Bush vs. Batman

Glenn Beck recently echoed the GOP talking point that the Dark Knight was really about Bush-era politics. And of course Beck sees Batman as a justification for the evils of rendition, torture, etc.

The parallels are definitely there, and there’s nothing wrong with looking to a piece of popular fiction for allegories to real politics. But Beck (as usual — and consistent with the rest of the right wing ignorazzis) is afraid to take the allegory to its conclusion. In the movie, Batman knew full well that what he was doing was wrong. And he VOLUNTARILY paid the price for it. He took responsibility for the things he felt he needed to do by giving up his position of public trust and living, from then on, on the run from the law. The moral of the Dark Knight is that extreme measures have extreme consequences. If you grab authority (torture, rendition) you have to accept accountability along with it. Beck doesn’t get that.

If Bush REALLY had to torture someone to save lives, or kidnap someone and bring them back to the USA — again, to save lives — I’d be OK with that IF and ONLY IF he then took responsibility for what had to be done by stepping down and surrendering himself to be tried for his crimes. Chances are, he’d be acquitted. But he’d have acknowledged the rule of law and accepted responsibility for his decisions. Sadly, a cartoon character has more substance than our President.

What Iraq War?

Debate has been described as a war of words.  Using that metaphor, the ability to define the terms of the debate is the equivalent of gaining the high ground. Right now, those intending to keep us in Iraq have taken the metaphorical high ground without much of a battle. That's got to change. 

From now on, we have to refuse to talk about the "war" in Iraq except in the past tense. We are not currently at war in Iraq. (In know that's a huge shock — shake it off, Champ.) But the fact is that we WON the war in Iraq years ago. Saddam is dead, his forces scattered (foolishly, by us) to the winds. We are currently occupying Iraq. Our opposition there are, for the most part, Iraqis who are either resisting a foreign occupation (as we would, in the same circumstances) or opportunists jockeying for position in the aftermath of the war we won. But there is no more Iraq War. There is only an Iraq Occupation. 

By using the correct term, "occupation," we undermine the conservative theme that we have to somehow "win" this war. Been there, done that, got the bumpersticker. We also undercut the disgraceful McCain talking point addressed in my previous post, that only by "winning" in Iraq can we bring our soldiers home with honor. And whereas it's easy to talk about "supporting the troops" when they're on a mission with an objective, it's not so easy to support the endless occupation of another country when there is no clear objective. $10 billion a month. Thousands of lives. For what? An open-ended occupation of a sovereign nation that has called for us to set a timetable for withdrawal. Sounds pretty unsupportable, doesn't it? 

Those are the terms we should be using. We've already won the war on the ground in Iraq. Now if we ever want to get our boys and girls out of harms' way and home to their families, we need to win the battle of words against a vicious enemy — those here at home who would keep America embroiled in endless conflict.  

Let's recognize that no matter how big a mistake the Iraq invasion was, it was a military success. We won the war. Now let's bring its aftermath — the unwelcome occupation of Iraq, to an end. 

An open letter to Senator Jim Webb

Dear Senator Webb,

I understand your decision not to seek the Vice Presidency. In fact, I applaud it. You can do much more good in your role as Senator and war-tested Democratic statesman. It is in the latter role that I'm now asking for your help.

Senator, we need someone to get very angry. And I think you're the guy. We need someone to put a very big infantry-boot-shod foot down about one specific talking point being tossed around by the McCain campaign.

John McCain has been saying on the stump that if we elect him President, he'll win the Iraq War and our soldiers will be able to come home with honor. Someone needs to tell John McCain that whenever our soldiers come home — be it this very evening, or, as he has suggested, 100 years from now — they will come home with honor. The only people who have acted without honor in this conflict are the civilian leadership of our military. They acted without truth. They acted without foresight. They acted without concern for the reputation of our nation on the word stage. But our soldiers obeyed the orders of their Commander in Chief. They acted with courage, selflessness and tremendous effectiveness. They covered themselves in honor.

Every conversation with or about John McCain begins with the obligatory "We honor his service." And that's as it should be. But John McCain should remember that we LOST his war. We retreated. Vietnam fell. Just like his plane did. Yet we still honor his service. As we should. But the soldiers in Iraq WON their war. Saddam fled. He was captured. Killed. There were and are no weapons of mass destruction. There's a new sovereign government in place of Saddam's torturous regime. Our military has won. They have wrapped themselves in honor and do not need John McCain's 100-year occupation to prove it.

Senator Webb, you may be the only person in Washington with the spine and the boots to make this point heard.

And by the way, thanks for your service.

Barleymatters

I've launched Barleymatters to house the heated rants that fog up the LiveJournal community.