Bill Clinton and Truman– what a pair

Yesterday (5 July), I spent a memorable afternoon sitting about 30 feet from Bill Clinton as he addressed 5000 people. It was a hot day in Independence, MO, and we had gathered to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Truman Library and Museum.

After broiling in the afternoon sun, we were finally admitted into the cool air of the physical center of the Reformed Latter Day Saints, the Community of Christ auditorium. Harry Truman’s grandson, Clifton Truman Daniel, and the governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius were sitting near us, as were other political luminaries.

My point in this entry is not to burden you with a “what I did on my summer vacation” sort of diary, but to remind you, as I was reminded yesterday, that our greatest presidents have been visionaries and men of good will.

Unlike the current inhabitant of the Oval Office, these men actually meant what they said. Bill Clinton reminded us that Harry Truman sought out our nation’s enemies so he could talk with them and reach political solutions. Truman devised the perfect, non-military alternative to counter Russian imperialism: the Marshall Plan.

He respected minorities, was concerned about the welfare of the entire nation, acknowledged his mistakes, and led this country brilliantly through some of the most dangerous periods of our history: the reconstruction following WWII and the beginning of the Cold War. In short, he was the complete antithesis of our current president who has engaged in double-speak for so long that he has lost his moorings politically, ethically, and morally. He is adrift on a sea of deception, with he himself, perhaps, being the most deceived.

Clinton, who is perhaps one of the most thwarted presidents we’ve ever had, talked about how Truman was thwarted by powerful political forces who would not abide racial integration, universal health care, or a myriad of other programs that could have bettered our society. Like Truman, Clinton could have done so much more had he been able to focus on the job rather than fighting off his enemies who would do anything, including shutting down the federal government, to make his life miserable. Parenthetically, does this sound like what a certain Michigan governor is going through?

Yesterday, all of us who heard Clinton speak were reminded that once we had great presidents who cared about all of us. I look forward to the possibility that this will someday once again be true.

Camp, other MI Republicans oppose expansion of hate-crimes law

The US House Thursday passed a bill designed to expand the nation's hate-crimes laws to include those crimes that are based on gender or sexual orientation. 25 Republicans joined with 212 Democrats (including each of Michigan's six Democratic Representatives) in votng for the bill, which President Bush is threatening to veto.

CNN has more on the bill:

Under current law, hate crimes are subject to federal prosecution only if the acts of violence are motivated by race, religion, color or national origin. Federal prosecutors get involved only if the victim is engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting or participating in interstate commerce.

The White House says there is no need for the expanded bill because state and local laws already cover the crimes it addresses, and there is no need for federal enforcement.

In addition to allowing greater leeway for federal law enforcement authorities to investigate hate crimes, the House bill -- which was passed on a 237-180 vote --provides $10 million over the next two years to aid local prosecutions.

According to the article, critics of the hate-crimes legislation say it will target pastors who preach against homosexuality. Two points in that regard. First, the bill targets those who commit crimes based on gender and sexual orientation, NOT those who believe homosexuality is wrong.

Second, I'm a straight man, and I personally believe marriage is between one man and one woman. But if one of my friends from the GLBT falls victim to a hate crime, I would expect nothing less than for the perpetrator to receive swift justice.

But Congressman Dave Camp and 179 of his colleagues - including every Republican member of Michigan's congressional delegation - do not see it that way. They believe that the current law, which criminalizes hate crimes perpetrated based on religion, race, national origin, or color, is sufficient enough.

But a hate crime is a hate crime, regardless of the basis on which it is perpetrated. Until Mr. Camp realizes this, he will probably keep receiving zeros on the Human Rights Campaign's Congressional Scorecard.

When is protecting our troops “anti-troop?”

Here is a question for you: if a member of your family was about to be sent to Iraq, wouldn’t you want him or her to have the best available equipment? Of course you would. This is why Representative Jack Murtha (who is a Vietnam veteran) is pushing a plan in Congress that prohibits President Bush from sending more of our sons and daughters to Iraq if they are not well-equipped.

Strangely, the Republicans in Congress are calling Murtha’s plan “anti-troop.” Anti-troop? Hmmm. By this reasoning, putting our children in car seats to protect them shows that we are anti-automobile. Or inoculating them against childhood diseases means we are anti-God (after all, we might be interfering with God’s will).

Either the Republicans have lost their ability to reason, or they value ideology over the lives of our sons and daughters. You might call Representative Dave Camp (his toll free numbers is: 1-800-342-2455) and ask him what he values most: the lives of our troops or sticking with the President‘s failed policy.

(This post also appears on www.therealdavecamp.blogspot.com)

Debate Over Bush’s “Surge”

This is, as Yogi Berra said, "This is like deja vu all over again." Writing as a Vietnam vet, what is going on in Iraq bears an uncanny resemblance to the fall of Saigon. Bush wants to send in more troops to prop up the puppet government, but can’t say how he will tell if the surge succeeded or not. I suppose it will succeed because he will say that it has. Maybe he can land on that carrier again and announce “Mission Accomplished” one more time.

When I was in Vietnam, my buddies and I often said that Nixon could end the war by saying that he had won, then just leaving the country. He more or less did indeed do this a few years later, during which time a few thousand American lives and untold Vietnamese lives were lost. Bush is in the same position in Iraq.

What nobody seems to be talking about is where he plans to get the 21,000 additional troops. All branches of the military–excepting the Air Force and Navy perhaps–are already stretched to the breaking point. There are very few new bodies to be had. Soreserves are being put on alert, some after having just returned home after tours of duty that were extended by months or years. There are reports of troops in Afghanistan having their tours involuntarily extended and being told that they will be part of the surge in Iraq.

All of this for what reason? Bush will get his “surge,” the situation will remain as it currently is, or more likely worsen, and then what? Because neither he nor his Republican lads in Congress have any clear plans, they drag out the tried and true charges of lack of patriotism, “if we don’t fight them there, we’ll be fighting them here” (which is one of my favorites), and the laughable concern that we will lose credibility with our allies and the nations of the world. As if the administration and Republicans are not already the laughing stock of the world.

What about a failed state in the Middle East? The Republicans like to shake that skeleton. The nation of Iraq was a construct of the British after WW I, and like every other construct, it needed a ruthless dictator to hold it together. Enter Saddam Hussein. What country buttressed Hussein's power for decades? The U.S. What has happened to every other nation constructed of warring tribes who are forced to live together by a foreign military? They fall apart. So there is already a failed state in the Middle East: Iraq. Who caused it to fail? All the presidents who supplied the dictators with their military power-base. George II is not bright enough to know that by removing the dictator who held the country together was tantamount to pulling the central thread from the garment. He's been watching Iraq unravel ever since, and our valiant troops have paid the price for his arrogant stupidity.

For the U.S., the concern should be how to spare any more American casualties and yet leave some shred of hope for the weak central government, but historically, puppet governments rarely have lasted once the U.S. has left unless the U.S. left the country in the hands of a military dictatorship (this is what happened at the beginning of the 20th century in the Dominican Republic, Cuba, and Haiti). There is no strong Iraqi military because the Bush folk got rid of the generals and officers who controlled Hussein's military because they were Bathists. That was one of the first blunders they made. But I digress.

So will Bush get his “surge?” Probably. Will it make any difference in the level of violence or make the Iraqi government more capable of surviving after we leave? Probably not. If the U.S. withdraws our troops, will the government collapse? Of course. Will the government collapse if we withdraw quickly? Yes. Will it collapse if we withdraw slowly? Yes.

Fast or slow, the troops must come home. The sooner, the better.