Recently I was asked to comment on the following question:

"For decades, America’s role in the world has been summarized as promoting freedom, democracy and human rights. Following the failures of forced regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, many now question this mission. Still others hold that if the U.S. were to promote democracy in nations such as Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other autocratic nations the result would be even more oppressive, Taliban-like regimes that would promote terrorism and be hostile to American interests. Should the U.S. continue to promote democracy overseas? Should it center its endeavors around some other goals? Or should it simply stick to its own knitting?”

Hi Bob,

Thank you for your insightful piece. Speaking for myself and people I know around me, I can say that I have scandal fatigue. The Bush Administration has done so much evil so quickly and forcefully that I can't figure out where to start. Every time I pick one issue, another one comes along and prevents me from acting effectively on the first. Why bother protesting Iraq when I know people's votes are being stolen and opponents of the war will never be counted?

We don't have a national discussion on important issues because the Bush and the Republicans don't want one. They do what they want to do and they don't care what Americans think. So, they twist the facts, attack the opposition, offer false choices, set up straw men, parse words, catapult the propaganda, use phony terror alerts, slander and libel good people, and spin, spin away. Now they're even repeating bin Laden's own propaganda and stating it as fact. They do this because all they care about is creating confusion and chaos so they can do what they want, no questions asked. If voters knew the contempt Republicans have for the American people and our democracy, there would be no Republican party.

Hi David,

You wrote an interesting article today. I appreciated your insights on Bush's personality. As someone who grew up with an alcoholic parent, I recognize Bush's behavior all too well. He wants to stand back making grandiose pronouncements and leave the dirty work to others. That way, when things don't work out, he can claim his idea was valid, but other people let him down. Of course he's always being let down by others... but isn't it wonderful how he accepts other people's lack of perfection?

Of course Bush was correct when he said that a way to solve the problem in the Mideast is to turn it from a region of tyrants and poverty into a region of liberal democracy and prosperity. That conclusion would be incredibly obvious to any reasonably aware person. He was wrong to think he could make it happen. The Arabs have to do that for themselves. Or does he think the Arabs haven't bothered to try it on their own? Perhaps they were just sitting there, inert and clueless, waiting for someone to come along and tell them how to fix their culture? Please....

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0619/p09s01-coop.html

Max Boot's column comparing the foreign policies of Truman and Bush misses the real questions: "Was Truman successful in his prosecution of the Cold War?" And "Are there any lessons Bush could learn from Truman's approach?" Answering those two questions would be helpful, whereas comparing the multilateral nature of their respective foreign policies really reads as lame rationalization for Bush's approach: "See... I'm no worse than Truman, and people liked him."

Some think that Truman's approach to the Cold War (i.e. high military preparedness, strict containment, and active confrontation) would have bankrupted the country and/or started a general war had it continued under Eisenhower. Truman's approach was inflexible, doctrinaire, and costly. Defense spending under Truman approached 20% of GNP. It led America into armed conflicts, like in Korea, where our national interest was not directly involved. Truman treated the Cold War primarily as a military confrontation.

Mr. Chinni,

Thank you for soliciting feedback. I hope what I have to share will be useful.

Something I find disturbing is how much of our national news media, including the Monitor, tends to boil complex issues down to two opposing sides, rather than looking at the broader concerns of those in the middle. The problem with this approach is that it emphasizes extreme views and often legitimizes them. Worse, it is easily manipulated by those with ulterior motives.

There was an example of this recently in the Monitor's coverage of Gay Marriage. The author carefully represented the views of Gay Rights advocates, of legal experts, and of a Ms. Gallagher, who represented some "family" organization opposed to Gay Marriage. There was a quote in the article that I found telling and disturbing....

Ask Auntie Pinko
http://www.democraticunderground.com/auntie/06/209.html
February 2, 2006
By Auntie Pinko
Dear Auntie Pinko,

I am an activist currently working to build the progressive movement in this country. I look at how Bush's poll numbers are again rising - despite the failure of leadership following Katrina, despite the obvious lies that led us into the mistake that is Iraq, despite the scandals, despite the spying, despite all of it. I am starting to wonder what the use is in trying to fix a system for people who obviously don't care and/or don't understand. Is "America" a myth? Is it fixable?

My letter to CNN...

I understand that you hired Glenn Beck, the radio info-tainer, as a commentator. Great! Just what CNN needs... to become even more slanted to the right. How do I judge balance? Easy... number of stories on the increase in infant mortality in the USA? Less than 5. Number of stories about the pretend "War on the Holidays?" More than 50... Shame, you can't even tell what's really news anymore... it's all spin, the spin-spin, etc. You already have a problem with right-wing fake controversies hogging the air waves... and now you compound it by bringing a source into your house.

The original article is here...
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/01/gore.html#comment-12993940

My response to the blog comments....

It takes a lot of nerve, or perhaps denial, for any Republican supporter to attack the Democrats as phoneys. On a personal level, you should spend some time noticing the bad toupees on Ney, Delay, Lott, and others. On a political level, Republicans lie so much that they can't even keep their stories straight and they're all as crooked as a dog's hind leg. Jack Abramoff is the symptom of a much larger, cynical Republican assult on America. Are they Nazis? No! Are they fascists and social darwinists? YES!

Re: The candor of George Bush By Bill Schneider CNN Washington Bureau Friday, December 16, 2005
With all due respect, Mr. Schneider misses the point of Bush's supposed "candor" in his "Play of the Week" column.

In regards to Republican politics delays Coast aid

I spent the month of October in Louisiana, supporting efforts there. As a New Yorker, who had never been to the Gulf Coast, I was impressed with the pluckiness, resilience, and intelligence of the people I met. My heart and hopes go out to all Americans hurt by this terrible catastrophe.