Musharraf on the Daily Show

I was settling down to take in some playful jokes about what is too tragic to be anything less than funny: the U.S. role in world politics.

Imagine my surprise that President Musharraf is the guest on the Daily Show!

And how sweet, Jon begins with the serving of tea....and twinkies...then it is straight to the hard questions, like where is bin Laden.

Is this the first interview of a foreign head of state on a comedy news show?

See how easy it is to stay in touch with world affairs?

The hard choices, being "in the line of fire" and deciding if they, he, Pakistan, should have cooperating with the U.S.
After all, we needed to go through there to get to bin Laden.....

Musharraf has an important point, we..and in this case, he and the government of Pakistan have to win people away from the Taliban.

I like how readily Musharraf agreed that he is much more calm about terrorists and terrorism than we, in the United States are, even though he is at the forefront.

Apparently Bush is endorsing Musharraf's books, will it reinforce Bush's version of the war on terror? Are we safer now? Are the Taliban contained??

Stewart mentioned that Musharraf does not discuss Iraq directly. Musharraf does not want to get into a debate on why we went, but he does state that Iraq has increased extremism and terrorism....so we are not safer--at least Musharraf does not think so. And I think this is a point that American's need to hear. Is this the only safe forum for him to say it.

Of course the funniest part of the interview was his assessment of who would win an election between Bush and bin Laden in Pakistan: both would lose miserably--good form.

Of course, the moment of Zen really put me in that twisted mood that only the Daily Show can: a clip of a FOX newscaster telling us that we have the next best thing to a national referendum for torture, America loves Jack Bauer of 24--they love seeing the tough torture type tactics against enemies of the state. It would not be too far fetched to think that television shows like 24 push up the torture element just to see how audiences react so Fox news can report on it, if it fits with the larger agenda of a tough no-holds-barred America.

As one person emailed Fox Dayside, and I paraphrase: how can people argue taking the moral high ground when those terrorists are cutting off people's hands and heads!

Sad isn't it? Foreign heads of state need to be on a comedy show to get opportunity to state dissent about how things are going in Iraq, and how scary it is that people liking violence on TV means we are okay with torture....are there really Americans who would support that? None of them are or were ever vets, I feel quite sure.

I hope that a diversity of ideas and perspectives continue to seep into mainstream media, although I am not too sure how mainstream the Daily Show really is...it may more be an instance of preaching to the choir....but the mainstream RIGHT does police it and loves to be outraged by it and therefore it is a portal and one that I hope continues to be exploited for the good of us all!


I just caught the late edition...
I am impressed with how quickly reviews of the show hit the news media.
I guess because this may be a first, and because we are getting the dirt straight from the man himself!

The Washington Post
International Herald Tribune
New York Times
NDTV.com

Good Fences? Good Neighbors?!

I quote Robert Frost: "Something there is that does not love a wall?"

A wall with holes and low places...
A wall where people come and go as if there is no wall at all.
And so...
How high must a wall be to keep out the fear of poverty?
How high must a wall be to dissuade a hope that prevailed past oppressive heat and the aches of slow starvation.

How much are the fat, rich, and paranoid willing to spend to hide prosperity from poor neighbors?


I just got a MEGAVOTE update from Congress.org letting me know how my representatives have been voting. The update also let me know what they will be voting on next. Among the bills on the floor is the Secure Fence Act.

Soon, the House of Representatives will be voting on the Secure Fence Act - H.R.6061.

This week the Senate will continue to work on a bill to authorize the construction of 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Illegal or undocumented immigration is not a new issue. It has been growing as an issue as wholes in the system of accounting for illegals or undocumented immigrants has increased along with demands for increased national security.

Pat Buchanan was just on the Daily Show to promote his new book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America.

Stewart made many jokes to highlight the pertinent points, like how America already received wave upon wave of immigrants...how is this different.

Buchanan's point is that this wave is different because of their resistance to assimilation.

And really, is it not surprising--why should they assimilate to what rejects them. From reading the synopsis on his book and from hearing him speak on the Daily Show, it seems that Buchanan understands why people from Mexico and other developing nations are resisting the Apple-pie Americanization so many other immigrants swallowed whole two or three generations ago (or more).

Even those immigrants who do wait their turn in line, they may also be resistant to efforts of assimilation to "American" values--as if this was a constant, homogenous thing.

The second wave of immigrants to the U.S. were coming to a very different place. A country that was still idealistic and a place to remake identity and move past the oppression of kings and dictators...I guess people are still doing that...but America was not an EMPIRE. America was powerful, but not quite in the busy business of nation building and supporting regimes and manipulating economies.

America, to members of developing nations, is now the Empire, the exploiter...it is difficult to reconcile yourself with a curriculum of media messages and unspoken gestures in everyday life that tell you that you are not welcome, you are less, and you are different and will never be one with us....and so what is there to do? Reject it!

I just might actually have to read Buchanan's book to better make my points.

On the Daily Show, he said that there are more illegal immigrants here now than all the Italians, Irish, etc. who came before them. He would like us to slow the wave and take the time to assimilate the people who are here before we allow any more in.

We can not keep people out. And we can not continue to promote the Anglophone values that create the resistance.

Stewart suggests we stake a claim on Mexico with the spring break crews. But also makes the even more credible point that people are here and 'homesteading' to send $$ back....and of course suggests that we enforce laws that already exist (drug related, etc.) or to consider that breaking the line to illegally enter the U.S. is not a federal crime.

If only Buchanan did not make the comment that we need to think of the Indian's open immigration policy--oh dreaded thing to say. Such a twisted and warped thing to say...

Reactionaries like Buchanan may have to consider that the America they want to protect it is a nostalgic dream that will vanish like fog in the sun. America is evolving, has been evolving.

The question is how we can negotiate the waves of cultural change to retain what was good about the past with what is being offered by waves of recent immigrants.

I am not sure how...but it will begin by being open to change and embracing a hard truth: we live in an imagined community. America is not real: it is a dream, it is held together by beliefs and customs which are easily subject to change...and that is not a bad thing.


There is something that does not love a wall: change.

Do NOT Pardon President Bush

I have been alerted to yet another political action where you can do something to make a difference. Within minutes, you can do something to help promote the values that are the basis of our current sense of freedom.

Apparently, according to an email from MoveOn.org, Republicans in Senate are planning to have a vote on a bill that would PARDON President Bush for his choice to pursue illegal wire-tapping.

We have laws in place that allow cops/FBI/CIA to wire tap phones without a warrent, with the condition that these same groups get a warrent within three days, otherwise the information gained would be inadmissable.

We can not let the President get away with his choice to overlook existing laws. He is not above the law.

The President must not be pardoned. No one is above the law. The President must be held accountable. The President should be a role model for lawfulness, he should be an advocate for indivual rights and due proces--the bedrock of our constitution!

If you agree that we must make a statement and stop such a vote, please sign the petition started by MoveOn.org.

Presidential Address

So, I missed the rest of Path to 9/11
(at least most of it)...but I caught
G.W. Bush's Presidential Address.

In case you missed it, I have listed most of his main points and made a few comments to a few of them in this posting.

Here are his main points:

• America is still in mourning
• On 9/11 ordinary citizens made extraodinary acts of courage
  
• We have learned alot about the enemy, that they are evil but do not kill without purpose
• The enemy (extremist Islamic fundamentalists) hate freedom and have no room for negotiation
  
• We are being tested by a war we did not choose
• This war will define our generation
• We have made progress and have some known terrorists in custody
• Sadam Hussein's Iraq was a known threat and the world is safer with him gone
• America's safety depends on the outcome in Iraq and we will stay until they have a stable democracy
• American's continue to join the military and fight in Iraq and we will NEVER back down from the work they begun
• We are going to do for the Middle East what our grandparents and parents did in Europe
• Even people whose parents where killed in WTC are still joining the army and becoming firefighters
• America needs brave young people and Good American's help their neighbors in need because:

  The spirit of our people is the source of America's strength. And we go forward with trust in that spirit, confidence in our purpose, and faith in a loving God who made us to be free.

And here is my commentary:
The President claims that we are being tested: that Ordinary Americans have made Extraordinary Acts.
I am not surprised that the president has used the 9/11 memorial fervor to try to inspire people to join the army and other first responder type professions....and this is something I am torn about. On the one hand, we need these people and on the other hand I am not confident that those who join the military will only be sent to those areas where they will be fighting a just cause.

There is no doubt that there are many unsung heroes who have finally begun to receive the recognition they deserve. I only wish that singing their praise was not accompanied by a call to arms.

I also agree with the President that one of the defining issues of our age is the conflict between fundamentalists and the tolerant...

I hope people can see that we are experiencing this conflict on many fronts: not just internationally between Secular nations and Extreme Islam, but also within the United States between fundamentalist Christians who would like to dissolve the separate of church and state, which is the defining principle of the U.S.

We need to be able to practice what we preach...we need to have a working democracy here at home before we can export it to other nations.

The President still claims that Iraq was a clear threat.
I agree that the terrorists are people who do not have room for negotiation, but I do not agree that there was a the necessary evidence to warrent an attack on Iraq. Sadam Hussein was without a doubt someone worthy of being tried for his crimes against humanity, but he is not alone. There are other very, very bad world leaders out there with whom America still has diplomatic relations--no sanctions! Nothing! And so why is it that we have not addressed these other nations? Because they are not a threat to the United States? Perhaps. However, there are more issues that need to be addressed than the number of soldiers and first responders or the resources and laws needed to keep people secure, to stop terrorists from killing!

Is our safety tied to positive outcome in Iraq? I agree with the President that our future is tied to the near future of Iraq. The President is suggesting that if we leave Iraq we are walking out on our obligations and letting Iraq to be a safe hazen for terrorists.
I want troops out of harms way, and I have seen several documentaries that seem to suggest that the Iraqi citizens would like to see troops leave. However, from these same sources I have gathered that there is much work to be done to rebuild the infrastructure....troops from the Coalition of the Willing, as well as American and international nonprofits, nongovernmental organizations, and corporations will be needed in Iraq for several years to come...
Hopefully, troops will be phased out and Iraqi's will feel more and more like they control their own destiny.


We need to help our neighbors in time of crises, of this there can be no doubt.
But am I expected continue to help my neighbors if I think they are bad people? Do I have the right to ask my neighbors to at least try to be better people? What if my neighbor has asked me to stop helping him/her? Even if I think she/he need my support, should I not respect his/her wishes?
When he suggests that we stand by our neighbor, I wonder which nation he was thinking about: Iraq or Israel?

Americans are still in mourning!
Yes, many Americans are still mourning...and many Americans are not paying attention. They are hiding from what is depressing. Mini-series like The Path to 9/11 still have the potential to do good, even if part of their content is false) because they might lure more Americans into paying attention. Path to 9/11 can help viewers understand that 9/11 should NOT have been a huge surprise: people did see it coming!!! Not just people in the Clinton administration, but also people in the Bush administration. Without something like The Path to 9/11 people would have not have connected the various terorist attacks and attempted terrorist attacks that have occured over the last 20-plus years!! The terrorist related attacks that have occured might seem to the ordinary NEWS viewer to be a series of unrelated events, events like the 1983 bombing of a marines military base in Lebanon, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and the arrest of a man smuggling explosives across the Canadian border into Washington State, and the suicide bombing of the USS Cole, and 9/11!!!

While the President continues to make his point that the terrorists hate us and want to kill us because we love freedom is a tad too simplistic...but I will conceed that this issue is one that will continue to demand our resolve and dedication if we are to let freedom ring.

Path to 9/11

The Path to 9/11 began airing on ABC on Sunday, September 10 @ 8/7c. The story is continued on Monday, September 11 @ 8/7c. There has been some controversy about the portrayal of fictional events.
Why is this an issue?

On September 7th, ABC issued a statement that the attacks against their film were premature, that no one has seen the final cut and changes were still being made. Yet, it seems to me that the scenes that were being attacked as misrepresenting the actions of real people were still a part of the film. ABC did not seem to change the film to make it more honest, but instead may have just added more reminders to be sure we knew that it was a docuDRAMA and not a documentary. I am very concerned that the purpose of this film is to convince American's that we need to suspend some of the chain of command and privacy issues that are inplace to maintain good relations between nations as well as protect our personal freedoms.

Knowing that some of the story is false is important. A message flashed on the screen during the middle and at the end of Sunday nights' airing that reminded the audience that the film was based on the 9/11 commission report, personal interviews and other sources. The message reminded us that what we were watching was not a documentary and some characters were composites, some events were fictional, and in some instances time was compressed.
I wonder if the message was added in because of the controversy.

If The Path is a docu-drama, what are the fictional events?

So far, these are all the instanes that I know to be either "composites" or not at all true:
1) There was no moment when CIA agents teamed up with the North Alliance in Afghanistan to capture and possible kill bin Laden.
2) Madeline Albright did not warn Pakistan that tomahawk missiles would be flying through Pakistani airspace on the way to destroy bin Laden.

After the movie, ABC Nightline came on and let us know that there is more information being uncovered that indicate that there were attempts to take down bin Laden that fell through.

Even with the parts that were not contested for being fictionalized, there was an overwhelming theme: bureaucracy, the red tape, makes it difficult for the FBI and CIA to fight terrorists.

John O'Neil, the character played by Harvey Keitel, has many great lines that help build the main message: how can we fight a war with terrorists through the channels of law and order!
It seems to me, thus far, that the purpose of the fictionalized scenes is to emphasize the main point. It is possible that liberals and conservatives alike are both at odds with the film because it means that politics are the main problem in the war on terror.....tonight, everything happened on Clinton's watch, tomorrow it will be the G.W. Bush's administration who may be cast as the enforcers of red tape....

I am looking forward to finding out how the Bush administration is portrayed.

The issue of some scenes is that they are fictional and these are an important historic events. The issue with some of the scenes being fictional is that they may be misrepresentations of the acts of real people, like Madeline Albright.

Composite scenes, like those where CIA agents are working to locate and plan are one thing...maybe it happened that way and maybe it did not...there are few references to public figures (other than Massoud, the leader of the Northern Alliance). If this film were to be viewed by kids at school that would be the kind of scene that could be discussed in terms of the various reports about its accuracies...however the depiction of Madeline Albright doing something she claims she did not do seems to be more of an issue for the courts.

The film is a docudrama, which is why it is important to seek out multiple sources if a person is interested in knowing what really happened on the Path to 9/11.....this is also why it is important that people come out and discuss what really happened.

If some of the scenes are FALSE, I really hope the issue continued to be argued and that the truth is known.

We need to know if the actions of politicians held up law enforcement. We need to know how we can make protocol more fluid so that justice can be served and loss of life prevented. BUT we can not be convinced to forgo our civil rights in the name of national security!