Bobby: The Movie

From:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/bobby-a-moving-tribute_b_35557.html



I just returned from seeing the new movie Bobby about RFK. It was a very rich, textured movie, and one that left me with an incredibly empty feeling. I wasn't around back then, but from what I can tell as an amateur student of history and political junkie is that, at least at the end of his life, RFK managed to inspire people; to make them feel like the day-to-day issues they faced were finally being confronted by the political Establishment; and to let them know that politics could be an arena where citizens - regular citizens - could be part of something larger than themselves.
He did this by using the celebrity power that came with his family name to shine a bright light on the taboos the Establishment back then and now would rather sweep under the rug: war and economic inequality.

What brings me down about the movie is not only that RFK was killed, but that there are so few leaders today who aspire to his model. Yes, there have been flashes. Bill Clinton's populist campaign in 1992 was a flash, even if Clinton's behavior in office and historical revisionism in Washington has now converted it into the supposed triumph of microwaved Fortune Magazine talking points. John McCain's race in 2000, too, had Kennedy-ish themes to it, not necessarily because of any of his issue positions, but because it had a genuine anti-Establishment feel. That McCain's subsequently dove right back into the muck that is the Beltway's destructive faux "centrism" does not negate what his momentary flash evoked in many.

All the world's a stage

Hangman, hangman, upon your face a smile,
Pray tell me that I'm free to ride,
Ride for many mile, mile, mile.

Oh, yes, you got a fine sister,
She warmed my blood from cold,
Brought my face to boiling hot
To keep you from the gallows pole,
Your brother brought me silver,
Your sister warmed my soul,
But now I laugh and pull so hard
And see you swinging on the gallows pole

From "Toronto Star" 1/4/07 http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/167592

The letters to the editor columns have captured these sentiments well, as the following four by non-Muslims show.

"Saddam was fit to go down in history as a tyrant. Now he has been elevated to the status of a martyr by an impatient America," wrote Rajneesh Tiwari in the Hindu, the much respected English-language secular daily in south India.

"Although there were few sympathizers for Saddam, his execution will only increase hatred for America and other Western nations," wrote Aditya Deshpande in the same newspaper.

"It is because of American policies that terrorism is increasing in the world," wrote Dr. Chandra Sekhar.

"The Bush administration has destroyed an ancient civilization and its ruler. If Saddam deserved the death penalty for ordering the killing of 148 Shiites, what ought to be the penalty for Mr. Bush for the deaths of 600,000 Iraqis?" asked Ram Das.

When you think about it, the overall Indian response is perhaps not that different than the sentiment of Canadians in this regard. By this I do not mean the views of our political class and many in the media establishment, which remain under the spell of the American spin, but rather those of ordinary Canadians.

Battle line's being drawn; nobody's right if everybody's wrong

Well, Georgie boy wanted to wait until after Christmas, so here we are now. Fish or cut bait Congress. Georgie has made his next move, as promised . And Rummy is only out of the limelight, not out of the picture, like, say Colin Powell.



From: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/06/world/middleeast/06petraeus.html?hp&ex=1168146000&en=689c1f2b896c5559&ei=5094&partner=homepage

A New Commander, in Step With White House on Iraq

Before the selection of General Petraeus, there was some doubt about whether the top Iraq commander would be an enthusiastic executor of the new strategy President Bush is preparing to unveil next week — one that could send 20,000 new troops to Iraq. Now, the White House will have an articulate officer to champion and shape that strategy, an important asset for an administration that has decided to buck the tide of public opinion by deepening the American military involvement in Iraq. While some Democratic lawmakers have insisted that any increase be limited to a few months, neither the While House nor General Petraeus would support such a deadline.

To many civilians, the military seems monolithic. But in fact, there has been a lively debate behind the scenes about the best way to achieve the United States’ objectives in Iraq — or at least to preserve a measure of stability as sectarian passions threaten to engulf the country.

At one end of the spectrum have been General Casey, Gen. John P. Abizaid, the head of the United States Central Command, and Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who is in charge of training Iraqi security forces.

They have advocated plans to hand over security responsibilities to the Iraqis while gradually reducing American forces and shrinking the number of American bases in Iraq, as conditions permit. Their argument has been that a lengthy expansion of American forces in Iraq will simply put off the day when Iraqis take more responsibility for their security.

Taking a different view, other officers have argued for sending more troops while stepping up economic efforts, the better to apply the military’s new counterinsurgency doctrine. Progress in stabilizing Iraq, they argue, will come only when the Iraqi public does not feel that it needs militias or insurgent groups to ensure its security, and when it concludes that its basic economic needs are being met.

What would Bobby do?

I know folks who would puke over that question. The Kennedys invoke strong emotion. It seems you either love 'em or you hate 'em. We are in similar times now, some 40 years after his assassination, with an unpopular war, peacenicks baying at the Pentagon's doorstep, and a sitting president who appears to not want to lose a war or any face. There are many differences though, too. This is a religious war this time.

But it is still the military-industrial complex we are fighting for. That same "complex" bemoaned by Lincoln, even, after war's end, and, of course, Ike, in his farewell speech to Congress. But I am convinced GW Bush thinks he's a crusader. Against terrorism and against Islam, defender of Israel, arbiter of Armageddon. I heard many times from my 'Nam vet peers that "those gooks do not respect life like we do here." That was their Buddhist outlook they were referring to. For us Christians it is one life, one judgement. What might have been misunderstood was that they were fighting for their country, in their country. We were as brutal as any army in history. A shameful period in our history. Now, we are embroiled in a war that has lasted longer than the last Big One and, although 3000 Americans have been killed over nearly 4 years, 650.000 Iraqis have perished. Dead Indians?

From: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/jus_the_facts/64

I submit to you that what took place
on November 22, 1963 was a coup
d'etat. Its most direct and tragic
result was a reversal of President
Kennedy's commitment to withdraw
from Vietnam. War is the biggest
business in America worth $80 billion
a year. The President was murdered
by a conspiracy planned in advance
at the highest levels of the United
States government and carried out by
fanatical and disciplined Cold
Warriors in the Pentagon and CIA's
covert operations apparatus - among
them Clay Shaw here before you. It
was a public execution and it was
covered up by like - minded
individuals in the Dallas Police
Department, the Secret Service, the
FBI, and the White House - all the
way up to and including J. Edgar
Hoover and Lyndon Johnson, whom I
consider accomplices after the fact.

** SOUTHEAST ASIA: 58,000 American lives, 2 million Asian
lives, $220 billion spent, 10 million Americans air - lifted
there by commercial aircraft, more than 5,000 helicopters
lost, 6.5 million tons of bombs dropped.

Not since Romans salted the earth at Carthage, has an army done so much damage to future generations of a country.

Peath is not a 4 letter word.

http://www.mcc.org/us/peaceeducation/speech/2004speech.html

In 146 BCE, Roman legions salted the ground of defeated Carthage to complete the destruction of their enemies' homeland and prevent the survivors from planting crops and rebuilding the city. But the same salt that prevented Carthage's rebuilding surely prevented wild plants from growing in the fields just as thoroughly, crippling an entire ecosystem just to keep Rome's enemies in check.

Nowadays, we have more effective things than salt. During the Vietnam War, the United States military dumped some 11 million gallons of the defoliant herbicide Agent Orange on about 10 percent of South Vietnam's land area. The strategic reason was to deprive enemy guerillas of cover — but the Vietnamese jungle received massive "collateral damage." Today the ecosystem is still poisoned by those herbicides. A study by native scientist Dr. Nguyen Viet Nhan, cited in a 1998 BBC report, links Agent Orange to a tripling in the rate of children born with cleft palates, extra fingers or toes, and mental retardation. The war is over, but the salt lingers in Nature's wounds.

At the end of the first Gulf War, the Iraqi Army deliberately released some 460 million gallons of Kuwaiti crude oil into the Persian Gulf, killing fish, turtles, crabs, mollusks, and between 20 and 30,000 seabirds. The Iraqis also set fire to hundreds of Kuwaiti oil wells, filling the air with smoke that actually altered the local temperature before returning to earth as acid rain.

Or, try this on for size--From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennet-kelley/what-would-bobby-do_b_35421.html