I wrote in this blog on January 4, 2007 that Cindy Sheehan should go to Iraq as an ambassador for peace. Tonight, I heard her say on CNN that she will, indeed, go to Iraq. Cindy, better late than never!
Cindy Sheehan has the potential to bring something to the table in Iraq that most others currently involved in the peace process cannot. She is a mother who has felt the pain of losing a son to the war. If channeled properly, this pain may be used as powerful leverage to get Iraqi leaders to transcend the narrow interests of their own sectarian groups and come together for the benefit of the country and the region.
The CNN reporter who interviewed her wanted to know if this would make her a "Baghdad Cindy." He was referring to Jane Fonda's trip to Hanoi, the capital of what was then North Vietnam during the Vietnam war. How is Baghdad the parallel to Hanoi? Strange question.
If Cindy Sheehan goes to Iraq for the sake of bringing reconciliation among the groups that are killing each other there, then I will applaud her trip.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Chertoff's indigestion
Michael Chertoff, secretary of Homeland Security, tells us he has a "gut feeling" that the United States may suffer a terrorist strike this summer. He doesn't have any specific information on when, where or how, but he has a gut feeling.
His comment can be taken either from a positive perspective or a negative, and it is hard to tell which is the appropriate perspective in this instance.
On the positive side, the comment can be understood as a call for greater vigilance as we enter the summer months, when a number of attacks have occurred, and following the recent spate of attacks in London. But if this was the message that Mr. Chertoff wanted to convey, he could have said so without bringing last night's pizza into the discussion.
He could be saying, "I have specific information, but I can't reveal it because doing so would jeopardize intelligence sources and methods." But people who are seeing the same intelligence as the Secretary are denying that such specific information exists.
There are plenty of interpretations on the negative side. In particular, the statement seems to coincide conveniently with the debate in Congress over the possible withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The statement could have been timed to influence that debate. It's possible.
Or it could be that Mr. Chertoff doesn't yet understand how he needs to speak and behave in the context of his role as Secretary of Homeland Security.
In a bygone era it was said that when America sneezed, the rest of the world came down with the flu. It was an expression of how effects of events in the United States were magnified elsewhere in the world.
Today, it seems that when the Secretary of Homeland Security has indigestion, the rest of us are expected to run and hide.
His comment can be taken either from a positive perspective or a negative, and it is hard to tell which is the appropriate perspective in this instance.
On the positive side, the comment can be understood as a call for greater vigilance as we enter the summer months, when a number of attacks have occurred, and following the recent spate of attacks in London. But if this was the message that Mr. Chertoff wanted to convey, he could have said so without bringing last night's pizza into the discussion.
He could be saying, "I have specific information, but I can't reveal it because doing so would jeopardize intelligence sources and methods." But people who are seeing the same intelligence as the Secretary are denying that such specific information exists.
There are plenty of interpretations on the negative side. In particular, the statement seems to coincide conveniently with the debate in Congress over the possible withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The statement could have been timed to influence that debate. It's possible.
Or it could be that Mr. Chertoff doesn't yet understand how he needs to speak and behave in the context of his role as Secretary of Homeland Security.
In a bygone era it was said that when America sneezed, the rest of the world came down with the flu. It was an expression of how effects of events in the United States were magnified elsewhere in the world.
Today, it seems that when the Secretary of Homeland Security has indigestion, the rest of us are expected to run and hide.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
How to choose a President (3)
It looks like I had better fast forward to explaining why John McCain is not a good choice for U.S. voters this time around before he quits the race.
I have been saying that in 2008, U.S. voters need to do something we did not do in 1992, 1996, 2000 or 2004. We need to choose a President who has the maturity of character required of the office.
John McCain's problem is not that he is not mature enough. He has the opposite problem. He looks like someone who is winding up an eight-year tenure in the Oval Office.
It's too bad, because he would have made a good President. His time was one of the four previous Presidential elections. We can speculate how much better the country would be today if we had put John McCain in the White House. As it is, he missed his chance and so did we.
I wish Mr. McCain much success in whatever path he chooses after he drops out of the race.
(Continued . . . )
I have been saying that in 2008, U.S. voters need to do something we did not do in 1992, 1996, 2000 or 2004. We need to choose a President who has the maturity of character required of the office.
John McCain's problem is not that he is not mature enough. He has the opposite problem. He looks like someone who is winding up an eight-year tenure in the Oval Office.
It's too bad, because he would have made a good President. His time was one of the four previous Presidential elections. We can speculate how much better the country would be today if we had put John McCain in the White House. As it is, he missed his chance and so did we.
I wish Mr. McCain much success in whatever path he chooses after he drops out of the race.
(Continued . . . )
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Choosing a President (2)
I have said that maturity of character is the most important qualification to be President. So in the current field passes this test?
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton appears to have the best character to be President. She's never actually been President, but she used to live with someone who was. She knows a lot of what is involved in fulfilling the office.
Barack Obama is young, charismatic and gives the impression he knows what he's doing. But he is 45 now, and on inauguration day he will be 47. He is only in the third year of his first term as Senator. Hillary turns 60 later this year. The American electorate, after choosing two successive Presidents (Clinton and Bush) who turned out not to have the maturity of character required for the office, needs to be very careful this time around to choose someone whose has the character needed for the office.
Of course, someone might argue that a Black person in America, because of all the extra obstacles he or she needs to overcome, develops at least as much character in 45 years as a White person does in 60. Good point. Hillary, though, can trump this argument by saying, "Yeah, but look who I've been married to and all that I've had to put up with him." I think she comes out the winner in this contest. I think Obama will make a great President, but not this time.
(Continued . . .)
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton appears to have the best character to be President. She's never actually been President, but she used to live with someone who was. She knows a lot of what is involved in fulfilling the office.
Barack Obama is young, charismatic and gives the impression he knows what he's doing. But he is 45 now, and on inauguration day he will be 47. He is only in the third year of his first term as Senator. Hillary turns 60 later this year. The American electorate, after choosing two successive Presidents (Clinton and Bush) who turned out not to have the maturity of character required for the office, needs to be very careful this time around to choose someone whose has the character needed for the office.
Of course, someone might argue that a Black person in America, because of all the extra obstacles he or she needs to overcome, develops at least as much character in 45 years as a White person does in 60. Good point. Hillary, though, can trump this argument by saying, "Yeah, but look who I've been married to and all that I've had to put up with him." I think she comes out the winner in this contest. I think Obama will make a great President, but not this time.
(Continued . . .)
How to choose a President (1)
We have so many presidential candidates this year, maybe we should let the American Idol judges have a go at them before the rest of America has to start voting.
Absent that option, I am going to propose some criteria to winnow the field a bit.
First, the most important qualification to be President of the United States is to possess the maturity of character that is appropriate to the office. Both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush fell short on this point.
When Mr. Clinton demonstrated immaturity of character to a White House intern, his allies tried to argue that character was not important. In fact, it is the most important of all. The President is not just a policy maker. He represents the country, and it's important that we be represented by a man or woman of good character. It's important for our own self-image as a nation and for our standing in the world.
I once heard a person argue that Mr. Clinton would have made a great president, if he had taken office at least a decade later than he did. That sounds right to me. About ten more years of maturity would have served him well.
George W. Bush's immaturity of character was illustrated when he took the country to war when there were still other options available to him. Perhaps he let Dick Cheney pressure him into a decision that went against his better judgment. Perhaps his public judgment was clouded by his personal animosity toward Saddam Hussein stemming from a 1993 assassination attempt against his father and his wife. The fact is that he didn't pressure the CIA for better and more accurate intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't look like he asked the question, "Why do we need to go war now, as opposed to a year from now."
(Continued . . . )
Absent that option, I am going to propose some criteria to winnow the field a bit.
First, the most important qualification to be President of the United States is to possess the maturity of character that is appropriate to the office. Both President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush fell short on this point.
When Mr. Clinton demonstrated immaturity of character to a White House intern, his allies tried to argue that character was not important. In fact, it is the most important of all. The President is not just a policy maker. He represents the country, and it's important that we be represented by a man or woman of good character. It's important for our own self-image as a nation and for our standing in the world.
I once heard a person argue that Mr. Clinton would have made a great president, if he had taken office at least a decade later than he did. That sounds right to me. About ten more years of maturity would have served him well.
George W. Bush's immaturity of character was illustrated when he took the country to war when there were still other options available to him. Perhaps he let Dick Cheney pressure him into a decision that went against his better judgment. Perhaps his public judgment was clouded by his personal animosity toward Saddam Hussein stemming from a 1993 assassination attempt against his father and his wife. The fact is that he didn't pressure the CIA for better and more accurate intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't look like he asked the question, "Why do we need to go war now, as opposed to a year from now."
(Continued . . . )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
