"Illusions and Truth, Military Budget, Community Court Program..."May. 11‚ 2007Dear Editor, Describing a visit by the Venezuelan Ambassador to San Francisco, Randy Shaw wrote "It is easy to fool Americans about foreign affairs, because most lack personal knowledge of the facts and are completely dependent on the media." When Nancy Pelosi said "Hugo Chavez fancies himself a modern day Simon Bolivar, but all he is, is an everyday thug," was she trying to fool us? How about Bill Clinton? He had said: "I think Chavez would be much more effective if he would say something that's true." Who are most responsible for the violent deaths of well over 655,000 since U.S. combat operations began in Iraq in 2003? The hundreds of thousands who died for lack of nutrition and medical care during the years of sanctions prior to our invasion based on lies? The tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers maimed and dead in two needless wars? The thousands who died on September 11, 2001? (The F.B.I. doesn't know!) Why do leading Democratic Party candidates like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards support keeping nuclear weapons options against Iran "on the table?" These are progressives? The difference between our own leaders and Chavez is clear to me. They support a culture of death. Chavez supports a culture of life. Our leaders hide behind high-sounding words to obscure reality and facts. It is they who demonize and dehumanize those who stand in their way or threaten the illusions they help create. When Chavez called Bush "the devil" he was not being bombastic, he was being precise. Sincerely, Robert B. Livingston San Francisco Dear Randy: As Kucinich issues director I read your military budget article with great interest. In fact, Dennis has been calling for a 15% reduction of the military budget for years. A cut endorsed by many retired generals and admirals who insist it would not cut into our "readiness." Years ago that would have amounted to $60 billion. Today with our $800+ billion war budget that would come to $120 billion. The $800 billion estimate comes from the actual budgeted amount for the military, the additional war expenditures, the money hidden in budgets like Energy for nukes and interest charges on the past overspending that was borrowed. The 100 million Americans who end up paying income taxes, therefore, see about $8,000, on average, spent in their name EVERY YEAR. The Iraq Invasion and occupation will cost every American about $7,000 before it is done and our soldiers cared for. Does it not astound you how militarists in both parties tell the people to cower in fear? How our military is "broken?" How we can not fight on any other front? Does anyone seriously think that any country on earth could keep their air force aloft for more than 8 to 10 minutes in a real confrontation? The fact is that no country on earth could face our unrivaled military might. We have enough nukes that no country with a return address dare attack us. What these pro-military-industrial-congressional complex politicians are actually saying is that we might have difficulty occupying another country. We certainly would have no difficulty defending the "homeland" as the President now calls the U.S. Well, we should be comforted to know he doesn't call it the Fatherland. Yet. And when did occupying numerous other countries become tantamount to defending our country? When did using the military as a policy tool become acceptable? I find it stunning when Republicans snarl that Bill Clinton destroyed our military and cut our intelligence budget as though these are the causes of 9/11 and our problems in Iraq. Clearly, the administration could have spent $80 billion a year (not our current $40) on intelligence and the Vice President and the rest of cabal still would have lied us into war. Incidentally, "lied" is the only accurate term when one reviews the careful elimination of all caveats and disclaimers and the guarantees we were given about WMDs. And please do not allow the cover up lie that all the other countries said they had WMDs. That is not true and it is also not a legal justification as we will discuss in a moment. What we really face are police actions and intelligence gathering to stop those who hate what we do around the world - not our "freedoms." Of course the unilateral, arrogant actions of this administration have irreparably harmed those two areas. The justifying pretext that "we can't take a chance", of course, is allowed to no other country on earth in launching their military. And when we are proven to be liars in front of the entire world, we have the chutzpah not even to apologize. We just change our rationale and everything else - with the help of the corporate media - just goes down the memory hole. Of course, your call for real reform of the war budget makes sense. After all who but a neocon could justify more aircraft carriers and new nukes when our enemies attacked us with knives ( according to the 9/11 Commission) or boxcutters. Calling our war machine our "security budget" is beautiful Orwellian doublespeak at its best when military force has replaced real diplomacy as a tool of policy. We no longer talk to enemies, we threaten and then attack them - unless they get a nuke first. Of course, this does not lead to nuclear proliferation does it? Lastly, the most important question to pose to all the candidates is a simple one: Was the invasion of Iraq a legal war? All the candidates who believe it was will certainly find it easy to break our Constitution and UN Charter in attacking Iran. Fortunately, Dennis and reps like Peter Stark knew of the immense evil we were releasing on the world when we adopted the preemptive war doctrine and said so from the floor of the House. Interestingly, Chris Matthews has even raised this essential issue of the aggressive nature of the Iraq Invasion on his show recently. Of course, this subject is unlikely to ever be raised at a Democratic debate because it is so incriminating - and embarrassing - to so many of them who either for the war or to continue an illegal war. As you note in your article, no nation has the right to attack another merely because the "other" procures forbidden weapons. If we could hang Nazis at Nuremberg for the greatest of all war crimes: waging aggressive war, we can at least impeach Dick Cheney. How is it possible that not one other Democratic candidate has joined with Dennis to hold the VP accountable? Of course, Dennis is used to standing alone having spoken out hundreds of times before the war and the years since while most other candidates were silent waiting to see how the war went. How can Democratic primary voters choose a candidate who was complicit in starting this war when it was their job to know better or to have the political courage to listen to all of us who knew it was a con job from the beginning? Sincerely, Dave Kelley Issues Director for the Kucinich Campaign P.S. On a whole host of issues from declaring a cease fire in the Drug War, to repealing NAFTA and the WTO, to national health care, Dennis is the Progressive choice. Even those who don't believe Dennis Kucinich can win should at least bear witness to the truth rather than settling for just another militarist to head up our party. How will you feel in 2010 when one of the "top tier" candidates keeps his or her word that "no options are off the table" and attacks Iran despite no attack from Iran or even a threat against us. Will you feel satisfied that your vote really counted? Editor, I am responding in part to Stu Smith's May 8, 2007, letter to the editor, commenting on Mayor Newsom's proposed community court program. Yes, public inebriation from alcohol and drugs, and the rantings of the mentally ill have become a blight on our city. Not because it is unsightly, but because it reminds us each day, that the richest country in the world is unable or unwilling to do little more than provide band-aid solutions for the poorest among us. It is an irksome bother to many with a steady income, a home, and enough food to eat and, yes, it turns off tourists. But imagine how irksome it is for those who have hit bottom. My concern is that a community court program will criminalize poverty, but do little or nothing to solve the underlying causes of poverty such as insufficient low-income housing, lack of drug and alcohol treatment centers, health care, etc. Also, such a program raises fairness issues. It is my understanding that a defendant in the New York City community court program must plead guilty in order to be eligible for the program or face trial in Superior Court where, if found guilty, leaves the defendant with a criminal record thereby exacerbating his or her already desperate situation. A community court program costs money. In order to be effective, a community court program needs a heavy dose of social services to be effective. This requires a partnership between the community court and social service agencies. Yet, our City's budget for social service programs is already stretched to the maximum. And I fear the community court would be run by judges from middle class backgrounds who are likely to impose middle class values on people of different backgrounds with mental health problems, lack of housing, and drug and alcohol addiction. These judges will be asked to become intimately involved in the everyday lives of these people. An individual defendant's social problem is not going to be solved by issuing a judgment and imposing a sentence for minor infractions. Solving social problems is a long-term, continuing process. Are our judges ready for this change in judging? I do agree with Mr. Smith that the proposed community court program needs to be openly discussed and thoroughly evaluated before any action is taken by the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, and the Court. Judi Iranyi, LCSW You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: rshaw@beyondchron.org or by writing to: Beyond Chron 126 Hyde Street San Francisco, CA 94102 415-771-9850 (phone) 415-771-1287 (fax) |