In the foreign policy arena, the right wing kook patrol spent the week residing on a foreign planet.   For all their religious musings, it seems right wingers always forget the golden rule.  Instead they operate under a different modus operandi: two wrongs make a right.

Thus, we see the likes of Pat “Don’t-Know-Jack” Sajak following in the footsteps of such rubes as Cal Thomas and Bill O’Reilly by downplaying the seriousness of torture scandals in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and elsewhere.   Instead of arguing the U.S. should be a city on the hill and a model of human rights (of course not, after all, that’s something Ronald Reagan would have done) we see right wing crazies continuing to argue that the U.S. is fighting with one hand tied behind its back by holding itself to higher standards in terms of human rights and civil liberties.  These war mongers don’t seem to understand that we need to win the hearts and minds of the rest of the world in order to truly cut back on Al Qaeda’s recruiting (and attempts to kill us).

As they drool over the idea of applying the “two wrongs make a right” principle to our foreign policy, right wingers are still on the titanic John Bolton bandwagon. Despite new evidence that he mishandled National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence and a failure to refute the serious charges already on the table, these right wingers have managed to keep their eyes on the prize.   What’s the prize?   Getting a fellow right wing looney tune (“I twot I twaw a democwat ...”)  into the United Nations.   .

Separated at birth?   You be the judge: Bolton1, Bolton2

This week we’ve also seen right wing fake “reporters” pull an old stunt on a number of fronts: using distorting headlines and leads to imply that a few fringe members of a group speak for the group as a whole.

MYTH: The United States has crippled its ability to win the war on terror by holding itself to a higher standard on civil liberties and civil rights

When the United States military is caught breaking the rules (Abu Ghraib) or is even wrongly accused of breaking the rules (Koran flushing), we hear a lot about how America needs to be held to a “higher standard”. Baloney. A high standard? Absolutely. The highest standard? Okay. But why higher?   (Pat Sajak, “Why Higher Standards for the U.S.?” Human Events, 5/23/05)

The handling of their Koran should be the least of our concerns.  Do you think Muslims would allow a Christian to have a Bible in an Islamic jail?  Remember .. the[y] confiscate and destroy Bibles in Saudi Arabia.  (Neil Boortz, “Koran Abuse Obsession Continues,” Boortz.com, May 26, 2005)

These people are evil to the core.  The only way to protect ourselves is to extract information they might have by whatever means necessary … This isn't about winning a congeniality contest. It's about winning a war and defeating an enemy so they won't try this garbage again. Let's put the fear of God into them and stop putting it unnecessarily into ourselves.   (Cal Thomas, “Modified Interrogation Tactics: Good News for the Enemy,” 5/2/05)

[I]f we keep going by Martha Stewart rules, we're...puttin' ourselves at risk. How much proof do ya' need?   (Bill O’Reilly, “The O’Reilly Factor,” Fox News, 6/1/04)

"The nature of [a "war" against terrorism] places a high premium on ...factors such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors ... and the need to try terrorists for war crimes... [t]his new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners..." (Alberto Gonzeles, Memo to the President, 1/25/02)

REALITY

French journalist and author Octave Mirbeau once wrote that “The greatest danger of bombs is in the explosion of stupidity that they provoke.”   Of course right wing stupids like Pat Sajak and Bill O’Reilly would never listen to a Frenchman – nor care about France’s opinion of the United States.  

If these psychos did heed Octave Mirbeau’s advice they would learn a simple lesson: just because we can do something, doesn’t mean we should.   Sure, we could lower ourselves to the standards that other countries use for human rights (standards we look down upon), but would this really be in the best interests of the United States and our national security?   No.  

Simply put: the United States needs to win over hearts and minds in the world in order to win the war on terror (even simple-minded Sajak should be able to understand this.  

As former Kennedy aide Ted Sorenson so eloquently explained in his recent commencement address at the New School, the United States counted on balancing its “military might with moral authority” in order to win the Cold War.   Sorenson makes this argument as eloquently as anyone could possibly articulate.   This speech should be required reading for anyone who is curious as to what the U.S. needs to accomplish in order to win the war n terror.   Here is a brief snippet from this speech that everyone should read:

The damage done to this country by its own misconduct in the last few months and years, to its very heart and soul, is far greater and longer lasting than any damage that any terrorist could possibly inflict upon us.

The stain on our credibility, our reputation for decency and integrity, will not quickly wash away.

Last week, a family friend of an accused American guard in Iraq recited the atrocities inflicted by our enemies on Americans, and asked: "Must we be held to a different standard?" My answer is YES. Not only because others expect it. WE must hold ourselves to a different standard. Not only because God demands it, but because it serves our security.

Our greatest strength has long been not merely our military might but our moral authority. Our surest protection against assault from abroad has been not all our guards, gates and guns or even our two oceans, but our essential goodness as a people. Our richest asset has been not our material wealth but our values.

We were world leaders once - helping found the United Nations, the Marshall Plan, NATO, and programs like Food for Peace, international human rights and international environmental standards. The world admired not only the bravery of our Marine Corps but also the idealism of our Peace Corps.

…. Our founding fathers believed this country could be a beacon of light to the world, a model of democratic and humanitarian progress. We were. We prevailed in the Cold War because we inspired millions struggling for freedom in far corners of the Soviet empire. I have been in countries where children and avenues were named for Lincoln, Jefferson, Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. We were respected, not reviled, because we respected man's aspirations for peace and justice….

What has happened to our country? We have been in wars before, without resorting to sexual humiliation as torture, without blocking the Red Cross, without insulting and deceiving our allies and the U.N., without betraying our traditional values, without imitating our adversaries, without blackening our name around the world.

…Today some political figures argue that merely to report, much less to protest, the crimes against humanity committed by a few of our own inadequately trained forces in the fog of war, is to aid the enemy or excuse its atrocities. But Americans know that such self-censorship does not enhance our security. Attempts to justify or defend our illegal acts as nothing more than pranks or no worse than the crimes of our enemies, only further muddies our moral image. 30 years ago, America's war in Vietnam became a hopeless military quagmire; today our war in Iraq has become a senseless moral swamp.

… No military victory can endure unless the victor occupies the high moral ground. …(Ted Sorenson, “A Time to Weep,” Commencement Address at New School University, 6/21/04)

Unlike Pat Sakak, the American people “get” this.   A January 2005 poll conducted by the Security and Peace Institute found that, when asked which of the following statements they agreed with more, 50% of Americans chose the message echoing Sorenson’s remarks:

Statement A (Selected by 50% of Americans)

• A. The United States should balance our military might with moral authority. During the Cold War, the U.S. was a beacon of democracy and freedom throughout the world. Our generosity helped rebuild Europe, and our leadership brought down the Berlin Wall. We will ultimately be more secure if we are viewed as a driving force for good in the world.

Statement B (Selected by 41% of Americans)

• B. America will never be more secure if we obsess about our image in the world. The U.S. is in a unique and dangerous position because our enemy is different than any we have ever faced. Winning the War on Terror will require tactics that some people in other countries will never support.

(Security and Peace Institute, “American Attitudes toward National Security, Foreign Policy and the War on Terror” 4/23/05)

The poll also found that 65% of Americans say that America’s image in the world has declined since President Bush took office.   Of these Americans, 58% say this is a very serious problem and 32% said it is somewhat serious (meaning 90% say it’s at least somewhat serious).

And, lest the right wingers think the United States has some political capital to spend, even the Pentagon admits that we are having trouble winning over hearts and minds.

Also worth noting, as we mentioned in our debunker on torture, there are several strong and reasonable arguments that suggest torture is not an effective strategy for combating terror.   As we noted in detail: there is no proof that torture is effective; by using torture, we would encourage other countries to use it against us; people who are tortured may give false information/confessions to end their anguish; and there is always the possibility we would torture suspects who are innocent.

MYTH: The ”torture narrative” about Abu Ghraib has been discredited

The press corps nonetheless spent weeks developing a “torture narrative” that has since been thoroughly discredited, both by the independent panel headed by former Defense Secretary Jim Schlesinger and by every court martial to look at the matter. But rather than acknowledge that perhaps the coverage had been wrong, the media reaction has been to declare the many probes to be part of a wildly improbable cover-up.  (Wall Street Journal, “Journalists and the Military Newsweek's explosive allegation was no "honest mistake," Review & Outlook, 5/17/05)

REALITY

The Wall Street Journal and other right wing goofballs continue to play up false claims that the stories coming out of Abu Ghraib have been discredited.   As we mentioned in our torture debunker, this could not be further from the truth.

Here is some of what we wrote, which continues to be applicable:

Yet, what Journal declines to mention, is that the Pentagon has refused to allow an independent, outside investigation.  Of course the Defense Department has the right to take into account national security concerns when choosing whether or not to grant access to outside investigators.  Yet, these concerns should not serve as a virtual “get out of accountability free” card.  Until an independent investigation is conducted, all “findings” by the Pentagon itself can and should be taken with a grain of salt.

And, despite what the Journalwould have you believe, it is not only political partisans who are skeptical about the Pentagon’s findings.  Two particularly loud voices calling for an investigation into the scandal (and the role of commanding military officers) are the international human rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.  “Amnesty International blasted the United States on Thursday for failing to launch an independent probe into Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison scandal, a year after images of abused detainees first shocked the world ….” reported Australia’s ABC News (the foreign press has been aggressive in covering the Abu Ghraib story), “’People around the world will be recalling the horrific images they saw a year ago and wondering what happened to those prisoners,’ said Amnesty secretary general Irene Khan, noting that only a handful of low-ranking US soldiers had been prosecuted or disciplined over the outrage.” (ABC NewsOnline Australia, “One year on, Amnesty International blasts US for Abu Ghraib failings,”4/28/05 )   

Myth: John Bolton deserves to be confirmed as United Nations ambassador

Senators should indeed judge Mr. Bolton by the record. What is available confirms that Mr. Bolton is a man of integrity, conviction and fortitude with the ability to get things done, even in a hostile bureaucracy -- perfect qualifications for the U.N. The information deliberately withheld from the record, moreover, only reinforces the bottom line: John Bolton should be confirmed.    ( Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., “Confirmation overdue,” Washington Times, 5/24/05)

While admittedly controversial, Bolton possesses the direct experience and knowledge of the inner workings of the United Nations that make him an ideal selection. Regardless of which way you tilt your head, there is agreement that fundamental reform is necessary. Without question, Bolton is the best person to pursue that goal.   (Brett D. Schaefer, “John Bolton is right for the U.N.,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 5/23/05)

REALITY

This just in: YosemiteJohn Bolton is an irresponsible, dishonest, extremist, abusive, undiplomatic, moron.   That’s why opposition to his nomination has been building.  

The most recent concerns raised against Yosemite John is that he “may have mishandled sensitive National Security Agency material.”

Here are the specific concerns from Senator Jay Rockefeller, who conducted an investigation into this matter:

In addition to being troubled that Mr. Bolton may have shared U.S. person identity information without required NSA approval, I am concerned that the reason for sharing the information was not in keeping with Mr. Bolton's requested justification for the identity in the first place. The identity information was provided to Mr. Bolton based on the stated reason that he needed to know the identity in order to better under the foreign intelligence contained in the NSA report. According to Mr. Fleitz, Mr. Bolton used the information he was provided in one instance in order to seek out the State Department official mentioned in the report to congratulate him. This use of carefully minimized U.S. person identity information seems to be not in keeping with the rationale provided in Mr. Bolton's request. (Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Letter to Senate Foreign Relations Committee,” 5/25/05)

And, lest we forget, here are some of the other concerns about Bolton we’ve highlighted in our past debunkers:

• Bolton has been accused of hiding information from Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice (maybe that’s why the Bushies like him so much – lying and hiding information just may be a prerequisite to being Bush’s spokesman at the U.N.).

• Republican Senator George Voinovich and a bipartisan group of 60 former ambassadors oppose Bolton’s nomination (at least he’s been able to bring people together across partisan divides).

• Bolton has argued that the U.N. is only worthwhile to the U.S. when it serves our interests.   (Not that there’s anything wrong with that, right Dubya? And Johnny, have fun convincing the rest of the world that we’re not just manipulating the U.N. to serve our interests).

• Bolton has suggested that the U.S. should be the only permanent member of the Security Council.   (No word on whether he said that removing France would guarantee the Security Council will smell better).    

• Bolton has also been accused of verbally harassing employees and threatening to fire those who disagree with him. (Nice guy!)

• Boltoncriticized and harassed our allies.   (Who needs ‘em anyway?   We can afford $87 billion on our own)

• Bolton was involved in the Niger/Uranium claim that became part of the President’s State of the Union speech in 2003.   (Other than that, he’s a great guy).

So this is what the right wing views as a man of integrity?   Can we have three cheers for moral values??

MYTH: The International Red Cross thinks we’re Nazis, Europe hates Cuba, and the people of the Middle East just can’t get enough of their man W

We are trying to understand how a representative of an organization pledged to neutrality and the honest investigation of detainee practices could compare American soldiers to the Nazi SS. And considering the timing and content of several ICRC confidentiality breaches concerning the U.S. war on terror, it's fair to ask if similar views aren't held by a substantial number in the organization.  (Wall Street Journal, “As Bad as the Nazis? What the Red Cross thinks about the U.S. military.” Review and Outlook, 5/23/05)

Europeans Urge Tougher Line on Cuba.(NewsMax.com wires, “Europeans Urge Tougher Line on Cuba,” NewsMax.com, 5/22/05)

To venture into the Arab world, as I did recently over four weeks in Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq, is to travel into Bush Country.   (Fouad Ajami, “Bush Country The Middle East embraces democracy--and the American president,” Sunday, 5/22/05)

REALITY

Perhaps conservatives hate academia so much because none of the crap they pass off as “reporting” would stand up to any serious academic scrutiny.    Such is the case with a series of articles that right wingers have been trying to pass off recently.   These articles use the same trick: “baselessly take the opinions of a few and pass them off as representative of their larger group.”

While the examples cited here cover different topics, they are all similar in that they take advantage of this sneaky, sleazy, tactic.

Take for instance the Wall Street Journal’s crummy editorial calling upon the United States to “reconsider the ICRC’s role” (ICRC is the International Committee of the Red Cross).   Lash out at the Red Cross???   Could the editorial staff at the Wall Street Journal really be this obnoxious?   We know they’re pricks, but can they really be this bad?   Yep!

To try to drum up hatred for the Red Cross, the gargoyles at the Journal headline their editorial: “As Bad as the Nazis?   What the Red Cross thinks about the U.S. military.”   Yet, despite the implication that the organization has officially compared the American military’s treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to the way Nazis treated their prisoners, the Red Cross did nothing of the sort.   In fact, the Journal’s report is based on the comments of a lone man (a Red Cross team leader investigating Abu Ghraib) which were relayed to the newspaper by American sources.   Significantly, the Red Cross would not standby this person’s alleged comments.   In fact, the organization denies he said them in the first place.  

How do we know this?   The Journal admits it, albeit after burying it and slapping on the deceiving headline.   Here’s what the paper reports: “The spokesman [for the Red Cross] added, however, that he "can categorically say that the team leader did not in any sense compare the detention regime in Iraq to what happened in the ‘Third Reich.’”   Clearly, comparing Americans to Nazis is not the official position of the Red Cross as implied by the headline and the slant of the story.

The jerks at NewsMax.com pulled a similar stunt this week by headlining a story on Cuba:  “Europeans Urge Tougher Line on Cuba.”   One would think from the headline they were talking about European governments or public opinion polling of European citizens.  

However, read the whole article and you will learn that NewMax.com’s stooges are merely referring to some people and politicians in Europe who have been lobbying their governments’ to take tougher stances on Cuba.   No public opinion polling of Europeans.   No official stances by European governments.   This is a akin to headlining a story: “New Yorkers hate the Yankees” or “Americans want Bush impeached” based on interviews at a Boston themed bar in New York or with students at a Berkeley “I hate Bush” club.   In short, it is deceiving, deceitful, spotty journalism.

Speaking of spotty journalism, Fouad Ajami’s propaganda piece in the Wall Street Journal this week talked about how popular George W. Bush is in the Middle East.   His sources?   A few people he met when he went to some Middle Eastern countries.   Such an unscientific sampling would never hold water in any legitimate classroom,.   Yet, the Journal never lets serious journalism get in the way of its political agenda.

Apparently Ajami didn’t talk to these guys while he was in the Middle East.

Very often when someone sets out to read the newspaper or a website they glance at the headlines, read a few lead paragraphs, and only read in detail the stories in which they are most interesting.   Thus, deceptive headlines and leads are a powerful tool for misinforming the public.   Anyone who cares about journalistic truth should be on the lookout for this sleazy trick.