News Wrap-up

1. Images of war
So the military has imposed restrictions on photographers embedded with troops that require written permission to be granted from the solider before his image can be published. This stems from a case where a soldier's family found out about his injury from a photo in the New York Times. Certainly that's not ideal. And the military's argument is that a soldier has a right to privacy - if s/he doesn't want her/his family to know about an injury that should be the soldier's right. However, as the reporter describes it, this means that he would have to ask a solider who might have shrapnel in his face and broken or burned limbs to look at his images on a lap top and write a permission note for the use of the pictures. Doesn't sound too practical.

The military does allow the photos to be used if they don't identify the soldiers, but the reporter argued that the anonymity detracts from the impact of the image - a nameless soldier doesn't reach the public the way Corporal Smith from Tucson does.

I'm not passionately against the military's position to the extent that a soldier may not want his bloodied body on the front page of the Times and maybe he deserves that much dignity. However, I agree with the reporter that his ability to communicate the realities of war are severely hampered and that this seems suspiciously like another administration attempt to limit the public's exposure to the war - which is the exact opposite of what we ought to be doing.

More pictures, more stories, more "real" reality - that's what Americans need; Americans who are so trigger-happy but don't like to know the dirty, ugly, gruesome truth of their decisions. Show it all, I say. It's like when you shove a dog's face in its mess after it has gone in the house. Maybe that's what Americans (and politicians) need.

I'm imagining President Bush in a Clockwork Orange scene being shown the image of every soldier who has died - two images actually: one of the solider alive, laughing, with his family, and one dead in his coffin, or on the field. Make him know, really, know what he has done.

2. We don't want anyone to think it isn't going well... too late.
Apparently there are some members of Congress who object to allowing expedited immigration for Iraqis because a massive resettlement of Iraqis in the US might "give the impression things aren't getting better in Iraq - that stability is decreasing, rather than increasing."

I swear to God I think I'm living in a distopian novel. Orwell - Orwell, is that you??? Did you write this nightmare?

Guess what?? Appearance is not a good reason to keep people in a hell hole we created!!! I feel like this should be obvious, but for anyone out there who is unclear - it's not actually going well. Now can we let Iraqis who would prefer to live in peace into our country?

3. Isn't it interesting?
If I were still at RLM or better yet, if I worked for the Daily Show, right now I'd be putting together a montage of the things W considers interesting. From today: "It's interesting that extremists attack democracies around the Middle East, whether it be the Iraq democracy, the Lebanese democracy or a potential Palestinian democracy," Bush said."

I think it's interesting when democracies attack otherwise stable countries. I also think it's interesting that he doesn't tie the increase in these attacks to the destabilization of the region caused by his invasion. I also think it's interesting that we have to be afraid of a Cold War with Russia and civil wars ending millions of lives in Africa. And plane hijackings. And corporate excess. And people wearing neon. And then I woke up and it was 1982.

Seriously, I hope Jon Stewart does the montage because what Bush considers interesting is interesting.

4. She's a Man Eater.
I wonder why Man Eater didn't make HRC's short list of theme songs. Today Mrs. Clinton chose Canadian singer Celine Dion's hit "You and I" popularized by Air Canada. A catchy little tune, despite my abhorrence of Ms. Dion's work. ALL of it. Ms. Dion can't hold a candle to Fleetwood Mac and her husband's use of "Don't Stop Thinking about Tomorrow" (I'm sure he's thrilled not to have to listen to it any more), but it's probably better than him taking a scene from "My Best Friend's Wedding" and lending her his song.

Now this may or may not be apocryphal, but I remember being told once that W was planning to use "Best of Times" from La Cage Aux Folles as his theme song, until someone told him that it was from a show about two gay guys who save a conservative politician's arse. I hope it's true!!!

HILLARY

Oh lord, who are you kidding? America is safer now than it was on 9/11? Really?

Ask the citizens of Kansas how safe they felt when the tornadoes hit and there weren't enough members of the national guard to call in because they are off serving in Iraq.

No Hillary, I don't feel safer on air travel because of reforms the government has made. Air travel has its dangers, as it did before 9/11 and will continue to long after. I know that I can no longer travel without checking my bags if I want to bring toiletries and that doesn't make me feel safer - just irritated.

No Hillary, I don't think it's notable that there haven't been any terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 - after all, it's been six years - we'd been six years without an attack before Bush took office. And considering the attacks in London and Madrid, I don't think we have much about which to be excited.

It's utterly inexcusable that you voted for war without reading the National Intelligence Estimate. The nation was hell-bent on revenge in 2002 and you went along for the ride. Where was the national leader who could speak truth to power and say Iraq is not the threat we need to challenge? It wasn't entirely unknown - there were people out there saying it. You, yourself, wanted to take a diplomatic route, but you didn't stand by your own principles. You feared political reprisal - "soft on security." You didn't call Saddam on his bluff or Bush on his bluster.

Where would this nation be if we had not gone to war in Iraq? Our troops would not be inextricably condemned to country on the verge of catastrophe, but would instead be nimble enough to be deployed to face actual threats. We would not have enboldened North Korea and Iran and pushed their nuclear ambitions. Our support within the international community would be significantly greater. Our focus could have remained on dismantling terror sects, which actually might have made the world safer. Without Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, we would not be providing justification for the action of our enemies.

You were thinking you couldn't look weak on security issues. A need to look tough will plague a Clinton presidency. It's hard enough for a democrat to be credible on military issues, but a woman, too? I worry that your political ambitions will cloud your judgment.

In actuality, the question of whether the nation is safer now than after 9/11 is moot. Rather than talk to me about where we are, talk to me about where you will take us. How will you lead the nation forward - in terms of economics, security, civil rights, justice and social issues?

Hillary, I give you credit for being extremely intelligent and a good Senator. But I've met you on several occasions and unlike your husband, you lack the common touch. You project the image of self-promotion rather than strong leadership. When faced with a choice of doing what is in the nation's best interest and what will get you reelected, I don't trust you to make the right decision.

Certainly you are not to blame for the tragedy that has been the last seven years of American experience, but looking ahead, I want a president who will restore true American values - rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all; a president who will seek the nation's security, but not at the cost of essential freedom; a president who will restore a sense of partnership with other nations by leading with humility, strength, honor and respect. I want a president who cares more for the nation than for his or her place in that nation.

So far, you have failed to convince me that your motivations are for the the country's good rather than your own good. That is where you must begin. We have had too many years of an administration that pursued its own glory and the benefit of a few. How will your administration take the nation in a new direction?

Inspire me. I've been ashamed of the president for too long; give me something to believe in - something greater than yourself.