The first use of “terrorism”

November 3, 2007

Did you ever wonder when the term “terrorism” first appeared, and against what terror it was aimed?

George Bush and Dick Cheney will not like the answer. François Furstenberg gives the history of the term in an opposite-editorial page piece in the New York Times, “Bush’s Dangerous Liaisons.”

Here’s a hint: The phrase referred to governmental the ruling party’s actions against its own people, originally.

Furstenberg is a professor of history at the University of Montreal, and a scholar of George Washington.


White House refuses anti-war petition from Christians

October 13, 2007

Two Christian leaders were arrested after they held up copies of anti-war petitions they were trying to deliver to the White House.

Earlier in the day they had delivered the petitions to leaders in Congress, in both the House of Representatives and Senate.

In unrelated news, surgery to remove George Bush’s fingers from his ears was unsuccessful.

(Would it hurt Bush to just gracefully accept the petitions and deprive these people of a chance to be arrested?)

[Video of the arrest is posted with the press release.  Thanks to those who wrote to let me know whether my attempt to embed the video here worked (it didn’t).]


Petraeus vs. Westmoreland

September 22, 2007

Santayana’s ghost sends links: The Horse’s Mouth via The Good Democrat.

Who are these guys? What did they say?

Gen. William Westmoreland, circa 1967

Gen. David Petraeus, 2007

Left, Gen. William Westmoreland, testifying before Congress, circa 1967; right, Gen. David Petraeus, testifying to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, September 11, 2007


Quote of the moment: Lessons of Vietnam, according to David Petraeus

September 12, 2007

I lift this completely from Chris Bray’s post at Cliopatria:

Wise Words

“The Vietnam experience left the military leadership feeling that they should advise against involvement in counterinsurgencies unless specific, perhaps unlikely, circumstances obtain — i.e. domestic public support, the promise of a quick campaign, and freedom to employ whatever force is necessary to achieve rapid victory. In light of such criteria, committing U.S. units to counterinsurgencies appears to be a very problematic proposition, difficult to conclude before domestic support erodes and costly enough to threaten the well-being of all America’s military forces (and hence the country’s national security), not just those involved in the actual counterinsurgency.”

David Howell Petraeus, The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam: A study of military influence and the use of force in the post-Vietnam era. PhD Dissertation, Princeton University, 1987. Page 305.

Dr. Petraeus is better known as Gen. Petraeus these days. Your assignment: Compare and contrast his statement from his dissertation with his testimony to Congress over the past two days. (Note the link above takes you to his actual dissertaion, in .pdf form.)


American hero: Jack Goldsmith

September 7, 2007

Jack Goldsmith, Harvard U photoJack Goldsmith. This book, when you read it, will explain why he is a hero. Goldsmith is the guy who pulled back the memorandum from the U.S. Justice Department that authorized illegal torture.

There is hope for America so long as good men will do the right thing, quietly, out of the spotlight, and then move on without seeking credit. Watch Moyers’ interview with Goldsmith.

It’s revealing that his pictorial muse, guardian, taunter and inspiration was Elliot Richardson.


Cheney calls Iraq “quagmire”

August 12, 2007

Santayana’s ghost* e-mailed to call attention to this interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, in which he tells the errors of invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein.

Unfortunately, the interview was with Dick Cheney in 1994, when he was ex-Secretary of Defense, hanging out with the American Enterprise Institute.

Talk about condemned to repeat the errors of history!

* In this case, in the guise of son, Kenny.


Instapundit plays politics with Iraq policy

August 3, 2007

Glenn Reynolds wants to be able to blame Democrats regardless what happens in Iraq. Instapundit jumps on a stretched, absurd claim that Democrats will “be in trouble” in the 2008 election if the surge in Iraq works.

Santayana’s ghost laughs.

First, one needs to remember what happened to George Bush I, whose approval ratings were north of 80% at the conclusion of the Persian Gulf War, which liberated Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. On February 28, 1991, George H. W. Bush looked to be a solid lock for winning the 1992 election campaign.

Bill Clinton defeated Bush handily just 22 months later. Among many other factors, with the nation not focused on war in the Middle East, the economy became a key issue. There are a few people deep in Democratic strongholds who are cynical enough to say the Iraq War could have been over by the end of 2003, but Karl Rove wanted a war to be sure Bush won in 2004, Rove having observed the lessons of 1992.

Read the rest of this entry »


Constitutional limitations on regal fantasies of presidents

July 24, 2007

Some people still defend the Madisonian view of the Constitution and its limits on the powers of the president (Adam Cohen in the New York Times):

The Constitution cannot enforce itself. It is, as the constitutional scholar Edwin Corwin famously observed, an “invitation to struggle” among the branches, but the founders wisely bequeathed to Congress some powerful tools for engaging in the struggle. It is no surprise that the current debate over a deeply unpopular war is arising in the context of a Congressional spending bill. That is precisely what the founders intended.

Members of Congress should not be intimidated into thinking that they are overstepping their constitutional bounds. If the founders were looking on now, it is not Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who would strike them as out of line, but George W. Bush, who would seem less like a president than a king.


The scary truth about Powerline

July 16, 2007

Clearly somebody at Powerline proofs the copy — I imagine spelling errors that sneak into publication get corrected. But does anyone ever bother to check the boys’ work for reality?

Today Powerline appears to be complaining about Rep. Keith Ellison, Minnesota’s and America’s first Moslem congressman. After reciting the usual Powerline diatribes claiming Ellison is probably a Marxist, certainly out of touch with America, and probably responsible in an unsavory fashion for the designated hitter rule and the movie “Gigl,” the blog details Ellison’s sins (in the eyes of Powerline).

Do they need glasses? A refresher course in history? What’s scary is that Ellison’s criticisms of the Bush administration start sounding so rational — and for that, Powerline has no response.

Powerline warns us that Ellison spoke to a group of atheists in Edina, Minnesota, in towns that suggest disaster in the next film reel, copying from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

“You’ll always find this Muslim standing up for your right to be atheists all you want,” Ellison, the first Muslim to serve in Congress, said in a speech to more than 100 atheists at the Southdale Library in Edina. As Minnesota’s first black member of the U.S. House ends his first six months in office, Ellison did not disappoint a crowd that seemed energized the more pointed he made his opinions.

Oh, my! Ellison takes the Jeffersonian stand on the First Amendment. Are we swooning yet? What? Oh, yeah, well — Powerline prefers to think that parts of the Bill of Rights don’t exist, not in the rude company they keep, I guess.

The truly revelatory point there is that Edina has 100 atheists. If Powerline had any sense, they’d worry about how that might limit their market.

On impeaching Cheney, which the Minneapolis DFLer supports: “[It is] beneath his dignity in order for him to answer any questions from the citizens of the United States. That is the very definition of totalitarianism, authoritarianism and dictatorship.”

So, Powerline worries that Ellison thinks the administration should be answerable to the American people? That strikes me as a pretty good idea, actually. Bully for Ellison. Unsurprisingly, even Republicans say the same thing [see the last paragraph].

The Vice President should answer to and be held accountable to the citizens of the nation. That’s one of the key points of our Constitution — the founders wrote in formal occasions for the administration to make such presentations. Do the guys at Powerline know about the Constitution and its requirement for reports to Congress?

On calling the war in Iraq an “occupation”: “It’s not controversial to call it an occupation — it is an occupation.”

Ellison calls a shovel, a shovel. What was it Powerline wanted? What does Powerline call it?

While it is possible to hope for a better future, analysts and business consultants teach that people must recognize the reality of the situation they are in before making effective and executable plans to change things for the better in the future. Powerline has other plans in Iraq than success for America?

Here’s the money quote, the one that has caused a major kerfuffle of controversy today:

On comparing Sept. 11 to the burning of the Reichstag building in Nazi Germany: “It’s almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that. After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country [Hitler] in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted. The fact is that I’m not saying [Sept. 11] was a [U.S.] plan, or anything like that because, you know, that’s how they put you in the nut-ball box — dismiss you.”

Powerline comments:

In promoting the disgusting conspiracy myths of radical “truthers” and extremist Muslims, Ellison is simply working his latest hustle to the growing audience in the nut-ball box. It’s an audience that includes the Minneapolis atheists who fancy themselves too intelligent to believe in God.

Here’s the problem: The Bush administration did use the events of 9/11 as an the emergency event to get things done that they needed a contingency for. What was to become the PATRIOT Act, instituting a new system of spying on Americans, was already drafted by September 1, 2001; administration officials worried that it appeared too great an over-reach. Memos show that some officials suggested waiting for an event that might galvanize opinion in favor of such a move. That event occurred on September 11, and the PATRIOT Act was before Congress within a few days.

Powerline doesn’t deny that, of course. They can’t . All they can do is throw invective at Ellison, call him a Marxist, and suggest he’s out of touch.

Which, of course, is what the National Socialist Party did to their political rivals in Germany after February 27, 1933, the day after the Reichstag building burned. President Hindenberg issued the Reichstag Fire Decree, suspending many civil liberties in Germany.

Powerline says Ellison can’t accuse them of doing what they’re doing, after they call him “Marxist” for noting the historical parallels — just as the National Socialists called their enemies Marxists (several communists were arrested and tried for starting the fire; while most were acquitted, Marinus van der Lubbe was convicted and beheaded; a German court overturned his conviction in 1981).

If you don’t want to be accused of latter-day Reichstag political fixing, don’t do the crime. The rest of us may wish Ellison weren’t so scarily close with his historic comparisons. The solution is for the government to defend civil rights, and to stop calling people communists or worse for simply disagreeing about policy.

I think I hear Santayana’s ghost giggling a bit, between sighs. If our national future weren’t at stake, it would be really funny.


Honoring heroes: Armed Forces Day 2007

May 19, 2007

1951 poster for Armed Forces Day

May 19, 2007, is Armed Forces Day. Fly your U.S. and state flags today.

Great Irony: The Defense Department website for Armed Forces Day is not exactly up to date, and suffers from lack of attention (just try to find events in your area from the page set up to do just that).

Which only makes the point: We have to support our troops — heaven knows the current government isn’t going to. Write a letter to the troops; join an event run by your local American Legion or Veterans of Foreign Wars — or an event to support the troops in a way the American Legion and VFW don’t support, but which is okay, too. Fly your flag. Do the right thing to honor those we send into harm’s way, for little pay and not enough thanks. (That site is much better maintained than the Armed Forces Day site.)

History stuff for classrooms, below the fold. Read the rest of this entry »


Dying to get the news in Iraq

May 11, 2007

74 journalists have died trying to get the news in Iraq since the U.S. invasion four years ago.  Has any other war produced so many dead journalists, so fast?  That number is about 16 per year.

The Newseum has a memorial to journalists who died trying to get the story.  It contains just over 1,500 names, for wars from the War of 1812 to the present.

Each year, the Freedom Forum commemorates World Press Freedom Day by rededicating the Journalists Memorial, which pays tribute to reporters, editors, photographers and broadcasters who gave their lives reporting the news. On May 3, 2006, the names of 59 journalists who died or were killed while on assignment in 2005 were added to the glass panels of the memorial. The rededication ceremony featured remarks by David Westin, president of ABC News. The Journalists Memorial now honors 1,665 journalists who died covering the news from 1812 through 2005.

What is it about this war that makes it so much more deadly than other wars, for journalists?  What does that say about the state of our world today, and the respect traditionally show to people who simply report what happens?


Richer historians, richer history: The Pulitzers

April 17, 2007

Columbia University unveiled the Pulitzer Prize winners yesterday.

In U.S. history, the prize went to The Race Beat:The Press, the Civil Rights Struggle, and the Awakening of a Nation, by Gene Roberts and Hank Klibanoff (Alfred A. Knopf). Cover, The Race Beat, Roberts & Klibanoff, Pulitzer 2007

Other finalists for U.S. History were: Middle Passages: African American Journeys to Africa, 1787-2005 by James T. Campbell (The Penguin Press), and Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War by Nathaniel Philbrick (Viking).

Roberts and Klibanoff share $10,000.

In Biography, the $10,000 first prize was awarded to The Most Famous Man in America: The Biography of Henry Ward Beecher, by Debby Applegate (Doubleday).

Finalists for the biography prize included two other great books: John Wilkes: The Scandalous Father of Civil Liberty by Arthur H. Cash (Yale University Press), and Andrew Carnegie by David Nasaw (The Penguin Press).

In the category of general non-fiction, where evolution has triumphed over anti-science bigotry in recent years, history is rampant in 2007, also. The prize for general non-fiction was snagged by The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11″ by Lawrence Wright (Alfred A. Knopf). Other finalists for the general non-fiction prize were Crazy: A Father’s Search Through America’s Mental Health Madness by Pete Earley (G.P. Putnam’s Sons), and Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq by Thomas E. Ricks (The Penguin Press).  Cover, The Looming Tower

High school history and other social studies teachers would do well to read each of these winners and the finalists.  They will be significant additions to any serious history curriculum, or government, and perhaps economics.


Applying the lessons of Vietnam #2: Honor veterans

February 26, 2007

Lessons from Vietnam as applied to Afghanistan and Iraq:

#2. Honor veterans when they return; honor the soldiers while they serve. One of the great errors of Vietnam was the failure to hold parades for returning soldiers. Regardless one’s views of the war, or its justness, or its execution, the soldiers who served deserved thanks, kudos, and a warm welcome back. They also deserved top-notch medical care for their injuries, physical and mental — Bob Dole, John McCain, Daniel Inouye, John Kennedy and others stand as monuments to what returned veterans can do for the nation when welcomed back and given appropriate medical care.

Vietnam was just a repeat of the error, however — Korean War veterans also got no homecoming parades. The Korean conflict is in fact known to some as “the forgotten war.” So we have more than 50 years of bad habits to break in figuring out how to honor our soldiers and veterans. We as a nation have not gotten it right for a very long time.

Honoring the veterans does at least two beneficial things: It helps the veterans readjust to life, if only a little, knowing that people at home appreciate them as individuals, and that people appreciate the sacrifices they made to serve the nation even when those sacrifices are so great as to be beyond comprehension. Read the rest of this entry »


Dissent effective: Stimson resigns from detainee post

February 4, 2007

Charles Stimson resigned Friday. Stimson is the attorney who was deputy secretary of defense for detainee affairs. You may recall he was the person who suggested in a radio interview that business clients of lawyers who provide legal counsel to detainees should pressure the attorneys not to represent the detainees, a suggestion that is contrary to the ethical canons of attorneys.

According to the New York Times:

Stimson drew outrage from the legal community — and a disavowal from the Defense Department — for his Jan. 11 comments, in which he also suggested some attorneys were being untruthful about doing the work free of charge and instead were ”receiving moneys from who knows where.”

He also said companies might want to consider taking their legal business to other firms that do not represent suspected terrorists.

The Defense Department disavowed the suggestion. Attorney General Albert Gonzalez also disavowed Stimson’s remarks. But Stimson said that the controversy hampered his effectiveness on the job. The NY Times said:

Stimson publicly apologized several days after the radio interview, saying his comments did not reflect his values and that he firmly believes in the principles of the U.S. legal system.

But it didn’t completely quiet critics.

The Bar Association of San Francisco last week asked the California State Bar to investigate whether Stimson violated legal ethics by suggesting a boycott of law firms that represent Guantanamo Bay detainees.

Earlier posts:


Lawyers, Bush officials quickly disavow Stimson remarks

January 15, 2007

Franklin is reputed to have said that truth wins in a fair fight. In the few days since Charles Stimson suggested the nation’s top lawfirms should not be representing clients being held in detention at Guantanamo Bay, condemnation has been swift, deep and broad. Even Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said lawyers should represent all accused. Perhaps the fight will be fair.

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Brian Maka, said Stimson was not speaking for the Bush administration.

Stimson’s comments “do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the thinking of its leadership,” Maka told The Associated Press on Saturday.

Ethics courses, now required at all U.S. law schools, generally spend a great deal of time on the issue of the duty of attorneys to provide representation to all criminal defendants, even and especially those who are unpopular or held in disrepute. Such representation is queried on the ethics exams that all lawyers must take to be licensed.

History offers many examples of lawyers and the difficulties they face in providing such representation: John Adams representing the British soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre (Adams largely won; eight were tried, six were acquitted, two convicted and branded on their thumbs as punishment); John Quincy Adams representing the men being carried for slave trading aboard the errant Amistad ; Clarence Darrow’s representation of the accused murderers Leopold and Loeb, and other cases. In literature, we get the fictional lawyer Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird, and the defense team in Inherit the Wind.

Perhaps we should be encouraged at the response to Mr. Stimson’s remarks. A lover of justice might be happier were these defenses of the legal system and the representation of all accused to be more apparently on display from government officials prior to and without such gaffes.

Also see:

Disclosure: A member of my immediate family is employed by Fulbright and Jaworski, one of the firms Mr. Stimson questioned — not in a legal capacity, not in representation of any of the Guantanamo Bay detainees. I was unaware of the firm’s being named by Mr. Stimson at the time of my first post. The views here, of course, should not in any way be construed as representative of any firm named, they are my own views.