The interview begins with the following question:

“Why do you think they [the left] broke over Iraq, and to a lesser extent, over Afghanistan, since, both the ostensible reconstruction and what happened was a promotion of democracy? Why was the left angry, what currents do you see that alienated them from the policy since they were not a part of the realist politique of the 1970′s and 80′s?”

Hitchens responds by saying

“The crucial thing for most of the left now is what goes under the name of anti-globalization; a primitive … non-marxist form of anti-capitalism. ANd if that is your main concern, then by definition the United States is the main enemy, which with only a little displacement means that any potential enemy of the United States is at least a potential friend. I have certainly read articles… from quite prominent leftists that give the strong impression that Jihadism may have its drawbacks, but it is better than no anti-globalization at all. In other words, it is a move from a conservative position to a reactionary one.”

Now, my argument depends in part on the validity of Hitchen’s claim, so I want to spend at least some time establishing the evidence of his contention of the new anti-capitalist agenda of the modern Democrat party.

First, there is developing a preference within the Democratic party to replace private, capitalist institutions with their respective government counterparts. Health care policy is a prime example of this developing preference; Democrats want to turn an entire segment of our economy into a government institution. If Democrats believed in the capitalist system; why would they want to socialize a trillion-dollar business? The question, obviously, is rhetorical. Anyone with the slightest respect for capitalism wouldn’t be demanding a complete government takeover as the solution of first choice–especially when other approaches may be tried without such a fundamental shift.

One sees this indifferent attitude threaded through many other policy areas as well. Business taxes are never high enough, the RICH never pay enough, and intense regulatory regimes make certain businesses prohibitively expensive. Similar distaste for private alternatives also exist in areas like the education system as I have previously noted.

Secondly, profits have become the new ‘causus beli‘ for the left, especially if that profit margin is 8% and you are in an industry drilling for various liquids in various parts of the country. Never mind the fact that 8% profit margin is a rather meager margin, or that that the companies making these meager profits are employing, providing health care, insuring, and feeding hundreds of thousands of American citizens, or that these companies make your and my life possible by providing us a source of energy we need to accomplish even the simplest tasks. No… none of this matters because the motive for accomplishing these ends … the profit motive… is inherently suspect.

Third, there is a general unwillingness to let markets fix themselves by many on the Left (and Right, for that matter)–requiring government intervention into almost every market problem. Whether you are letting market actors (i.e. “speculators”) use market mechanisms to secure future commodity prices or allowing the market to adjust downward to reflect more apparent risks in the housing market, modern liberals require government intervention in problems which are best left to the market’s internal control mechanisms–mechanisms that react much more quickly and effectively than ‘bailouts’ ever could.

Hitchens prescient** observation helps explain not only the Democrat dissolution with the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts but also their selective outrage on environmental issues. When non-capitalist countries such as China, Russia, or Venesuela drill within 100 miles off the Florida coast… not a whisper is heard from Democrat lawmakers. But the suggestion that an American business engage in the the same activity draws cries of outrage from these same lawmakers. The Billions of personal wealth held by Russian oil tycoons such as Roman Abramovich, Mikhail Fridman, or Vladmir Putin inexplicably escape criticism from Democrat lawmakers but a (comparatively) moderate yearly compensation of 10 or 20 million dollars by an American CEO draws rabid screams of outrage! How can this be?!

It’s the profit motive, stupid.

You see, it is only capitalist institutions who engage in activity for profit that draw the attacks and slander of modern Liberals. Economic activities done by Private, US companies are subject to the highest scrutiny, while these same activities, if practiced by non-capitalist countries, are not criticized in the slightest!!! There are no senate committees questioning OPEC directors… no committees attacking Putin’s oil tycoons, no committees demanding China clean its environment… no bills demanding Europe buy carbon credits from our businesses… no demand Saudi Arabia ALSO refrain from drilling for the sake of the environment… no explanation of how stopping American businesses from speculation will in any way mitigate the worldwide speculation problem. No, only America is forced to bleed the consequences of environmental sins.

This anti-capitalist agenda is even more apparent when you look beyond liberal rhetoric to their policies. Take a look at the ‘solutions’ to the global-warming: carbon-credits, mandated fuel standards, increased carbon taxes, lifestyle alterations–all of these are simply a litany of ways for a more intrusive federal government into the private sector. The only ‘solutions’ to global warming liberals advocate are government solutions… not private sector solutions. It doesn’t matter if windmills can’t replace our energy needs; it’s what liberals think is best. It doesn’t matter if we can’t grow enough corn to power even a tiny fraction of our automotive backbone; it is the ‘solution’ liberals have chosen through outrageous subsidies. The vision of the anointed is what matters; not the collective conscience of rational, market actors.

The environmental agenda is only a front; Liberals don’t care about the environment UNLESS they can use it as a tool, as a mechanism to attack capitalism and promote an ever-more-intrusive federal government. There is no true LOVE of the earth backing up this movement, if there were, we would expect to see CONSISTENCE IN LIBERAL OUTRAGE! But we do not see the same vitriol against any other country who engages in carbon-related activities. ONLY America cannot drill for more oil…. ONLY AMERICA must give up our economic and national interests so that China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela may further suppliment their own interests. ONLY America must accept high gasoline prices while the rest of the world can produce their way to lower prices. ONLY Americans must invest trillions to become “green” even though doing so will not make a dent in worldwide CO2 output. America must bleed… WE must be the sacrificial lamb at the alter of environmental worship.

This is the dirty little secret of American Liberalism… anti-globalization under the guise of environmentalism.

* I also recently watched a fantastic interview with Vaclav Klaus on the same topic within the past few weeks — HIGHLY RECOMMENDED viewing.

** sorry, that word is not on the Pompous Ass Word website… although I think it should be.

Allow me to begin this discussion by first complimenting Ms. Wolf. First, she just looked great during that interview. I was all about that red thing she was wearing (but I digress!). In all seriousness, I think this book is a valuable addition to the discussion and brings an important (albeit selective) historical context to modern politics. At the risk of cliche, I would remind you that those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. By reminding us of the evils of history Ms Wolf is, shockingly enough, being helpful… and I wish to encourage this kind of behavior.

This being said, I think it is fair to say that Ms Wolf’s conclusions are lacking… in any number of ways. It isn’t that she is always wrong, but that her foundational history is in many cases only loosely connected with modern practice. She begins with an assumption of guilt (primarily with the Bush administration… many times implying he is a ‘wannabe’ despot), finds similar parallels to dictators with completely different motivations and purposes, and then imputes those motives to Bush because factual circumstances were the same. Although a stretch, in some cases I found myself thinking that if two people washed their laundry, that would be enough for her to draw a comparison. I am, of course, exaggerating; but I do so to point out that to end one’s analysis at factual similarities without further analysis can lead to very irrational conclusions.

I wish to address some of these loose associations and provide a greater historical context for many of the points she makes. First, let us examine this list of steps:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
2. Create a prison system outside the rule of law
3. Develop an unregulated paramilitary
4. Set up an internal surveillance system
5. Harass citizens’ groups
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press
9. “Dissent = Treason”
10. Suspend the Rule of Law

As an initial matter, this is a great list. Nazi Germany during World War II is easily implicated in all of these steps… as was the Soviet Union (and even modern-day Russia). Naomi references a few more examples I am not quite as familiar with… but I wouldn’t doubt her history is accurate.

She discusses in great length in the youtube clip the first 4 elements, beginning with the first–where a would-be despot invokes a terrifying threat. This first argument immediately raises the problems I have already mentioned. The fact that any ruler/despot/president invokes a threat does not itself, without any other context, mean that that particular country is on the verge of loosing freedoms. In fact, it would seem to me that leaders ignorant or unwilling to acknowledge such threats would be equally at risk for loosing the very freedoms they supposedly champion by non-invocation. Would anyone claim that Churchill or Roosevelt was a would-be-despot by calling a spade (i.e. Nazi Germany) a spade? In fact, Neville Chamberlin’s refusal to invoke Germany as the threat it was… is what caused the German threat to be even stronger then it would otherwise have been–almost resulting in Britain’s defeat. This “judging solely on the facts” causes Naomi to conclude that Bush is a despot when such facts can go both ways.

For example, when Bush invokes radical islamists or the threat of a nuclear Iran, he is warning the free world about very real threats… not some made-up boogyman. Radical islamists REALLY attacked us on 9/11 and crippled the United States economy for a couple of years. They had similar plans to blow up the freedom tower in Los Angeles and have been attacking US troops in Iraq for the past 5 years. We can ignore these threats… avoid dealing with them, or we can address them in public, in the arena of political debate (which is what the Bush administration has done)–or worse: adopt a covert policy of assassination and secret deals). Any leader (i.e. Obama) who does not take these real dangers seriously risks the very freedoms supposedly at stake when their danger is “invoked”. While I understand her concern… I believe that her concern over the Bush administration’s “invoking problem” is misplaced.

Secondly, she discusses the existence of a prison system “outside the rule of law”. Obviously, Guantanamo is the example of this kind of system that can be so dangerous. Furthermore, in many occasions, she references the founding fathers and how this very deprival of due process is exactly what the founding fathers meant to avoid with the bill of rights. This is all well and good-no doubt my readers have read the 5th amendment – but this statement is an incomplete analysis of the bill of rights AND the desires of the founding fathers.

As an initial matter, George Washington used military tribunals in the Revolutionary War. “How can this be!”, you ask? Well, that’s exactly the point; in fact, military tribunals have been used in almost every military conflict the United States has ever engaged in. To say that this was somehow against the wishes of the founding fathers is… well… factually unsound. Additionally, it is not entirely proper to say that war prisoners have no due process rights. While they do not have the same rights of process we enjoy as non-combatants, they do have process… it is just a different process tailored to the needs of the military. In fact, even U.S. military personnel do not have “due process” under the common sense of the term… they are subject to military courts’ jurisdiction under the UCMJ. Now, it is one thing to argue why military combatants should enjoy the same rights as you and I… it is an entirely different thing to say that they have no due process rights… or that they should have MORE than even US military personnel.

Now, this isn’t to say that there is not some danger should these tribunals… and that they could be used for ill purposes. I agree with her in the sense that these must subject to strict scrutiny should they overstep their bounds. However, to view Bush’s military tribunals as some sign of impending catastrophe–tribunals that have been subject to congressional oversight and supreme court review–is simply irrational given our country’s history. For crying out loud, we interned 110,000 Japanese Americans during WWII! Get a sense of perspective! Freedom’s scope fluctuates with the circumstances… and America has always emerges from troubled times with their sense of freedom intact–often expanding it when it no longer feels threatened. To end one’s analysis at “we match a bullet on a checklist” without examining how America reacts and self-corrects it’s own arguably authoritarian policies of history is to create a sense of irrational fear.

During the discussion of due process rights I believe she went a little off track discussing the suppression of free speech. Don’t take me wrong, I’m as big an advocate of free political speech as anybody… Although I can’t recall ever writing as much on this blog, I find the McCain-Feingold legislation an untenable impingement on freedom of speech–precisely because it desires to stifle political speech. I share her concern; but if the best example she can cite is the “don’t taze me bro!” guy… then it is safe to say we have nothing to fear (wasn’t he speaking at a Kerry rally?). In fact, I would argue that the modern media has never been so open and critical as it is today. In fact, papers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post have leaked national security secrets–in violation of the espionage acts…(i.e. they broke the law)–without as much as a finger lifted by the justice department. That’s right; even “free speech” that is illegal (not all free speech is “free”, after all)… is still allowed by a president she so fears. (One wonders if she uses this fact to criticize the president for undermining the “rule of law”. Snap!)

Next, she discusses Backwater and the implications of a para-military force. Allow me to loosely quote some excerpts from the interview…

Tomorrow we could wake up and see backwater guarding the state house… backwater menacing congress-people. there is nothing we can do to prevent this… The founders knew how intimidating it is… to have a standing army that is not accountable to the people… That’s why we have the second amendment that says you can’t have a standing army that’s not accountable to the people. We could find ourselves waking up looking at mercenary forces outside our door… we could wake up and find out our kids stuff has been gone through by agents of the state.

I must say, I tend to agree with her as a general matter. I’m not sure what Blackwater does that cannot also be accomplished by U.S. military personnel. Their existence and employment is probably a point of valid concern. If there are indeed powers given the president to use para-military forces in the united states, it should certainly be something to debate within a free society. However, in examining her point, I found, yet again, a lack of desperately-needed context. For example, the bill of rights, particularly the 4th amendment, does not guarantee our houses will never be searched. It is ONLY a right (with an associated remedy), NOT a guarantee of state inaction. Rights exist so that there is something to claim should they be violated. We are at just as much risk of a local law enforcement agency, the FBI, or any other government agent violating our privacy rights than a para-military force… but yet Ms Wolf isn’t concerned at all about the threat a misinformed police officer poses–even though such action is a much more direct, immediate likelihood (I use likelihood in the loosest sense of the term). When the state (or an agent thereof) acts contrary to the constitution, we can challenge this in court and win! A para-military force is not alone a danger… it is only when such force cannot be challenged in court that such a force becomes a danger.

Perhaps I’ve been too harsh… I cannot emphasize enough the fact that I enjoyed listening to the interview and thought she had some excellent points… but when my analytical mind gets going… sometimes it goes overboard. Let me know what YOU think.

In beginning this process, a broad view of the middle east is necessary. The Middle East, specifically Iraq (but by no means limited to Iraq) was (and would still be) in the process of implosion had we done nothing. It was inevitable that Iraq would have collapsed eventually. There was certainly ample indica of this, whether you looked at the chaos Saddam’s sons would have brought after their father’s death, the religious tensions we have unearthed in the absence of a repressive ruler, or simply the deterioration of the country’s infrastructure caused by years of sanctions and Saddam’s indifference toward his own people.

And this was just Iraq. In terms of the Middle East as a whole, pick your country; you would have found an oppressive government ruling over a vexed citizenry who sought solace in the words of radical teachers who taught hatred of the west and anyone who dare criticize their prophet.

The sings of the region’s implosion were self-evident.

• Saddam was singlehandedly winning an endurance war the U.N., leaving the multinational body nearly impotent. Sanctions were failing and most of Europe had decided that short-term profits in the corrupt Oil-for-food program was more important then a stable and democratic government.
• Saddam was actively involved in funding terrorist groups in the middle east
• Amadenijad had ramped up his own WMD program, partly in reaction to the threat of Saddam’s regime…
• Libia had gotten in on the WMD race as well–further destabilizing the region
• Syria… well, remember that odd building that got blown off the map by an Israeli/U.S. targeted military strike? They were in on the WMD race as well.
• Riots broke out across the middle east when a CARTOON of mohammed appeared in a Danish newspaper.
• a well-funded and well trained army called “al-Qaeda” had already set up camp in the region’s armpit, Afghanistan… and given bathing habits in this region (well, lets just say the stench was by no means geographically contained)
• I’m sure Saudia Arabia was in on the fun too…

This was what the world was facing before 9/11… a middle east crumbling under the weight of oppressive governments lead by radicals.. After 9/11, the West (the US in particular) found itself perusing a rather stupid policy. We started throwing billions of dollars and man-hours into securing a state, Afghanistan, which had no significance other then the fact that it just happened to have a few terrorist training camps. We were spending billions to “fix” a country that had no chance of ever standing on it’s own 2 feet… a country which would have immediately collapsed back into chaos upon our withdrawal. Unbelievable, yes, but this was nevertheless the situation, with apparently no objections from anyone. This was the “genius” of our policy… until the Bush doctrine came of age.

For those of you who spout the familiar rant about Bush loosing his focus on Afghanistan by entering Iraq. I mockingly ask you…what was so great about the Afghanistan policy to begin with? Even now the combined NATO forces are struggling to accomplish even the simplest of objectives there. What could we possibly accomplish in a country of bedouins with no infrastructure? What kind of policy was this? It was beyond stupid. The irony of the Left could not be more clear; for all their criticisms of Bush, they hadn’t a chance for an articulable Afghanistan policy that was any less expensive or any more likely to succeed.

Furthermore, for everyone who rants that we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq “because they weren’t a threat”… let me ask you something. Was Afghanistan perceived as a threat before 9/11? hmm??? This question obviously speaks for itself. The perception of a state’s threat has NO DIRECT RELATIONSHIP to the amount of damage they can cause the United States homeland. Those who use this argument with the benefit of hindsight are disingenuous; they pretend to have some clearer vision of the world but are in fact, no more enlightened than the rest of us. The conditions in Iraq were very similar to those in Afghanistan– in fact, they were worse. Iraqis had begun to coalesce around religious leaders in the absence of any political options–exasterpatnig the problem of islamic fundamentalism–the very problem that lead to Bin Laden’s attacks.

The Bush doctrine recognized a number of fundamental truths. First, and most importantly, it perceived the implosion I have just described. This region would see US troops… not necessarily within the next decade… but it was certainly going to happen. Anyone who fully grasps the implications of the above list of problems would be hard-pressed to come to another conclusion. We could either face this reality on our terms or on theirs; in a healthy economy or during recession; before a nuke went off in New York… or after.

Secondly, the Bush doctrine recognized that the “Afghanistan Policy” was, in the long run, a failure at best. While a necessary political move (no US president would have gotten away with doing NOTHING after 9/11). It was a failure because legitimate, sustainable statehood was never an attainable goal. And for every blunder we would have made… we would have further alienated muslim extremists. The middle east needed a stable democracy for the sake of the west; for the sake of long-term peace; and for the sake of worldwide freedom. It had to be changed. What better place to do it than in perhaps the second most western muslim nation in the middle east… (next to Turkey… probably the Arab Emirates come to think of it) a country of 27 million bordering Iran and Syria… a country capable of supporting itself by opening a few oil spigots… a country that wanted democracy after decades of brutal oppression. And they did want democracy… the blue fingers of millions of Iraqi women attest to this startling fact.

Third, Bush recognized the threat radical islamists posed to freedom and democracy worldwide. Radical Islam thrives in autocracies… it thrives under regimes… it thrives in environments where blowing oneself up is seen as a better option to living life. This kind of environment, this kind of belief system is an undeniable threat to the west… it threatens our lives and our cultures–as the British have realized (Borris’ election wasn’t just a fluke, you know) and as many in the Dutch have realized (remember Geert Wilders?).

We labored before the United Nations making our case. A body that never hesitated to condemn Saddam’s regime on paper suddenly found itself compromised when the opportunity to act on those beliefs finally arose. Never once hesitating to congratulate themselves on their “bold” resolutions, these same people instantly became linguini-spined when they had to make decisions when lives were on the line. Many people learned very quickly how hard leadership is… and how easy it is to be brave when nothing is at stake. George Bush himself pressed the counsel on this very matter, saying: “Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

Perhaps I am overly broad in my criticisms… The U.S. did not get United Nations support primarily because of French and Russian disagreement. France, for its part, has had a change of heart on this point–a diplomat even noted that “I really believe that depending on what happens here [Iraq] it will change the world.” Russia, on the other hand (who was, for the record, the lone holdout in a worldwide consensus on the Iraq invasion) had a great deal to gain by stonewalling the consensus. Putin, desperately wanting to exercise his growing power and influence, basked in the opportunity to crush the credibility of the United States. Never mind the obvious conflict of interests–arms sales to Iraq, fusion technology transfers, oil for food money… yet somehow one country acting almost entirely in its own self-interest gets a pass while the United States… spending Trillions on a war with sofar not a penny gained in return–is labeled as a unilateralist imperialist.

There is obviously much more to say about Russia than I have the time or energy for in this post, but suffice to say, I can think of no greater irony that the fact that environmental-peace-lib-activists have chosen to side with a dictatorial multi-billionaire oil tycoon on this matter. (alas, this happens O’ so often…) I think it would be fair to say that Russia never has had any interest in a stable middle east or in a functional United Nations. Its own imperialistic tendencies–whether it be in Chechnya, Georgia or its historical tendencies that are very much still a part of the kremlin leadership — are in direct conflict with the values the United Nations supposedly champions. Yet because of one countries’ defiance, an entire worldwide policy is discredited as “unilateral” and “cow-boy-esque”. This couldn’t be farther from the truth.

This brings us to the pre-war claims of the President and the familiar “Bush lied, people died” mantra. The fact is that Bush never claimed Iraq HAD nuclear WMD’s. He simply related that British intelligence thought he was trying to acquire them through various other countries (i.e. yellowcake from Niger). In almost every quote, he reiterated that it was what INTELLIGENCE REPORTS CONCLUDED. Any quotes missing this piece of context should be read with it as a given implication. All information about foreign weapons capabilities are based on best-guesses and intelligence. Those who think they can use this information to prove anything are ignorant of the CIA and our intelligence-gathering operations. May I also remind you that the Director of the CIA, George Tenet, was a DEMOCRAT holdover from the Clinton administration. May I also remind you that good intelligence was hard to obtain — partly due to the infamous “Gorellic wall” – also a Democrat. May I also remind you that the leakers of national security secrets – Valery Plame, Joseph Wilson, Richard Armitage – were ALL democrats!!! If anything is to be learned from this brief history is the incompetency of democratic policy-makers… and how unfortunate it was that Bush believed them. Those who criticize Bush without also criticizing these Democrats are at best, disingenuous and partisan.

In the end, whether we believed the British intelligence is irrelevant. Whether Tenet was right or wrong is irrelevant. We could certainly have believed the United Nations Weapons Inspectors who INSPECTED chemical and Biological weapons. Common sense demands one conclude they still existed somewhere or else Saddam wouldn’t have kicked the inspectors out! Democrats who overlook this fact lack common sense… it’s unfortunate but true. This was Saddam’s big mistake… as Fred Kaplan put it:

“There is also a lesson here for our adversaries: Don’t try to manipulate an American president’s perceptions; your cultural understanding of us is at least as shallow as our cultural understanding of you.”

What can we conclude thusfar? First, the NO WMDS! argument is weak… it bears no connection with the reality of the time. Second, the “iraq is not a threat” argument was also weak. The strongest argument was that Saddam MUST be dealt with in a language he understood: raw military power.

Now, there have been mistakes made. Rumsfeld, who in my opinion was a decent man, simply did not understand how to win minds on the ground. Bush should have removed him sooner. Abu-Garab, while terribly unfortunate, was also a mistake… but not Bush’s mistake. It was a twisted experiment by a couple sexual perverts (these are the people Democrats otherwise always defend in the spirit of tolerance and understanding…) S*** happens in war… Democrats need to realize this and move on… the amount of restraint shown in comparable circumstances may not have been surpassed in the history of war-fighting.

It is also expensive. I hate this as much as anybody. We probably needed more troops in the initial invasion… while costing more up front may have saved us in the long run. However, is this not worth the cost rather than letting an entire population be over-run by islamic radicals like Bin-Laden and Al-Sawahiri? The point missed by the libertarians lamenting the costs is what this shows about the America… and the American people. The global war on terrorism is a GLOBAL WAR. It affects all free nations. America is taking the financial burden of protecting western civilization almost entirely upon its own shoulders. Americans have volunteered to make the sacrifice for the rest of the world: it is a noble thing that speaks of our love of freedom and our sacrificial character. In fact, the cost SHOULD BE BORNE by the west as a whole… but many nations are not sharing the burden. Wars cost what they do… to criticize the cost is therefore nothing more than an anti-war argument. The criticism lays in the reluctance (or inability) of the west to pay their fair share for the dividends that will result from a better middle-east.

For those of you who disagreed with the war from the start… I have one thing to say to you. An anti-war “position” is NOT REALLY a position on the iraq war. It is simply a knee-jerk reaction to the pro-war movement. In order to have a position… one must advocate for the alternative to war. This would have required advocating for a weak United nations; advocating advocating for torture chambers; advocating for a nuclear middle east; advocating for the continuous suppression of the Iraqi people for the next generation under the leadership of UDAY and USAY. That was the future… at least nobody was doing anything to stop it. Even Richard Cohen, who came out as acknowledging he was wrong, acknowledged as much

“One final argument appealed to me. It was quite clear that, over time, Saddam would slip the noose of U.N. sanctions, the United States would tire of its campaign to enforce the no-fly zone, the Europeans-so worldly, so repellently even-handed about Israel, so appalled by Saddam’s excesses, and, finally, so full of shit-would do business with the regime, and Saddam would be free to use his oil wealth for weapons and war. If something were not done when it seemed that something could be done, then nothing would ever be done-until it was too late.

There are no good arguments left for the anti-war movement. Holding Saddam accountable was the right thing to do. Yes, we have stirred the hornets nest, but each and every member of congress who signed the declaration of military force SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED AS MUCH and been prepared to deal with the consequences. Instead, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mike Murtha (and the like) have yet again disgraced their office by letting thousands of American soldiers die in vain… deciding that “oops!” they were wrong — using the excuse they were mislead. Not one Democrat has ever given constructive criticism about how we might win the war faster or conduct it more effectively. No, they have made it their mission to destroy the credibility of the troops commander in chief… calling him a liar, a thief, a cowboy, an idot and a war-mongorer. They can’t debate the arguments I have laid out so they reduce themselves to the arena of personal attacks on the character of the military’s leader.

In conclusion, most of these arguments are not uniquely my own (although the stupidity of the afghanistan policy was an exception)… but they are the best arguments being made and I wanted to consolidate them all into one post. While watching CSPAN yesterday, I came across an interview with David Horowitz discussing his new book, “Party of Defeat”. It is an incredibly history lesson and analysis of the Democrat’s shameful behavior. I HIGHLY recommend watching it should you get the chance.

thanks for reading, feel free to attack and criticize my position… I can take it.

First, let me be clear that this is not a post in support of Israel as a state or in support of the Zionist movement. Instead, this post is an exercise in the use of logical; a foray into the fundamentals of proper debate. In short, I want to examine the statements and position of Mr. Amayrea’s article from a critical standpoint. Let me begin by quoting a rather long passage in a piece by Mr. Amayrea:

Last week, Israel marked the “Holocaust Day” in West Jerusalem amid the usual fanfare of sanctimonious rituals, never-again speeches and glorification of Zionism… The solemn but also highly propagandistic occasion is manipulated to the fullest by Zionist leaders in order to justify the crime against humanity, otherwise known as “the state of Israel.” – This year, too, Zionist leaders preyed on the memories of holocaust victims by seeking to blackmail the collective conscience of the world into recognizing the “uniqueness of Jewish pain” — as if non-Jews were children of a lesser God and their pain was unimportant.

Thus we had the political and ideological gurus of Zionism, from the morbidly sanctimonious Elie Wiesel to the pathologically duplicitous Ehud Olmert berate the world for the “reincarnation of anti-Semitism,” a deliberately twisted reference to legitimate criticisms of nefarious treatment of Palestinians, including the adoption of such policies as apartheid, ethnic cleansing and the use of brutal tactics for the purpose of forcing the victims of Zionism to leave their ancestral homeland.

First, let us ask on the basis of language alone, whether this author has even the slightest hope of an objective argument. The employment of words such as “sanctimonious”, “propagandistic”, “manipul[ation]“, “preyed”, “blackmail”, “morbid[ly]“, “twisted reference”, all expose the author’s insatiable distain of everything Jewish. In every sentence, Mr. Amayrea liberally interjects emotionally-charged, subjective terms into every description of anything Israeli–and in doing so sacrifices the strength of whatever argument he was about to make.

Let us now examine whatever loose claims the author makes, in order. First, the author attacks the Zionist leaders as trying to “blackmail” the “collective conscience of the world” in order to prey on holocaust victims. Are we to make any sense of this? How on earth will doing anything to the world’s conscience have any affect on the minds of holocaust victims whatsoever? Perhaps if the propaganda was directed at the survivors themselves there might be some impact, but this is not what he is alleging. The language certainly sounds intelligent, but it certainly does not logically follow that any of his claims must be the case.

The next issue he addresses (in passing) is the “right” of Zionism’s victims to to remain in their ancestral homeland. He alleges that Israel’s “brutal tactics” force these people to leave their homeland (an allegation I find questionable given statistical evidence). It is easy to speak of rights… but if I can ask a question, where do these rights originate from? When can they be claimed? Who can enforce these rights? It seems that when one talks of rights, one must point to evidence that such a right actually exists. Should the Indians be able to enforce this right against the U.S. government? What about the millions of Europeans displaced by both world wars; should they also be able to claim this right? Furthermore, what is considered an “ancestral homeland”… a 10 mile radius from the spot of your birth? 50 miles? 100 miles? It seems very peculiar that such a right must be within the very small land mass that is the Israeli state.

He continues:

Nobody does or should question the enormity of the holocaust. Doing so, besides being morally unconscionable, serves the interests of Zionism, which has morphed the Holocaust Industry into a virtual religion that encompasses even Judaism itself.

If this statement communicates anything, it is a complete ignorance of the incredible history of the Jewish people and their faith. We are lead to believe that within the past 50 years, a modern movement called Zionism has encompassed an ancient religion at least 3,000 years old. This seems incredibly doubtful.

What are we to make of his second claim? Should we not question the enormity, or is it an accepted fact that it was ‘enormous’? It is quite unclear what the author is trying to communicate here. Are Zionists claiming it was even more enormous then it actually was? If so, how is this a problem if nobody is questioning it’s enormity? And regardless, does it matter how enormous it was? Is there some greater force to the claim that 12, 15 million were killed then the generally accepted 10 million? Are we also to believe then that the practice of statistical inflation is itself a morally reprehensible act? Is there any other way of reading such a poorly-constructed thought? I fail to see any logical weight to the paragraph. Perhaps he can pull himself back together:

However, manipulating the holocaust to justify the treatment Israel has been meting out to millions of helpless Palestinians is no less obscene and no less outrageous than the utilization by the Third Reich of the outcome of the First World War to wage war on Europe and cause the death of tens of millions of people.

All humanity had suffered through history, recent, past and distant. Nobody, not even Jews, could claim that the suffering of one group is more special and more unique than the suffering of others.

Russia, for example, lost tens of millions to the Nazis in the course of the Second World War. The same thing applies to other European peoples, who too, suffered immensely. The Gypsies were also incinerated and gassed in great numbers in Hitler’s liquidation chambers, but we see no holocaust memorials perpetuating the memory of these hapless and unwept victims as if they were lesser and insignificant human beings.

I must be failing to grasp his point here (if there is one to be found). Is not the suffering of each people group unique? The Russians died in defense of their state and homeland; they suffered at the hands of their enemies — for the protection of their families and homeland. Jews, on the other hand, died at the hands of their state, because of their race/ethnicity. The rather banal premise here–that people died in each case–is the only commonality I can see.

As our collective morality evolves, we find certain crimes to be more reprehensible then others–this is why we rank manslaughter lower on the criminal scale then murder in the first degree. In each case, people die; but because of the mens rea (or the intent) element, we view each death through a different moral lense. The same theory applies in the international realm. We find the horrors of ethnic cleansing more reprehensible then inter-state warefare. People die in both cases, but we view the circumstances through different moral lenses. Mr. Amayrea is simply mistaken about his point.

Furthermore, he mistakenly assumes that we see no memorials for other victims of the war. Last I checked, we have many war memorials in Washington D.C. We also have a memorial on the beaches of Normandy, and in Hawaii, and in about every state in the country that lost men in World War 2 (we also celebrate Memorial Day).

This leads me to ask the question, what is wrong with unequal ‘memorialization’ of victims? Is he suggesting we mandate equal memorialization–even if the number of victims is greatly disproportional? Once again, Mr. Amayrea is making no sense.

He continues (and I have edited slightly for space purposes…):

Of course, nobody objects to Jews commemorating the holocaust and reminding humanity of its evils. I, too, would join conscientious Jews in remembering the victims of Nazism.

Except, you just were doing this very thing in the preceding paragraph.

The world, including Jews, doesn’t have to choose between “remembering” or “forgetting” the holocaust or any other enormous crime against humanity. Instead, the choice should be between learning the “right” or “wrong” lessons…

In the name of the holocaust and the “never-again mantra,” Israel wants the world to allow it to commit every conceivable crime and every abominable violation of human rights in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, from murdering school children on their way to school “for security reasons” to shooting pregnant women on their way to hospital (also for security reasons) to dumping tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians into modern-day concentration camps deep in the Negev desert.

Indeed, in the name of the holocaust, Israel has been hounding, brutalizing and tormenting four million impoverished Palestinians, barring them from accessing food and work, and utterly ravaging their lives and livelihood as well destroying their streets, colleges, bridges, and power stations. And, as if these obscenities were not enough, the Israeli state has augmented its oppression with an Satanic wall that is effectively reducing the bulk of Palestinian population centers into updated versions of the Ghetto Warsaw…

One ominous portent is the fact that a majority of Israeli Jewish citizens, who are bombarded 24 hours per day by virulent anti-Arab propaganda, readily support the deportation of non-Jewish citizens who make up nearly a quarter of Israel’s population.

Last year, Israel dropped as many as 3.000.000 cluster bomb-lets throughout Lebanon as, we were told, a ” defensive action” against Hizbullah. The three million bombs, for those who still don’t know, are sufficient to kill three million children. In other words, they could cause a holocaust, or at least half a holocaust by Jewish calculations.

Unfortunately, this outrage drew only sporadic, shy or half-hearted criticism from European leaders who never stop lecturing the Third world, especially the Muslim world, about human rights and terror.

But, did I read him right? “every conceivable crime and every abominable violation of human rights”?! How, may I ask, are we to take any of this seriously? Whatever it’s faults, no rational person can conclude that the State of Israel is guilty of every conceivable crime.

And to further his completely irrational mantra, he points out that the 3 million cluster bombs are capable of killing 3 million children. Notice his emotionally-charged use of the word “children”. Not ‘people’, ‘adults’, ‘civilians’, but a word designed to evoke emotional rage… “children”. Oh, and don’t forget that Israel did not actually killed even .1% of that number… the important statistic is the maximum number of `children` the bombs could have killed in a lab environment. If this is what Mr. Amayrea considers to be a relevant statistic, then we can forget about having a rational discussion. It is becoming increasingly clear that he is unequivably against Israel not because of their actual crimes… but because of the crimes Israel has the potential of committing.

I have spent over 2 hours on this post trying to be a reasonable person looking at the article objectively. Those of you who THINK… that this is valid criticism of Israel are utterly mistaken. This is nothing more than emotionally-charged rhetoric masquerading as reasoned discussion. I highly suggest that those of you profess to be rational thinkers who think that this article offers any relevance to the ongoing debate immediately reassess these views. Whatever value his article has as a piece of rhetoric, it possesses no value as a piece of objective analysis.

Our first inquiry is what is meant by the term “Commercial Speech”? The doctrine, as we are familiar with today, originated with Central Hudson v. Public service Commission of New York. The issue in this case was whether the state could constitutionally prohibit Central Hudson (an electric-company) from advertising the use of electricity in an attempt to curb energy usage. Much of the debate in revolved around the economic interests of the state of New York in maintaining the supply of electricity for its citizens. In order to protect supply (and by extension, the interests of the public at large), the city had created a restriction on Hudson’s ability to advertise energy use. The state’s economic interests were considered substantial enough to warrant the suppression of Central Hudson’s First Amendment protections.

The Court broadly defined Commercial Speech as anything that either “proposes a commercial transaction or [was] related solely to the economic interest of the speaker and the speaker’s audience”¬ù. The Court then developed a 4 part test for determining whether commercial speech receives first amendment protection. First, the speech must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, the asserted governmental interest must be substantial. If these tests are met, the court then applies intermediate scrutiny–applied asking whether the governmental interest is directly advanced, and whether it is more extensive than necessary.
The Central Hudson test is, in the broad scope of things, a very modern development in first Amendment Jurisprudence. Early cases such as Chrestensen2 and Pittsburgh Press3 held that purely commercial speech does not get any First Amendment protection. It was not until Bigelow v. Virginia4 that the Supreme Court recognized first Amendment protections for Commercial Speech. In this case, Bigelow, a Virginia Newspaper Editor, was charged with violating a statute that prohibited advertisements aimed at encouraging women to get low-cost abortions. In a complete round-a-bout, the court found that Commercial Speech does not wholly lose its first amendment protection merely because it is Commercial Speech.5
A state cannot foreclose the exercise of constitutional rights by mere labels. Regardless of the particular label asserted by the state–whether it calls speech “commercial” or “commercial advertising” or “solicitation”–a court may not escape the task of assessing the First Amendment interest at stake and weighing it against the public interest allegedly served by the regulation?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ The relationship of speech to the marketplace of products or of services does not make it valueless in the marketplace of ideas.
This is fantastic. In an instant, Commercial Speech was transformed from something worth no more than the product it displayed to an indispensable and invaluable element of Democracy. Unbelievable! What was once considered only “solicitation” is now a public service allowing the marketplace of ideas to function more efficiently.?Ç Finally, What I find particularly interesting about Bigelow is that the larger issues of privacy and abortion, which were certainly on the minds of the Justices at the time (Roe v. Wade was decided just 2 years earlier) might have indirectly affected the development of the Commercial Speech doctrine.6
As one reads the many opinions about this doctrine, I think it is fair to say there is a certain unease with its scope. How does it apply to a business’ political statements? Is it only applicable to point-of-sale speech or does it cover a wider array of speech that simply benefits a company’s economic interests? As corporations have evolved from small town-shops to multinational corporations, it has become harder to support the idea that they speak only with an intent to sell a good or service. Statements on issues such as labor, trade, and health care have nothing necessarily to do with a ?¢‚Ǩ?ìcommercial transaction?¢‚Ǩ¬ù, but rather deal with managerial decisions and public policy issues. As one reads Nike v. McClaskey, it becomes clear that the doctrinal limits of the doctrine are very much in question.
The issue in Nike was whether Nike’s false statements about its labor practices, issues of “public debate”, deserved greater first amendment protection because of their quazi-public nature. Nike was sued under a California Unfair Competition law because of false statements made by Nike in a number of public outlets (including newspaper editorials, press releases, etc.) regarding its labor practices.¬† Nike’s position was that issues of labor practice and working conditions at its factories were issues of public concern and therefore Nike’s speech warranted higher First Amendment protection.?Ç Although the Supreme Court ultimately did no more than dismiss the writ of certiorari, Justice Breyer’s dissent wrestles with the limits of the doctrine.?Ç In addressing the dual nature of Nike’s speech, he found the non-commercial characteristics to be “inextricably intertwined”¬ù with the commercial elements. He noted that the non-commercial elements in question were designed for a “diverse audience” concerning “a matter that is of significant public interest and active controversy.”
What seems to be happening with the Court is a dawning realization that the Commercial Speech Doctrine is too inflexible.?Ç It paints with broad strokes and encompases certain types of political speech that would otherwise be protected. After all, isn’t the large majority of purely political speech centered around economic issues? Why exclude corporations from engaging the American public on matters of public concern??Ç I certainly cannot think of any pressing reason to keep Nike’s opinions from the public sphere, and I think Breyer would agree with me. Whatever the value the doctrine has in regulating commercial transactions, it fails to carry logical, historical, or constitutional weight when applied to political speech by commercial organizations. Businesses are, after all, organized groups of individuals who have similar interests in mind. To prohibit them from speaking on public issues is certainly contrary not only to the purpose of the Amendment’s drafters, but also to contemporary concepts of free society.

I concur with the majority on the issues of spectrum scarcity and licensing. It is clear that the F.C.C. must allocate frequencies if the broadcast media is to exist in the form in which we have become accustomed. The public nature of the airwaves necessitates a licensing scheme in order for the available frequencies to be allocated in a market competing for those frequencies. Furthermore, there is no compelling reason why government licensing of airwaves should be any different than its involvement in many other marketplace where resources are scarce. In fact, were it not for the failure of the private sector to divide up the broadcast spectrum, government regulation would not have been necessary. The right of any party to use the airwaves should be looked at with no more or less favor than the rights of someone to pollute a stream or river; government regulation is needed in both instances in order to allow the most people to have the most access.

In addressing the issues arising from technological advances in distribution and digital compression, the majority correctly reasoned that the mere lack of a current demand for every available frequency neither negates the possibility that those frequencies could be filled nor solves the problem of frequency allocation. Licensing is still required to prevent spectrum “overlap”, regardless of total availability. We are increasingly becoming a media-centric society; to assume that demand will never outpace supply is, in my opinion, shortsighted.

It is after this point that I disagree with the majority’s reasoning, and concur in outcome only. It seems clear that Red Lion does not have a cause of action, given the nature of its broadcast license. I find no reason why, given the F.C.C’s authority to limit spectrum use, it may not also create time limitations on the use of of the spectrums in question. Red Lion’s argument seems to imply that they have a constitutional right to 24 hour control over the content broadcast over their frequency for the duration of their license term. I find no reason to conclude that the license granted by the F.C.C. confers this privilege.

If the broadcast license granted by the F.C.C. granted a complete bundle of rights, then Red Lion would have standing because the government would be forcing them to publish a particular viewpoint. This court held, in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, that the freedom of the press was bound by 2 things: a sufficient number of readers, and the journalistic integrity of its editors and publishers. Again, in Tornillo, we held that, “The choice of material to go into a newspaper… and treatment of public issues and public official–whether fair or unfair–constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment.” I see no reason to alter our holdings in either case.

As if we were seemingly unsure of ourselves, we went on to say in Tornillo that the application of the press clause had not yet been fully explored in the context of new media. I can think of no better opportunity to address this dictum and re-affirm the principle of individual editorial autonomy and its applicability to all forms of journalism, both the forms which exist today and those which may exist in the future. A completely free press has been central to the notion of freedom of speech; to hold to the contrary would do great damage to our civic society.

What distinguishes my opinion from that of my fellow justices’ is my distaste for the positive rights they believe exist within the first amendment. The bill of rights are primarily about protecting individuals from the government action, not about guaranteeing any right to be heard or any right to access. Why are the rights of the viewers “paramount”, as the majority seems to suggest? What good are the rights of the audience if the speech they hear is tainted? The first amendment specifically speaks in the negative, “congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech”. Does the majority wish us to believe this actually reads, “congress shall ensure viewers can hear all points of view?” This “marketplace of ideas” the majority discusses, is merely the result of thousands of individuals speaking without fear of repercussion–hence the need for negative rights. It is not an end in itself, but a theory of how the public makes decisions. True, it is through the marketplace that society can weigh facts and make the most educated decisions, but it is not the primary objective of the first amendment to create this market. Perhaps this really a moot point, but I think it worth the effort to clarify what I believe the court’s position should be on this issue.

With these principles in mind (and, in spite of them), I would further distinguish my opinion on the grounds that Red Lion has no standing in this case. I do not agree with the majority that spectrum scarcity gives the government any right to require the suppression of editorial decisions, but neither do I agree that the paradigm used by the court to arrive at its conclusion is the most accurate. It seems clear that instead of exercising some editorial control over Red Lion’s programming, the F.C.C is merely requiring that Red Lion broadcast a public message on public time the F.C.C. has reserved for its own use. This in no way compromises Red Lion’s editorial control over stories and topics it chooses to air within the time provided it in its license. As I have stated before, congress, acting through the F.C.C., is not required to allocate frequencies in their entirety. These public broadcasts are therefore not part of Red Lion’s broadcast, despite the content similarities. The fact that this “public” content had some logical relation to the news stories is simply not relevant to the issue of whether Red Lion has the right to control content on public time.

For these reasons I respectfully concur.