Are Americans being violated in the name of "Patriotism?"
Now that the courts have caught up with judging the Patriot Act, parts of it have been ruled unconstitutional. Meanwhile, one wonders how many people's Constitutional rights were and are being violated.
See the story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926/ap_on_re_us/patriot_act_lawsuit
Read it, tell me what you think! Are parts of the Patriot Act, indeed, anti-American?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Patraeus report: Who trumps, pretty lady or the ugly witch?
By F. Ellsworth Lockwood
The children sat on the storyteller’s lap, poised in suspense. Then the President closed the book and said, “Lights out. The next chapter will be read by General Patreaus in September.” We sat, breathlessly awaiting the report. The cliff hanger, however, led to a disappointing ending. Or rather, to no ending at all. Perhaps the general’s report was dud, a Rorschach test, or even a stalling act by the President. At any rate. Patraeus’ testimony told us almost nothing we had not already heard.
Frothing and foaming, numerous Blogs now attack “liberals” for not believing the general’s report. Trouble is, many liberals do believe Patreaus. Does the Patreaus report show a beautiful woman, or an ugly witch? A Reuters’ report quoted Gen. David Petraeus testimony as saying, “that President George W. Bush's troop build-up in Iraq had led to progress in reducing violence but that political reconciliation among warring factions remained elusive.” This sounds like a map that actually fit’s the territory. But it does not resolve the big question: Should we stay the course?
What course? There is no apparent vision for Iraq, and no map to accomplish that vision. There never was! There are only short term objectives. Turn on the electricity over here, but terrorists/insurgents destroy that target over there. The general claims “progress” in a number of areas such as security. On the other hand, without the political and social victories that are necessary for a sustained peace, those successes may mean nothing. Build hospitals. Why? So that terrorists, religious sects and political saboteurs can fill them with the wounded and the dead? And so-on.
Perhaps violence has slowed, as the Army measures violence. But it certainly has not ended. Any peace is very tentative, and as the general reportedly testified, political reconciliation among warring factions remain elusive. Indeed. According to an ABC report, six in 10 Iraqis “say security … has worsened since the surge began, while just one in 10 sees improvement.” So the general has his report, and then the Iraqi people have theirs.
Why such a difference? Well, one reason seems obvious to me: The general being called before Congress is somewhat like, and this is an analogy only, but it is somewhat like the CEO of a branch office being called in to talk to the corporation board members, to give an accounting for his branch office. The branch President may not lie, but he is going to present his “front” in the most favorable light possible.
With that in mind, General Patreaus’ testimony is disturbing, because he is very careful, or so it seems to me, not to give a rosy forecast. Wisely, the general reported both: the pretty lady and the ugly witch.
The children sat on the storyteller’s lap, poised in suspense. Then the President closed the book and said, “Lights out. The next chapter will be read by General Patreaus in September.” We sat, breathlessly awaiting the report. The cliff hanger, however, led to a disappointing ending. Or rather, to no ending at all. Perhaps the general’s report was dud, a Rorschach test, or even a stalling act by the President. At any rate. Patraeus’ testimony told us almost nothing we had not already heard.
Frothing and foaming, numerous Blogs now attack “liberals” for not believing the general’s report. Trouble is, many liberals do believe Patreaus. Does the Patreaus report show a beautiful woman, or an ugly witch? A Reuters’ report quoted Gen. David Petraeus testimony as saying, “that President George W. Bush's troop build-up in Iraq had led to progress in reducing violence but that political reconciliation among warring factions remained elusive.” This sounds like a map that actually fit’s the territory. But it does not resolve the big question: Should we stay the course?
What course? There is no apparent vision for Iraq, and no map to accomplish that vision. There never was! There are only short term objectives. Turn on the electricity over here, but terrorists/insurgents destroy that target over there. The general claims “progress” in a number of areas such as security. On the other hand, without the political and social victories that are necessary for a sustained peace, those successes may mean nothing. Build hospitals. Why? So that terrorists, religious sects and political saboteurs can fill them with the wounded and the dead? And so-on.
Perhaps violence has slowed, as the Army measures violence. But it certainly has not ended. Any peace is very tentative, and as the general reportedly testified, political reconciliation among warring factions remain elusive. Indeed. According to an ABC report, six in 10 Iraqis “say security … has worsened since the surge began, while just one in 10 sees improvement.” So the general has his report, and then the Iraqi people have theirs.
Why such a difference? Well, one reason seems obvious to me: The general being called before Congress is somewhat like, and this is an analogy only, but it is somewhat like the CEO of a branch office being called in to talk to the corporation board members, to give an accounting for his branch office. The branch President may not lie, but he is going to present his “front” in the most favorable light possible.
With that in mind, General Patreaus’ testimony is disturbing, because he is very careful, or so it seems to me, not to give a rosy forecast. Wisely, the general reported both: the pretty lady and the ugly witch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
