National Security and the Liberal Left

A couple of days ago, I ran into Jane Mayer, whose impressive new book, The Dark Side, chronicles the Bush Administration's lawlessness.

At a luncheon seminar, she made the interesting point that progressives should make an alliance with the military in re national security issues, because "Samantha Power is the only left-liberal who has staked out a national security policy." Somebody else at the table noted, "she's not there any more," (an oblique reference to her departure from Obama's council of advisors, as a result of her calling Hillary "a monster," in an overheated moment during the primaries.)

Actually Samantha is still there, or at least she is here, very much in evidence on the scene. Anyway, I have long felt that any anti-war candidate debating John McCain starts out at a rhetorical disadvantage. So when I heard about a Human Rights First reception honoring some retired generals and admirals, I ( who also, incidentally, am also a retired military man-- although I only rose to the rank of PFC), was curious to hear what they had to say.

Lucky for me, the first retiree I ran into was the supremely articulate Rear Admiral John Hudson. As he explained to me, the message that he and his his fellow retired officers hope to bring to bring to both the Democratic and Republican conventions is this:

He talked about secret prisons, the Administration's illegal detention policy, and "the critical need for a single standard that governs what the CIA can do."

"Torture," he said, "is wrong legally, it's wrong morally, and it's ineffective."

His bottom line: "It's possible to align national safety and human rights."

This was not the first time I have heard such sentiments, but it was reassuring to hear them, one retired military man to another. And I liked that when I asked him how he felt about his years in the military,, the rear Admiral reminded me that JFK once said, "If any man is asked how he wants his life to be remembered, it's enough to have said 'I served in the Navy.' "

Comments (15)

1. >>>His bottom line: "It's possible to align national safety and human rights." <<<

   It is possible with the right leadership.

   Posted by Metteyya at 08/28/2008 @ 1:33pm

2. And now the obligatory right-wing responses...namely-

   "Screw that! Grrrrrr...Grrrrrrrr...Kill! Kill! Nuke 'em into the Stone Age! All (mostly, except the ones who do what we want) are a bunch of potential terr'rrurists! Grrrrrrrr!...Grrrrrrrr!"

   Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 1:42pm

3. lvliberty-You mean the FrankGrits who is hoping that McCain wins, and then fails, so that Hillary can have an easy shot at 2012?Hoping that McCain fails sure does show love of country because,of course,Frank has no choice,but to hope that McCain fails or else Hillary loses,again.The fact that you fell for Frank's lies so quickly explains why you have bought into Bush.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 08/28/2008 @ 1:55pm

4. Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/28/2008 @ 1:49pm

   According to LL...Don't want to nuke Iran...you "hate the military".

   Don't believe that "10-50% of Muslims are potential terrorists and thus in need of ULTIMATE sanction"...you "don't believe in National Defense".

   According to me...Don't buy into LVLIB's "Buck Turgidson" world view....

   well, you're sane for one thing!

   LOL

   Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 1:56pm

5. Posted by i'm nobody at 08/28/2008 @ 1:55pm

   Yeah, saw that too.

   Can't tell if LVLIB is that NAIVE, and actually thinks FRANK is supporting McCain ..for McCain (and not to hope he fails so HRC gets 2012)...

   or he's just lying, but will grasp at ANY straw, even a "GRITSY" one.

   Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 1:58pm

6. Mask-For obvious reasons Frank has to hope that McCain fails otherwise the GOP wins in 2012 and that,pretty much,puts an end to Hillary.Of course,luvvy is so desperate that he will buy into anything including someone having a temper tantrum,like ol' Frank.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 08/28/2008 @ 2:01pm

7. Lvliberty-It's quite interesting how cult followers,like FrankGrits and Happy, believe that everyone is a cult follower just as it's interesting how you and Rio, who are on the extreme right, believe that everyone else is an extremist, too.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 08/28/2008 @ 2:04pm

8. Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/28/2008 @ 2:25pm

   And LVLIB contradicts...LVLIB.

   He's often said FDR and Truman were "Liberal Leftists"...

   so who won World War-II for us, Larry....Thomas Dewey?

   A real moron (no "oxy")

   Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 2:30pm

9. LvLiberty-History teaches that liberal left and national security are not contradictory terms and you showed your ignorance and how gullible you are with your statement about Frank Grits.You have a warped view of what constitutes love of country and believe that being angry with America because America did not go with Hillary shows love of country.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 08/28/2008 @ 2:32pm

10. Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/28/2008 @ 2:34pm

    So, MAASCH, Republicans think national security and human rights are mutually exclusive???

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 2:41pm

11. Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/28/2008 @ 3:38pm

    You like Truman?....

    who was the FIRST President to propose a universal health care system?!?!?!?

    Who helped CREATE the United Nations?!?!?!?

    Who FIRED Douglas MacArthur?!?!??

    Who said "On the one hand, the Republicans are telling industrial workers that the high cost of food in the cities is due to this government's farm policy. On the other hand, the Republicans are telling the farmers that the high cost of manufactured goods on the farm is due to this government's labor policy.

    That's plain hokum. It's an old political trick: "If you can't convince 'em, confuse 'em." But this time it won't work."

    Who said "Senator Barkley and I will win this election and make these Republicans like it -- don't forget that! We will do that because they are wrong and we are right, and I will prove it to you in just a few minutes."

    Who said "I do not understand a mind which sees a gracious beneficence in spending money to slay and maim human beings in almost unimaginable numbers and deprecates the expenditure of a smaller sum to patch up the ills of mankind."

    Wow!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 3:58pm

12. Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/28/2008 @ 4:03pm

    Hair-splitting, LL?

    Any of those policies or quotes (if you didn't know who did them) YOU wouldn't term "liberal/leftist"...even "socialist"...or "peacenik appeaser" (in the case of MacArthur)?

    All in your attempt to link anybody left of Grover Cleveland a "liberal who would destroy National Security"!

    LOL

    Curious...who are the RIGHT-wingers who have "won the wars"? You discount World War-II as Roosevelt's and Truman's victory...but I bet you credit Reagan for "winning the Cold War" and Dubya for "winning Iraq".

    Why can't we say we won THOSE "despite" Reagan and Bush?!?!?!?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 08/28/2008 @ 4:12pm

13. think about why neocon establishment are careful in when "recession" has officially began and coincidentally why bush and putin sitting next to each other at beijing olympics are not even remotely alarmed when, on day one of olympics, prodded on by us puppet shalishskavil repeated harassment and attacking s ossetian and abkhazian citizens, both of which want back with russia, as does ukraine....

    both of last recessions ended with war, korean, vietnam, even 2003 invasion of iraq after dot com bust......

    so of course, this was well-planned in advance although mcbush's not knowing which countries border iraq, the leader of georgia, how to pronounce abkhazia, who attacked who, etc??? does not help his assumed foreign policy credentials...

    just like bush shouted some religious mumbo jumbo "i am on a mission from god"...blah blah infidel....blah blah hating freedom.....bs bs bs mcbush will just say POW POW POW POW POW when asked something he doesn't understand, doesn't hear, or both.......and all journalists know by this point to just do what they're told......don't ask the senile old man to answer anything....just like idiot bush didn't know anything....so don't ask, don't expect accountability, expect fudged numbres like today's gdp which can make rich traders even wealthier...middle class can't afford a loaf of bread unless they can fuel their cars with it.....git r dun mcsame '08

    Posted by jrs112 at 08/28/2008 @ 4:32pm

14. The conservative wing of the Republican party lead by Taft opposed the aid for Britain that Roosevelt was providing before Pearl Harbor and favored isolationism. If conservatives were leading the country before WWII Europe would be Nazi and Asia would be Japanese. LL needs to actually study history before he invents alternative histories.

    Posted by Guiles at 08/28/2008 @ 4:40pm

15. LvLiberty-I'm sorry to do this to you, again,but I do not hate Reagan and figure that he was an okay POTUS,but he did not win the cold war nor am I the only non Reagan hater that believes that he did not win the cold war.Your opinions of Bush,Iraq,Reagan and the cold war,gays,the Bible,etc. do not constitute facts nor is it just the left that does not believe that your opinions are facts.The idea that in order to be an honest, America loving,troop loving,Heaven bound person one must agree with your opinions is ludicrous.You have opinions just like everyone else and yours are not more valid.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 08/28/2008 @ 4:44pm