August 22, 2006
The Questions
It’s been a while since I’ve had time to fire off a rant and the pace of things happening makes me feel like I can never quite rant about everything worthwhile and catch up with all the new rant-worthy topics appearing on a daily basis.
What follows is my attempt at the ubiquitous “ellipsis” column where I tackle a whole bunch of items briefly in an effort to fill space and clear out the pile of rant idea notes threatening to bury my computer. Marvel as I try my damndest to keep things short and pose some questions to the newsmakers getting under my skin lately.
John McCain
On tour in Ohio to lend his name and coattails to that state’s Republican candidates (and likely to drum up support for his next shot at the big job) John McCain lightly admitted that the American public was mislead going into the war with Iraq. He’s quoted as saying “I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required. Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders. I’m just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be.”
OK John, you seem to want to take on the monumental job of picking up the mess Our Fine President is building up for us. Here’s a few questions about accountability.
Why was the public misled about this war? As a Congressman, why didn’t you do more to stop the nation from being duped? Who should take responsibility for the public being misled and how do you move forward to rectify the damage this has done?
Top Economic Advisors
Our Fine President’s top three economic advisors are out and about promoting just how terrific the economy is and explaining that they’re really flummoxed at polls show Americans are negative about the economy.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said “… I think a big part of it relates to the fact that many Americans aren’t feeling the benefit, because they are clearly better off as a result of a strong economic growth and job creation.” Council of Economic Advisors chairman Edward Lazear added “If we look at the behavior rather than the responses to polls, the behavior is consistent with a strong economy. We see consumption being high. In fact, the saving rate is negative right now.” Then Office of Management and Budget director Rob Portman capped it all stating “Partly it is we probably haven’t done as good a job communicating the strength of our economy because people are doing well.”
Thanks Rob, I didn’t know how well off I was, but now you’ve shown me the way. Here’s some questions and any of the three of you are welcome to chime in with an answer.
How can you claim Americans are benefitting from such a strong economy if even you admit many are not feeling it? Isn’t it a bad thing if people are not able to save any money, or does our ideal economy operate on such a short view of things? Isn’t it possible that an economy can grow but still be bad for the people because it is concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer places, thus leaving a majority without their piece of the expansion?
Fort Wayne, Ind. 15-year-old Tori Daugherty
Daugherty watched All the President’s Men in school last year and was aghast at the horrible language used in the newsroom. An enterprising young lady, she wrote to Carl Bernstein at the Washington Post to ask why such language was necessary betwixt a group of wordsmiths who could clearly concoct conversation without such course cursing. She didn’t get a direct response, but Post Ombudsman Deborah Howell answered her query in her column. The Fort Wayne News Sentinel thought, local girl writes to the big city, gets response from big wig is quite a story.
I guess I don’t really have a question for anyone here, I just wanted to point out what a slow news day that must have been in the normally bustling burg of Fort Wayne.
Our Fine President - Iraq
He just keeps touting the need to stay the course in Iraq. He recently said Iraq would be even worse off if we left before we finish the job. None of this is news as he’s been saying the exact same thing for the past three years all the while, Iraq’s grown more violent, more people have died and there are no signs of change for the better.
Your first batch of questions Mr. President and take your time, there’s a bunch of them:
What is this course you like to speak of? Does it lead somewhere specific? Does it ever fork? How do you know when you are staying on it as you move forward? When you say Iraq could be worse, if we left, please explain how? (note: I’m not asking what it would be like if we never invaded, just how it changes if we leave.) How do we know the job there is done?
Our Fine President - Domestic Spying
You and your administration were outraged to see a federal judge strike down your warrantless domestic spying program. You made statements like those who agree with a federal judge that his warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional “simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live. This country of ours is at war. And we must give those whose responsibility it is to protect the United States the tools necessary to protect this country in a time of war.”
But that’s not really the issue in this case. The idea of spying on enemies should not be up for debate. The methods for this spying and the oversight of and accountability for the way in which it is carried out should be the topics. Some questions for you on this subject:
What would be different about your current program and one that sends these wiretaps through the FISA Court? Why would you not ask Congress to change the rules for that court if they were not working? Is oversight of your actions by the Congress and the courts such an unbearable requirement? If we are fighting for the American ideals and way of life, why do you advocate a strategy of abandoning those things instead of embracing them?
In response to the international fiasco over the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed as a terrorist, the largest Iranian newspaper is running a contest to find the most offensive cartoon about the Holocaust. The stated rationale behind this is that depicting Mohammed is taboo in the Muslim world and the Holocaust is not a subject for humor in much of Europe. Of course Iran’s anti-Israel stance probably played no roll in the creation of this anti-semitic humorfest.
Of course stirring up hate in the name of revenge seems a lot less funny when put in the context that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dismisses the Holocaust as a myth, publicly calls for the destruction of Israel and actively seeks Nuclear weapons.
Some questions for Ahmadinejad and the sponsors of the contest:
Why not a contest to poke fun at the Danes since the Jews and Israel had nothing to do with offending you this time? What do you hope to gain by casting doubt on the very real history of the Nazi atrocities during World War II? Do you really think you can offend Jews with attempts at political humor? Come on, as we all learned from converted Jewish dentist Tim Whatley on Seinfeld, it’s our sense of humor that sustained us as a people for 5,000 years.