUR ACTIONS ARE OUR POLICIES: Most of will never wield a high level of political or economic power. However, all of us have some influence. Whatever influence we have we are responsible for wielding it responsibly. A simple example may suffice.
I maintain that anything other than short-term emergency care for illegal aliens (which is not illegal) constitutes enabling illegal immigration. Americans should not hire illegals, it is against the law. Federal law requires that we collect documents from new employees to set up accounts for the withholding tax and that we take reasonable steps to ensure that our employees have the right to work in America. Americans should not pay illegals cash under the table and evade paying taxes. People frequently illegal hiring halls know exactly what they are doing. American businesses that hire illegals should be prosecuted. Tyson has been prosecuted for massive illegal alien hiring. This should energize you, Jim, a business you can bash.
THE ISSUE WAS NOT WHETHER NEEDY PEOPLE SHOULD BE AFFORDED SHORT-TERM EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE BUT UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES A CHRISTIAN CAN, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, BREAK THE LAW
I had started a discussion about when a Christian can, in good conscience, break the law. The point was to develop a reasonable, logical and coherent approach to the matter. Your posts have demonstrated that you put zero value on the rule of law and you feel that you can violate it with moral impunity, it doesn’t even register as a value with you.
ILLEGAL ALIENS SHOULD RECEIVE HUMANE TREATMENT WHILE IN THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING BUT LIMITED TO SHORT-TERM EMERGENCY AID.
I think that it is appropriate to provide short-term, immediate emergency aid to illegals found in the United States. People needing food, shelter and medical care should be able to obtain them ON A SHORT-TERM BASIS. However, it is reasonable to restrict non-emergency public services and benefits to the citizens of the United States.
The emergency room closures in Los Angeles county were caused by the very high volume of illegal aliens using emergency rooms as their sole source of medical care. This is a result of the overall volume of illegal aliens in Los Angeles County. They simply swamped the system. I do recommend that a sick person be turned away from an emergency room, I recommend that we use the resources we have to prevent illegals from entering the United States, while, we offer to assist Mexico with polices that will enable it to feed and employ its own people. If you object to border enforcement, it is incumbent on you to offer a plan whereby Americans will pay for the immense demand for medical care for illegals while we also grapple with a disfunctional national medical system. Answers required, emotions not allowed.
More than 30% of criminals in California jails are illegal aliens. They are in jail for non-immigration related crimes. California doesn’t enforce federal immigration law, so they are not in California jails for being illegal aliens, they are there because they committed a crime. We should be able to return these criminals to Mexico and have confidence that they will serve a reasonable prison term there, at the expense of the Mexican government. If you don’t think we should stop illegals at the border and thereby reduce the load on our prisons, it is incumbent on you to offer a plan whereby Americans provide rehabilitation of our own criminals, as well as housing Mexico’s criminals.
These are only two pressing problems suffered by Californians. Similar problems exist in all border states and are MOVING INLAND.
THE ISSUE WAS NOT WHETHER NEEDY PEOPLE SHOULD BE AFFORDED SHORT-TERM EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE BUT UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES A CHRISTIAN CAN, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, BREAK THE LAW
I had started a discussion about when a Christian can, in good conscience, break the law. You have essentially dismissed the idea that the rule of law has a moral component that a Christian should honor. You have evaded the very logical conclusion that you are willing to contribute to a culture of lawlessness. The point was to develop a reasonable, logical and coherent approach to the matter. You diverted the discussion by evading any logical moral analysis and presenting an emotionally charged scenario.
You have never answered the question of what moral principle is supposedly violated by a country which asserts control over its borders. You have asserted that you have right as a Christian to break the law. So far you position is that lawlessness is Christian. I disagree.
***************************************************************************
Missourian: ?You don?t recognize that all policies have advantages and disadvantages which need to be debated and weighed in the balance. Thinking about consequences is something that adults do. You have placed yourself in the category of a child.?
I am quite aware that policies have advantages and disadvantages, but we?re talking about an issue with a level of complexity such that it can be difficult to know how to weigh the relevant advantages and disadvantages. So I have placed myself in the category of those who refrain from making comprehensive policy recommendations.
Missourian replies:
As I pointed out eariler. Our actions are our policies. You are correct in that you have refrained from attempting to grapple with the actual policy decisions that we as American citizens are called upon to make through our democratic process.
However, you have not refrained from accusing those that do attempt to grapply with those policies of inhumanity. You cast aspersions on poor, old Paul Samuelson simply because he is an economist. You seem to suggest that the study of economics is somehow morally suspect. Interesting theory.
***********************************************************************************
Jim Holman writes:
Missourian: ?In this case, you have ?wrapped yourself in the Gospel? to evade accountibility for your statements.?
But at least I?ve referenced the gospel. Michael Bauman recently said that ?It would be nice to have the dialog framed by and informed by Christianity rather than political precepts and bias. It is percisely the difficulty in translating the Christian Gospel into public policy that makes this web site useful.?
What I?ve tried to do is to show how the gospel has influenced my thinking and actions on this issue. As Michael notes, the gospel needs to be the starting point. You note that there are other important considerations as well. And that?s fine. But in many discussions that I?ve had with conservative religious people over the years, the gospel isn?t even mentioned. I?ve heard religious people make all sorts of recommendations ? up to and including shooting anyone who tries to cross the border illegally ? that don?t seem to be related to anything in the gospel or Christian tradition.
Missourian replies:
We have a common starting point. We seek to help the unfortunate and the needy. You seem to think that because I don’t constantly repeat that, that it is not may concern.
As I have stated, it is better to help the poor with effective policies than ineffective policies. You seem to think it is enough to state ” I seek to help the needy with my actions or proposals.” After that you are offended if anyone points out that not only as the actions or proposals ineffective, they can be down right harmful to the interests of the poor. You claim a blanket absolution for the consequences of your actions to which no one is entitled.
Immigration in the Rest of the World.
Not all countries allow immigration. One notable example is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia does not recognize any obligation to allow any immigration into Saudi Arabia. It allows spouses of existing Saudi Arabia citizens to become Saudi Arabian citizens, if and only if, they are Muslim. Saudis deny Jews the right to obtain visas and have in the past restricted acces to Saudi Arabia by foreigners whose passports show that they have previously visited Israel.
Saudi Arabia practices intense religious discrimination and refuses to absorb any of the world’s refugees. It is a very wealthy country. Poor people enter Saudi Arabia only as servants and policies are in place which will keep them servants as long as they are in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia claims to support Palestinian rights but, of course, it has never
allowed Palestinians refuge in Saudi Arabia or the right to emigrate and settle permanently.
Correction
A typo in my previous post suggested that I accepted the idea of turing away sick people form emergency rooms. That is a typo. I most assuredly do not advocate that.
I do advocate getting to the root cause of the illegal alien problem which is Mexico’s corrupt government and unnecessarily failed economy.
Missourian – You stated that Saddam kicked out weapons inspectors in 1998.
This is flat wrong. Saddam did no such thing.
CNN: “Chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler has ordered all non-essential staff out of Iraq as a precautionary measure in case of U.S. military action.
More than 100 personnel were told to withdraw on Wednesday after talks between U.S. officials and Butler, the executive chairman of the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) in charge of Iraqi disarmament.
“Based upon his discussions with U.S. officials, the executive chairman has decided, as a precautionary measure, to withdraw all UNSCOM personnel from Iraq,” said Butler’s spokesman Ewen Buchanan.”
Unscom arms inspectors were withdrawn in December 1998, as Bill Clinton faced impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky affair. Clinton launched a 4-day series of strikes, Operation Desert Fox, the day before his impeachment referendum was scheduled, and called them off two hours after the vote.
These events had nothing to do with Saddam. They had everything to do with a corrupt and morally reprehensible Bill Clinton trying to hang onto his job at the expense of the Iraqi people. The sanctions regime never should have lasted through both of Clinton’s terms in office. Even Cold War hawks like Pat Buchanan recognized that enough was enough. Too bad for Saddam that Clinton needed a convenient international boogeyman.
How is it that Republicans are now citing Clintonista policies as justification for current actions? Have we completely forgotten everything we knew about the Arkanasas mass-murderer?
Yes, Saddam was a brutal tyrant. But, he was a secular socialist with whom we had worked in the past to keep the Iranian mullahs in check. We had a tiff over the Kuwait thing, but we should have been able to patch that up and get back to business as usual. That is – except for the Clinton administration continually stirring the pot to distract America from the trainwreck that was 8 years of Bill in the White House. Now Republicans parrot his lines and claim that his self-serving propaganda justifies the ‘intelligence failures’ of the Bush White House since, “Bill Clinton believed the same thing!”
Sorry, I didn’t buy into Bill’s story in 1998, and I surely don’t believe it now. The truth is Saddam was desperate to cooperate and lift sanctions. He would have dearly loved to be re-integrated into the world community. His country was falling apart, and the entire northern third had slipped totally out of his control under the U.S. no-fly zone. Saddam was the kind of corrupt kleptocrat that the West can do business with, and has done business with all over the world. (Pinochet comes to mind.)
What is likely to happen, following the conclusion of our nation-building endeavor in Iraq, is that we will be facing a Shiite-dominated fundamentalist state next door to another Shiite-dominated fundamentalist state. Aren’t we supposed to be DECREASING the power of radical Islam in the world? How is knocking over a secular dictator with a track-record of cooperating with the US and the USSR going to help rid the world of Muslim fundamentalism?
While we are at it, why is the U.S. still occupying Kosovo through NATO? If we’d like to lessen the hold of Muslim radicals on a bit of territory, that would be a great place to start in my opinion.
Bush campaigned in 2000 on a ‘humbler’ foreign policy. As a conservative, I support that goal. I want less nation-building and more defense of our own borders. I want less reconstruction money poured into a foreign nation, and more money spent on tracking down illegal aliens and deporting them from the U.S.. I want fewer troops stationed abroad, and less U.S. foreign entanglement. I want U.S. troops used to protect and defend the Constitution, not as ‘change agents’ to radically alter foreign societies through force. Conservatives used to believe in such things once, just as they used to skeptically view anything that came out of the Clinton White House.
When, I wonder, will conservatives believe such things again? Will we have to have another Clinton in the White Hose for traditional conservatism to come back into vogue?
Missourian, your comment about Saddam kicking out inspectors in 1998 is flat wrong.
Saddam did no such thing!
Butler orderd the inspectors out for their safety to prepare the way for a US attack.
Unscom arms inspectors were withdrawn in December 1998, as Bill Clinton faced impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky affair. Clinton launched a 4-day series of strikes, Operation Desert Fox, the day before his impeachment referendum was scheduled, and called them off two hours after the vote.
Please don’t use anything said or done by the Arkansas mass murderer as justification for war with Iraq. The plain truth is that the sanctions should have been lifted under Clinton, but were not because of his need for a boogeyman. Saddam fit the bill, even though we know now that Saddam was desperate to get sanctions lifted and normal relations restored.
Saddam was a corrupt kleptocrat, the kind we have sucessfully done business with around the world. (Pinochet comes to mind.) A strong Iraq counterbalanced the Iranians. Now, a weak and divided Iraq is likely to slide into the abyss of Muslim fundamentalist leadership. Had we not followed Clinton’s lead on this, the world would be a much, much better place. Bush seemed to understand this in 2000 when he repudiated nation-building that had been the rage in the Clinton years. How quickly he seems to have forgotten that.
Iraq didn’t attack us on 9/11. Iraq has never attacked us. There is no evidence that Iraq ever wanted to attack us. This war was a stupid move following the precedent of the most corrupt regime in American history. As Republicans, we need to just face the truth and see what can be salvaged from this mess, rather than continually re-writing history in the manner of communist regimes that we so frequently criticize.
Mr. Chancy, perhaps you could explain to Naseer Flayih Hasan, an Iraqi citizen, why removing Saddam Hussein from power and making it possible for Iraqis to vote, in approximately 2 weeks, on a new government was such a horrid thing and that Saddam was little more than “a secular socialist with whom” we could work, and the “tiff over the Kuwait thing” was something we could “patch … up and get back to business as usual” with Saddam in power. Please explain this to Mr. Hasan, and to me because we foolishly believe that President Bush and the American Armed Forces have a good thing by destroying this tyrant’s stranglehold on Iraq.
I am almost stunned into speechlessness to read that you think the United States had nothing to fear from a rearmed Saddam Hussein. A man who invaded two nations and who gave material support to Islamofascist terrorists posed absolutely no threat to the United States? … Heavy Sigh … But, of course, history shows us that some 80% of Americans supported an isolationist agenda and opposed going to war against the Nazi led Axis, so your “maintain the status quo” isolationism comes as no real surprise.
Here’s something to chew on from the very interesting Command Post link above:
“After Pearl Harbor, the American People united behind Roosevelt though. As Maureen Dowd said:
‘Although conservatives compared Saddam to Hitler, America did not have to be persuaded with â??actionableâ?? intelligence before confronting Hitler. That dictator was an individual weapon of mass destruction.’
“..and Congress declared War on Hitler on December 8th. Except they didn’t.”
“Congress only declared war on the Japanese – and astoundingly, the vote wasn’t unanimous. Arguably Hitler’s greatest mistake was to declare War on the USA on December 11th. It’s entirely possible that despite Roosevelt’s pressure to go to war against Germany, that the Congress would only have supported a war against Japan.”
“Because Hitler had no more a part in Pearl Harbor than Saddam had in 9/11. In fact, from the evidence now available, rather less.”
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.“