I came across an interesting article in the New York Times this morning that got me thinking @ all of the shenanigans, hissy fits, or just plain BS we have seen on the presidential debates over the past months. I didn’t get to see the latest, but heard it was a tad on the disastrous side.
The article has to do with what we have all seen at one time or another on TV or heard or read. When the respective news organizations want a more detailed, professional explanation of something pertaining to the war &/military, they turn to what they all call, professional analysts who are, almost without exception, retired military officers. All fine & well, maybe.
I won’t give all the details. Those can be found in the article by David Barstow, dateline 04.20.08. But what started the investigation was a condemnation of the policies of the current administration concerning Guantanamo Bay detainees in the summer of 2005. Amnesty International & U.N. human rights experts charged allegations of abuse at GTMO. The administration, correctly assuming this would not paint a rosy picture, gathered a group of retired military types, put them on Cheney’s jet, & sent them on a well orchestrated (a phrase that has been used quite frequently for events planned by this administration) tour of the facility.
The group has grown & those people have been used by all of the major news organizations as professional analysts to assist us poor wretches in understanding the intricate ins & outs of the military mindset, decision making processes & telling us whether something is a good thing or a bad thing. And therein lays the problem. Regardless of the political leanings of the respective news orgs, these people were supposed to give a fair & balanced (where have we heard that before?) professional opinion of the subject. Well, it turns out that most of the analysts had ties to the contractors vested in the very policies they were asked to asses. But those relationships were hardly ever disclosed to viewers or networks.
The story said that, “the men on the plane & several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants.” “…members of this group have echoed the administrations talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated.” They did this because, “They feared jeopardizing their access.”
Those who have been on the bogs know that Uncle Rich is no fan of W. But in all fairness (& balance, I might add) W is not the first & in all probability, will not be the last in bending things like laws, facts etc. Nor is he the only president who has spread his fair share of fertilizer around to the public to make himself look spring time bright & new while being sweet smelling in the process.
This brings me around to questions that have been asked of the candidates so far. Or, rather the questions I would like to ask the candidates. They are:
How do you intend to convince us, the American people, your employer, that you will uphold your oath of office?
How do you intend to convince us that you won’t bend or break the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or the laws of the land?
How do you intend to convince us that you are giving us the truth, the facts?
How do intend to convince us that you will do your best to undo many of the wrongs created by this administration concerning bending/breaking the Constitution, Bill of Rights & general laws?
How do you intend to convince us that you will not continue the policies that are in conflict with the above laws?
I’m sure that there are more, & if you think of any, please feel free to add to the list. Maybe out of all of this, we can have a mail in campaign to the candidates to gauge their responses. JATFUR.
RichK