Intelligence Failures Do Not Excuse Outright Lies

For years I have grown frustrated with the media for allowing conservatives to spin away the lies that got us into the Iraq War by blaming them on "intelligence failures." To anyone familiar with the facts, the Bush Administration went far beyond the intelligence they had received in their attempt to create artificial links between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein and to paint a picture of absolute certainty that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons. I know this perspective was "out there" in the media several years ago (circa 2006). But in the last couple of years, as Bush Administration officials attempt to re-write history, the media constantly allows them to dismiss the lies and avoid accountability as they blame "faulty intelligence." It makes me livid that I never hear it expressed as it actually happened. But I came across that perspective on an NPR show that is now a couple weeks old. I just listened to a Talk of the Nation podcast in which David Corn of Mother Jones debates Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute on the Iraq War, seven years in (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125065169&ft=1&f=1004). David is awesome here, totally calling out this "intelligence failures" spin for what it is. Rubin of course pulls out the old spin, but seems a little taken aback that someone is actually laying it all out as it happened. Neal Conan is typical here, trying to lay out some sort of middle ground between the facts and the right-wing spin. But Corn does a good job and gets the perspective out there. It's a GREAT listen and a relief to hear it "out there." There needs to be more pressure on the media to prevent the right-wing from constantly getting away with blaming Iraq on intelligence.

Patriotic Disqualifiers

I was in the south recently admiring southern pride in the confederate flag, and it got me thinking about patriotism. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that most of those that proudly fly the confederate flag are conservatives. Conservatives, in my experience, spend a lot more time trying to claim to be more patriotic than non-conservatives. So how does patriotism jive with flying the confederate flag? Isn't it fundamentally anti-American to fly a flag that represents splitting off from America? Or is it possible that I'm missing something here? It seems like there are several things that should automatically disqualify a person from being able to claim to be highly patriotic. These include--but are not exclusive to-- the following examples:

Swastikas: You can't have a swastika tattoo, or hat, or headband, or swastika on anything (unless you are clearly dismissing it as evil or making fun of it as evil), and still claim to be patriotic. We fought a bloody war where many American's lost their lives to the Nazi's. Combining this with the fact that Nazi's were inherently evil in their treatment of Jews, their general racist views, and their militant, dictatorial worldview, leaves no room for trying to rationalize displaying a swastika.

Confederate flag: I've already covered this above, but I just can't see how flying the confederate flag can be consistent with patriotism. Maybe there is some window here for southern pride in Alabama or Georgia, but if you live in Indiana or Michigan, there can be no excuse. And I don't even buy the southern pride bullshit. Southern pride in what? Wanting to exit the United States? Slavery (i.e., all men are NOT created equally)? It may be demonstrating pride in the south, but it's clearly anti-patriotic.

Suggesting that your state might succeed from the U.S.: Besides being bat-shit crazy, anyone that suggests that their state might find itself in a situation where succession is necessary cannot claim to be Patriotic. The rationale here is the same as for the Confederate flag, but even more clear cut. Of course many will recall that Texas Governor Rick Perry recently stated that Texas may need to succeed from the union, perhaps because they don't wish to live within a country with a black president. Regardless of the reason, there is NO WAY that Rick Perry, or any of his supporters at this point, could claim to be patriotic.

Routing for your country to fail: If you route for your country to fail for political or pretty much any purpose I can think of, you cannot claim to be patriotic. I heard conservatives claim that liberals wanted the US to fail in Iraq. While I personally never heard any of the liberals that I know (or liberal political pundits) wish for anything like this, if they existed they cannot claim to be patriotic. Similarly, anyone who celebrated when Rio was awarded the Olympics of Chicago cannot claim to be patriotic. This one I did actually hear with my own ears happening on Fox news and Rush Limbaugh--decidedly not patriots! Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was a little like this as well, though I would give it a pass because it was a little premature.

Of course I'm fully aware that there are individuals within each of the above groups that strongly claim to be patriotic. But claim as they may, I don't think there can be any question that they ARE NOT proud patriots of the United States.

Of course there are many other examples of patriotic disqualifiers that I didn't cover here. There are the obvious such as treason, spying, taking up arms against the US, or criminal activity. But there are other obvious actions that I'm also not getting into, such as willingly despoiling the natural integrity of your country or sacrificing the economic integrity of your country for your own financial gain. But these are each complex issues in-and-of themselves and admittedly include many gray areas. The examples above are more symbolic, but important and more clear-cut. What are some other automatic non-patriotic activities that I missed?