Changing The ToneWritten by Scott C. Smith
Continued from page 1
The pundits have also written books attacking liberals. Ann Coulter, a frequent guest on shows like Fox's Hannity and Colmes, has written a number of books slamming liberals. Sean Hannity of Hannity and Colmes also writes books, and includes titles that say "Deliver Us From Evil...defeating...Depotism and Liberalism." As if liberals were a group that needed to be destroyed. Michael Savage's latest book likens liberalism to a mental illness. On cable news, most conservatives are free to spew their hatred of liberals with little opposition. Hannity and Colmes, which stars Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes, is a perfect example of this dynamic. It's not an exaggeration that at times show will feature one or two (or three) right-wing guests "debating" with a lone liberal guest. Alan Colmes, representing liberal point of view, is not nearly as aggressive as Hannity in defending liberals or Democrats. Colmes may at times attempt a sort of aggressive response to a comment made by a conservative guest, but he doesn't come close to hatred espoused by Hannity. His technique for a liberal guest is to simply barrage guest with questions (or, more typically, statements) and demand that a liberal respond. Hannity has a number of pet liberals (like Colmes) he likes, such as "liberal" Fox News contributor Susan Estritch, who more likely than not will agree with Hannity. So much for "fair and balanced." It's time for Democrats, liberals and progressives to take a stand against onslought of liberal hatred by Republican politicians and pundits. Liberals like to take a beating, it seems, at hands of conservatives. I think many liberals believe it is better to take high road and not sink to level of a conservative who can scream over and over about how liberals hate America. It's not better. We need to defend ourselves and aggressively promote an agenda. Democrats in Congress seem to spend most of their time on defense against Republicans, rather than coming together to put forth a bold agenda on what direction to take America. Polls support idea that Americans are not happy with direction Bush is taking country, in some polls that number was about 60%. Democrats have a chance of taking a step towards removing Republican majority in 2006 mid-term elections. With bold leadership and clear ideas on how to make America better, we may just make it happen. Here's hoping it will.
Scott C. Smith is a Beaverton, Oregon freelance writer and regular contributor to Counterbias. Scott also writes for his blog, What’s In Scott’s Head, at Scott C. Smith dot net. Scott’s columns have also appeared at the liberal web sites Democratic Underground and The Smirking Chimp.
Dubious DemocracyWritten by The Indy Voice
Continued from page 1
According to Uniform Code of Military Justice every soldier must obey LAWFUL orders of their superiors including Commander-in-Chief. The internal conflict within soldier that Downing Street memo could raise is if President George W. Bush did in fact lie us into war violating constitution and international law. If that did in fact occur our soldiers would be under no obligation to follow his illegal orders. Imagine 150,000 armed troops realizing that not only do they not have to follow illegal orders of this Commander-in-Chief but that over 1700 of their brothers and sisters have died for a lie.
Is memo in and of itself reason for impeachment? Absolutely not but it does leave us asking some very serious questions that MUST be resolved. Depending upon answers to these questions President of United States may be impeached. That point is well off. First, questions must be asked of principals in hearings by Congress. Questions to Sir Richard Dearlove, Jack Straw and Matthew Rycroft who are responsible for content of memo. Questions like do you dispute minutes contained within memo? Who did you meet with in U.S.? When did you meet? What was discussed? Were you told that this President wanted to go to war with Iraq? Was an ultimatum issued to Iraq so that war could be legally justified? Was any other nation brought into discussions about Iraq prior to U.N. resolution? Who ordered escalation of bombing of Iraq prior to start of war and U.N. resolution, to point of dropping twice as many bombs as previous year in a matter of months? How was this legally justified? Was intelligence being presented to American people, United Nations and Congress knowingly false or inflated to justify war? Is it known whether or not this administration was intent upon war despite reality of situation?
These questions must be asked of highest members of our government. Failure to ask them goes way beyond partisan control and goes directly heart of our democracy. If Republicans cannot rise above what's good for their party for greater good of United States of America this experiment known as democracy is frankly headed towards failure.
The Indy Voice is a no-nonsense and hard-hitting blog that discusses politics, current affairs, and American society and culture and everything in between, without being married to any cold corporate conglomerate. Check it out: The Indy Voice