Who Wants War?

Dr. Ron PaulIf anyone still doubted that this administration's foreign policy would bring any kind of change, this week's debate on Afghanistan should remove all doubt. The President's stated justifications for sending more troops to Afghanistan and escalating war amount to little more than recycling all the false reasons we began the conflict. It is so discouraging to see this coming from our new leadership, when the people were hoping for peace. New polls show that 49 percent of the people favor minding our own business on the world stage, up from 30 percent in 2002. Perpetual war is not solving anything. Indeed continually seeking out monsters to destroy abroad only threatens our security here at home as international resentment against us builds. The people understand this and are becoming increasingly frustrated at not being heard by the decision-makers. The leaders say some things the people want to hear, but change never comes.
One has to ask, if the people who elected these leaders so obviously do not want these wars, who does? Eisenhower warned of the increasing power and influence of the military industrial complex and it seems his worst fears have come true. He believed in a strong national defense, as do I, but warned that the building up of permanent military and weapons industries could prove dangerous if their influence got out of hand. After all, if you make your money on war, peace does you no good. With trillions of dollars at stake, there is tremendous incentive to keep the decision makers fearful of every threat in the world, real or imagined, present or future, no matter how ridiculous and far-fetched. The Bush Doctrine demonstrates how very successful the war lobby was philosophically with the last administration. And they are succeeding just as well with this one, in spite of having the so-called "peace candidate" in office.
We now find ourselves in another foreign policy quagmire with little hope of victory, and not even a definition of victory. Eisenhower said that only an alert and informed electorate could keep these war racketeering pressures at bay. He was right, and the key is for the people to ensure that their elected leaders follow the Constitution. The Constitution requires a declaration of war by Congress in order to legitimately go to war. Bypassing this critical step makes it far too easy to waste resources on nebulous and never-ending conflicts. Without clear goals, the conflicts last forever and drain the country of blood and treasure. The drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war precisely because they feared allowing the executive unfettered discretion in military affairs. They understood that making it easy for leaders to wage foreign wars would threaten domestic liberties.
Responses to attacks on our soil should be swift and brief. Wars we fight should always be defensive, clearly defined and Constitutional. The Bush Doctrine of targeting potential enemies before they do anything to us is dangerously vague and easily abused. There is nothing left to win in Afghanistan and everything to lose. Today's military actions are yet another futile exercise in nation building and have nothing to do with our nation's security, or with 9/11. Most experts agree that Bin Laden and anyone remotely connected to 9/11 left Afghanistan long ago, but our troops remain. The pressures of the war racketeers need to be put in check before we are brought to our knees by them. Unfortunately, it will require a mighty effort by the people to get the leadership to finally listen.
Editor's Note: The Daily Bell is pleased to provide its viewers with editorials from a selection of free-market thinkers. These may have been reprinted elsewhere and are NOT necessarily representative of Daily Bell editorial policy. The Bell itself is unapologetically free-market and its perspective tends toward absolute privatization of all money functions and unconstrained capitalism so long as the capitalistic enterprise is not in any way advantaged by government.

http://www.thedailybell.com/index.asp

Mainstream media ignores climategate 14 days after news broke

Getty ImagesFor the fourteenth straight day, the three broadcast networks have failed to report on the great and growing ClimateGate scandal on their weekday morning or evening news programs. How to explain this? Perhaps it is that ABC, NBC and CBS have not yet heard of the story, despite two weeks of non-stop reporting on and discussion of ClimateGate in a whole host of media outlets. Perhaps the broadcast networks only trust their fellow liberal press outlets, like the New York Times. Perhaps they don't realize the Times exhibited journalistic diligence on ClimateGate, with a front page story the day the story broke. In the event that ABC News, NBC News and CBS News missed the news, the Media Research Center (MRC) is today rushing each of them a copy of the Times story, in the hopes that armed with this new information, they will finally report a story that has been roiling nearly everywhere else for a fortnight. So as not to offend the networks' pro-global warming sensibilities, MRC President Brent Bozell is looking to have the stories delivered by bicycle messenger. - MRC
Dominant Social Theme: Don't look now! ...

Free-Market Analysis: Wow, we didn't realize this was the case. We don't watch that much TV, especially American television, because we just can't stand it anymore. But sometimes you miss things, and this was one of them. We didn't realize that there hadn't been any formal reports on the Climategate controversy on American TV. Now, perhaps there have been reports on various talkshows, etc., but MRC claims that the major networks have not formally gone about covering the story. Incredible!
We have pointed out in the past that a major way of killing true reporting is to ignore it. This is much different than heavy-handed USSR tactics of "making up" news. The Western way has always been more subtle, at least in the 20th century. Not so sure about the 21st because of the Internet. But we watched how the powers-that-be carefully controlled news in the 20th century.
First, reporting was made into a graduate school degree. Second, the major media tended to hire from the graduate schools, and this was exceptionally effective when it came to larger issues of finance and politics. Those who graduated from these schools, especially with high marks, were already entirely conditioned. If you were a major media player with a specific conversational gambit, you didn't have to worry. Just like buying a car from a major producer - you kind of knew what you were getting.
But this wasn't enough, we saw. In the late 20th century, especially in America, which has always pioneered reporting as a good many other things, there was an effort to do away with sourcing. Lawyer Steven Brill, with shadowy funding (from our point of view), attempted to set up a quarterly magazine discussing journalistic "ethics" in general. One of Brill's big issues was that reporters not use "unnamed" sources. It went on for several years, article after article, reporter after reporter beating his or her breast about the sin and mortification of using unnamed sources, and Brill pontificating about the morality involved and how using unnamed sources should be grounds for dismissal.
Fortunately Brill went bankrupt - as regards the magazine anyway - and the movement to report without using the only kind of good source there is (an anonymous one) gradually faded away. (We're sure it will return sooner or later.) More pernicious and still attracting adherents is the whole idea that journalism should be "detached" and even-handed.
We've run several analyses on this issue, showing that journalism was always polemical, both in Britain and America, until well after the Civil War when a number of social standards shifted. We don't believe these changes were for the good, certainly they weren't sensible and in many cases we think they were inspired by determined manipulations that were intended to make news less incisive, less focused and generally less reliable.
Conclusion: And what do we have today, after more than a century of news "improvement?" After 100 years of turning news gathering into a profession, of setting the "highest standards," of ensuring as much as humanly possible that all forms of bias were excommunicated from the news rooms? ... Why we have America's major networks NOT COVERING THE SCIENTIFIC STORY OF THE DECADE FOR A FULL TWO WEEKS AFTER THE FIRST REPORTS. Kind of makes you wonder where all the improvement's gone, huh? Unless it's on purpose ... Ya think?
http://www.thedailybell.com/638/Big-3-TV-Ignores-Climategate.html