EMPORIA, Kan. - My last article was largely cut and pasted from a letter to the editor submitted to my local newspaper, The Emporia Gazette. That letter generated significant comments on the newspaper's online forum. That article and forum can be viewed here.
Subsequently, a person wrote a letter to the editor critizing my prior letter which also generated a significant number of comments. That letter can be viewed at this link.
Yes, I admit I lost my composure and shouted out "you lie" a la South Carolina, U.S. Republican Representative, Joe Wilson, during a joint session of Congress at which the President was giving a speech last year.
Perhaps I fancied my retort as too clever by half but it was inappropriate and rude and not conducive to the civil discourse I seek to promote and which I had criticized as a general failing with internet forums in one of my responsive comments to the original letter to the editor. I do hereby offer my unqualified apology to Mr. Spalding and the community in attendance for my outburst.
I do maintain that Mr. Eshnaur and most of the commentators failed to rebut my initial presumption, to wit: evidence of the Heritage Foundation's bias in favor of corporate business interests and their Republican Party lapdogs under the guise of promoting a traditional, conservative interpretation of the foundations of our democracy can be found in the attacks on A.C.O.R.N. What the national Republican Party finds so objectional about the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now is primarily that it has registered hundreds of thousands of previously disenfranchised poor people who overwhelming identify with and vote for Democratic Party candidates.
The initial revelations by neo-conservative, amateur filmmaker, James O'Keefe, of several low level A.C.O.R.N. staffers who appeared to offer assistance to O'Keefe's purported request for assistance in setting up a brothel were widely reported on Fox News and conservative websites. The conservative media echo chamber and Republican Party talking points (combined with repetitive video clips of Mr. O'Keefe's assistant dressed up in a tight fitting ultra miniskirt to satiate the American public's demand for titillation and voyeurism) created a media firestorm leading to the Congress passing a law to prevent A.C.O.R.N. from receiving any further federal funding of its wide ranging inner city initiatives. Additionally, some 30 Republican members of Congress cosponsored legislation to declare Mr. O'Keefe a national hero.
The Heritage Foundation also feed the frenzy and feigned outrage at the actions of the office workers (who were quickly fired by A.C.O.R.N.'s management) and demanded investigations and prosecutions.
Here's the truth! A.C.O.R.N. hired an outside investigator, the former attorney general for Massachusetts, whose report of the alleged undercover expose concluded that A.C.O.R.N., while having poor management oversight, did not break any laws. A separate investigation by the official Congressional Research Service also concluded that A.C.O.R.N. did not break the law. Conversely, the reports suggest that O'Keefe heavily edited the hidden camera videos to make the actions of A.C.O.R.N.'s employees appear particularly egregious. Additionally, it was reported that O'Keefe's "film making" may have violated the privacy laws in California and Maryland.
Of course, now that Mr. O'Keefe and his associates (some of whom have interned with Republican members of Congress) were nabbed attempting to practice more of their style of 'gotcha journalism' in the office of Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, all his champions suddenly act like they never heard of him and demand that he be given the benefit of the doubt as to the felony charges filed and, again, fake outrage that the "liberal" mainstream media is engaged in a rush to judgment.
And the legislation that passed Congress to deny federal funds for A.C.O.R.N.? That was struck down by a federal district court as a Bill of Attainder... something specifically prohibited by the founding fathers in the U.S. Constitution to protect individual liberty.
Now, I don't pretend that A.C.O.R.N. is a benign, altruistically motivated, non-partisan group. And it may be that an appellate court will overturn the judgment of the lower court and there appears to be an additional investigation of A.C.O.R.N. to be conducted by the Government Accounting Office -- the outcome of which may show wrong doing or even criminality on A.C.O.R.N.'s part. The point is that there was a rush to judgment fed by the usual suspects on the Right which was all designed to discredit a liberal organization that espoused political positions objected to by business interests, e.g., increasing the minimum wage, and that is a more dire threat to the foundations of our democracy than either A.C.O.R.N.'s antics or O'Keefe's misdirected film career.
I, for one, am glad that you are fired up and working hard for the causes you care most about. We need more people writing, vocalizing and standing up for what they believe is right. Good for you James!
James, I think your assessment of the Heritage Foundation was not only quite accurate, but, in my opinion, it was rather mild. Especially, if compared to my opinion of the organization that I have formed through more than two decades of tracking its policies.
Maybe Mr. Eshnaur simply didn't know that the Project For A New American Century (PFNAC) was an outgrowth of the Heritage foundation. If he didn't realize that fact, it would be understandable that he might have a more benign opinion of the organization than it merits.
The PFNAC was founded by Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and several other self-described ultra-conservatives who are now, or have been previously, employees of the oil industry, or who personally benefitted from ownership or board positions in the oil industry. (Cheney was former CEO of Haliburton and actively engaged in trading with Iraq when it was officially illegal for American companies to do so - - but, when did US law ever stop Richard Cheney?)
Cheney and the other full fledged members of the Heritage Foundation founded the PFNAC immediately following Gulf War #1 with the single-minded purpose of lobbying for the invasion of Iraq and, taking over its oil fields. I think L. George Eshnaur III of Emporia was being disingenuous - - or sorely lacking knowledge of the Heritage Foundation's history - - when he accused you of unfairly labeling the conservative "think tank" as being philosophically and politically pro-corporation in its political slant.
Anyone who has read anything about the Heritage Foundation cannot conclude otherwise. It's philosophical bent was so blatantly pro-oil industry, they spun off the PFNAC to specifically lobby for the invasion of Iraq. Their own white paper even claimed that the only way to facilitate the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of its government was if America suffered a "modern equivalent of Pearl Harbor."
Never mind that the Clinton administration gave the group a virtual "bum's rush" out into the street with their hats and coats thrown after them when they proposed that Clinton invade Iraq. Mainstream Congress members on both sides of the isle, the State Department, Defense Department and the White House were virtually unanimous in their assessment that Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al. were, simply, too extremist to take seriously.
And, I'm certainly not alone in finding it almost too - - convenient, ironic, revealing ...pick an adjective you feel is appropriate - - NOT to take note that PFANC rhetoric began referring to the attack on the WTC and Pentagon as "a new Pearl Harbor" as soon as it happened - - echoing the organization's own Iraqi white paper. But, I digress.
The Heritage Foundation's influence on American foreign policy was profound because founding member Richard Cheney immediately ordered the CIA, the DIA and other intelligence agencies to "give me intelligence to connect Iraq to the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon," or words to that effect.
And, of course, to help bolster the case for war with Iraq, the PFNAC team (AKA: the Bush team) initiated a massive and intense propaganda campaign. Jim, I don't believe anyone could say that's an overstatement because the Bush team established the Pentagon Office of Special Plans specifically to serve as a conduit for false, cherry-picked and "factually challenged" intelligence they deemed necessary to bolster their case for invading Iraq.
Who has benefitted from our having invaded Iraq? Even two former field commanders who served in Iraq have testified that "accessing Iraqi oil" was the purpose for our invasion of Iraq. So, James, I say again: your original label for the Heritage Foundation is, in my opinion far too kind and subdued. It occurs to me that L. George Eshnaur III of Emporia, really hasn't delved very deeply into the policy papers of the Heritage Foundation if he thinks that your reference was unfair or inaccurate.
And, though he defends his position by saying that "similar charges can be made against the Center for American Progress for creating and disseminating liberal (Progressive) ideology;" I would humbly point out to Mr. Eshnaur that formulating policies that benefit all Americans - - the underlying goal of progressive think tanks - - is a far cry from actively pursuing the single-minded goal of invading Iraq and establishing the Office of Special Plans to serve as a veritable lie factory and distribution center with the sole purpose of frightening the American public and Congress into clamoring for an extremely unnecessary war.
Today, we know that the Bush administration knowingly issued 935 proven lies prior to the invasion. Though I certainly do not wish to accuse members of the Bush administration of being Nazis, by any means, it's quite sobering to realize the similarities between the theories of Hitler's minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels -- who said, "It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion." -- and the policies that were obviously put in place by the Bush administration to specifically facilitate the Iraqi invasion - - a plan of action that Bush's first Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil revealed were in place from the beginning. (Source: Suskind's book, "The Price of Loyalty.")
Considering that Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle and other charter members of the Project for a New American Century -- who had advocated invading Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War -- would Mr. Eshnaur deny that they successfully managed to manipulate American public opinion in a way that resulted in the invasion of Iraq?
In addition to embracing Goebbels' philosophy of deceit, I believe the Heritage Foundation and its prodigies in Bush inner circle also took heed of what Hermann Goering said during the Nuremberg Trials: "Naturally the common people don't want war. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
So, James, if you'll allow me a favor, I would be honored to stand with you in support of your original assessment of the Heritage Foundation and hope your fellow Emporian, Mr. Eshnaur will read this additional information about the Heritage Foundation. Maybe he just didn't know about how integral that organization was in formulating the false case for the invasion of Iraq.
What really made my blood boil when I was listening to the Heritage Foundation's Spalding was his assertion that Progressivism was and remains (the various Democratic health care proposals being the most recent iteration)an outgrowth of the French Revolution and the German administrative state of the 19th century which represents a dire threat to the notion of American exceptionalism and liberty. This coming from someone whose organization remained very quite while the previous administration pushed the boundaries of the Constitution by adopting policies as diverse as eavesdropping on U.S. citizens, and the torture of enemy combatants to intrusion into the medical decisions of a single individual on life support.