The rhetoric of escalation and Orwell

Obama’s own hypocrisy undercuts the alleged nobility of his Nobel acceptance speech, the purposeful blindness of some of those who are dismayed by it undercuts their dismay, and the constant creep of collective amnesia that allows for others support the escalation of war and the “logic” offered by Obama is Oslo undercuts our safety.

Long out of practice in even attempting to write, I am reading a selection of Orwell’s essays (both the polemic and the trite review and in between) rather than expanding on my own declaration of opinion. Maybe I will learn something. The two volumes are what I might’ve once called provocatively titled: All Art Is Propaganda and Facing Unpleasant Facts. But now they’re just remedial guides for dealing with the world.

In the meantime, I share these selections from contemporary polemicists who I think did a good and more timely job: challenging both the silly dismay of some Democrats in what they seem to perceive as Obama’s betrayal (it isn’t one, he campaigned on escalating the Afghan war) and the others who find Obama’s justification of escalation as a proper way to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, consistent with what he cited himself in the course of his speech.

Head-Roc at the "Emergency Anti-Escalation Rally" outside of the White House

Staking out This Week this morning: TWS talks to Feingold

My friend Sam Husseini’s project, The Washington Stakeout, was at the studios of ABC’s This Week this morning. The guests were Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Senator Russ Feingold.

I collaborate with Husseini, providing technical support, and I also watch the shows. This morning I noticed that Clinton repeated a myth about the start of the Afghan war that the Institute for Public Accuracy, where Sam is the communications director, called-out in a press release earlier this week.

The appearance of both Clinton and Gates was pre-taped earlier in the week, otherwise I’m sure Sam would have tried to question her on it if she stopped for the press gaggle.

Sam did have some interaction with Senator Feingold which is now posted at The Washington Stakeout.

Husseini asked Feingold about the legitimacy of the Afghanistan war, Israel’s nuclear weapons (of which official acknowledgment might catalyze a different calculus in the US’s non-proliferation actions with regards to Iran, India, as well as, of course, Israel), and, in essence, how much due diligence was actually done in exploring the feasibility of Single Payer health care.

Jack Kemp — chickenhawk?

This past Sunday morning brought the news of Jack Kemp’s passing, and my one interaction with him came to mind. Kemp was part of an event I covered while stringing for Pacifica’s Peace Watch, and what I understood about the nature of his military service made him subject to inclusion under a broad question I proffered to the panel. My focus was not on him, but ultimately his behavior became the story. I do not mean to recast the man entirely through the lens of this one interaction — but I do feel this anecdote hints at more of Kemp than the remembrances I’ve read this past week have bothered to include.

In January of 2003 I attended a press conference held by the Joe Foss Institute, commemorating the recent passing of their namesake and announcing the launch of a program where veterans were to go to schools and talk of their service in hopes of inspiring children to want to join the military. Foss was concerned that “there might be an exodus of draft age Americans in the event of war,” according to literature being handed out at the time.

The event, which included a luncheon that I missed, was reportedly attended by then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Representative William Janklow. I saw neither Wolfowitz nor Janklow; it is my understanding that Wolfowitz left before I arrived and I don’t know about Janklow. Honorary spokespersons for the effort included John Glenn and Oliver North, as well as Jack Kemp. They were made available to the press for a question and answer session.

The backdrop was a specious drumbeat for war with Iraq and I was skeptical of the most of the named figureheads of this organization’s effort. So were my producers, who worked daily to surface news about Iraq and policy critiques to widen the debate on the prospect of a war which had not yet started but seemed fated to some. (An aside: The body of work aggregated and produced by Peace Watch and others, including the Institute for Public Accuracy, where I also once worked, is evidence to me that there was reason to be unconvinced of claims before the war and that the lack of persistent skepticism in some media and on the Hill wasn’t merely a case “if we knew then what we know now.”)

When the press conference opened-up, I was allowed the first question.

Continue reading