(An exceptionally important story - and a call to action, too. - promoted by TwoPuttTommy)
This past summer, Beth El Synagogue in St. Louis Park invited former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to appear in its National Speaker Series on Nov. 8. Starting in mid-July, Phil Freshman, a synagogue member, tried to raise through internal channels his concerns about the invitation and was rebuffed at every turn. He submitted an open letter to the Shofar, Beth El's monthly newsletter -- not allowed. He tried to distribute his letter by leaving copies around the synagogue -- not permitted. He asked for ten minutes to discuss the issue at the synagogue's annual meeting in August -- forget it. So he went public, first in the Minnesota-wide bi-weekly, the American Jewish World, on Sept. 18, and then in the Sept. 23 edition of the StarTribune. The synagogue now is justifying its invitation of the Secretary on the ground that it seeks dialogue on difficult issues. Some of that dialogue appeared here earlier. And the dialogue continues. A synagogue officer responded to Phil in the American Jewish World on Sept. 30:
On Sunday, November 8, at 6:00 p.m., Beth El Synagogue in St. Louis Park is welcoming former National Security Advisor, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to speak as part of its National Speaker Series -- at $50-$180 a pop and four figures for a private reception.
Phil Freshman, a Beth El member went public with his objections in a local weekly, the American Jewish World. His op-ed was re-published at tcdailyplanet.net, with a shorter version appearing in the Startribune.
OPINION Beth El should not have invited Condoleezza Rice
By PHIL FRESHMAN, American Jewish World
September 18, 2009
I was appalled and saddened recently to learn that Beth El Synagogue in St. Louis Park - the congregation to which I belong - will host former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Nov. 8, as part of its National Speaker Series.
A major fund-raising tool for the synagogue, the series has brought in the likes of Colin Powell, Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak and Dan Rather for brief speeches from the bima, followed by a question and answer period. Tickets range from $50 to $180 - and $1,000 for those who want to dine with the speaker and have a photo op before the presentation. The atmosphere is heimish, like having a guest at home. Typically, speakers offer no real challenges to mainstream notions about Israeli and U.S. government policies, and audience questions are relatively tame.
So, given this innocuous - if spendy - set-up, what's my beef?
By "proudly presenting" Rice in its sanctuary, Beth El is implicitly condoning her deeply immoral actions while in office. She continued to promote it enthusiastically and lied to Congress about it, as she did about the Bush administration's failure to respond to well-documented terror threats that preceded the 9/11 attacks.
Rice thus shares direct culpability for many thousands of American and Iraqi deaths, for the grief and ruin the war has brought, for the hundreds of billions it has cost (making it far harder than it otherwise would be for the U.S. to address its crucial domestic needs), and for related problems that Bush-Cheney policies have caused here and around the globe, including the further destabilization of the Middle East. Israel arguably is far less safe today because of the iniquitous mayhem Rice, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith stirred up.
Publicly, Rice helped fabricate the pretext for the war out of whole cloth. She stoked Americans' fears of "the next mushroom cloud," repeatedly offered "evidence" for Iraq's nonexistent WMD and testified to the "established connection between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein," all the while knowing there was none.
Maybe you can see why I'm appalled. Why am I also saddened?
By extending this invitation, Beth El suggests that the true implications of Rice's visit are secondary to her stature as a celebrity and her ability to draw a high-paying audience. More, it suggests a willingness to continue passively consuming routine thinking about the Middle East rather than engaging well-known speakers with a broad range of views who might jostle preconceptions and stir nonhomogenous thinking and discussion.
Rice likely will grab 20 minutes' worth of canned remarks from her desk, and make sure to oil the audience's anxieties about Hamas and Iran. The Q-and-A promises to be similarly superficial. Even if one or two hard questions happen to be asked, should anyone expect truthful answers?
Like many synagogues, Beth El needs considerable cash to pursue its mission and serve its congregation well - a need that is very hard to meet in this dire economy. Yet one vital service we expect synagogues to provide, perhaps especially in tough times such as these, is moral leadership.
Displaying tolerance - and it would seem respect - for a warmonger and abuser of numerous American legal values, and core Jewish principles, is hardly a sign of moral leadership. Entering the Days of Awe, Beth El congregants should mull the meaning of giving a platform (plus a hefty check) to Condoleezza Rice and think about the tarnishing message it sends.
Dr. Gary J. Krupp, the president of Beth El, responded in a Startribune opinion piece on Oct. 7, 2009.
MY VIEW Beth El hosting Rice as part of public dialogue Beth El's series aims to support range of views Public should embrace debate on hard issues
By Gary J. Krupp
This Nov. 8, Beth El will be the proud host of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. A fellow congregant recently spoke out against the invitation in an op/ed published in the West Extra section on Sept. 23. As president of the board of trustees of Beth El, I believe that a synagogue is the perfect venue to address difficult topics and that religious communities and institutions have a responsibility to engage with today's issues in a respectful, honorable manner.
Beth El's National Speaker Series was established more than a decade ago as a way to bring provocative leading voices to our community to address important and potentially controversial issues of the day. It is all about providing nationally recognized speakers for our community to engage in dialogue and discussion within a respectful setting.
The previous letter helps underscore why this type of discussion is so critical. We live in an increasingly polarized society where demonization poisons our ability to engage in civil, public discourse. We all see it every day in discussions about politics, health care and the handling of the economy. Our public debate is limited to only listening to those whose views are identical to our own. We each tend to limit our access to voices that mirror our own on the Internet, hundreds of television channels and through a broad range of publications. We are talking among ourselves rather than to others.
But how will we ever learn to understand each other if we listen only to ourselves? Among the many values of Jewish tradition is strong support for a diversity of viewpoints, opinions and perspectives that encourage dialogue as a pathway to tolerate differences. We seek those windows in our society through which we can see different ideas as a starting point for understanding. We believe strongly that our current political polarization should be addressed within communities of faith such as ours through events such as our National Speaker Series.
There are many in our community who are interested in hearing Dr. Rice and her perspectives on United States foreign policy. She was, after all, central to foreign policy decisions during the Bush administration, was President Bush's national security adviser during the Sept. 11 attacks, and an accomplished foreign policy scholar before that. There are others who are not as interested in an exchange of ideas with Dr. Rice, but the National Speaker Series remains open to our community to wrestle with our society's important issues through thoughtful and open discussion.
Here's my reply to Dr. Krupp, which appeared at tcdailyplanet.net and in a slightly altered version in the Startribune on Oct. 14, 2009.
Tolerance has its limits
Gary J. Krupp, president of Beth El Synagogue, in defense of Sec. Condoleezza Rice's invitation to speak in its National Speaker Series, argues against political polarization and demonization of those with opposing viewpoints. He writes of the Jewish tradition's "strong support for a diversity of...perspectives that encourage dialogue as a pathway to tolerate differences." (West Extra section, Oct. 7, 2009)
Tolerating differences is good. But surely there are lines that should not be crossed. I would be utterly shocked if Beth El Synagogue invited a national neo-Nazi leader to speak so we can hear from those with a differing viewpoint. It wouldn't do so, and it shouldn't do so. There are limits to toleration.
The question is whether Sec. Rice crosses that line. I think she does. She was intimately involved in decisions that led to torturing detainees, in violation of international law by any rational measuring stick. She sat in meetings where this was discussed, she conveyed authorizations to participate in such practices, and she still refuses to say that waterboarding is torture, against the judgment of virtually every international jurist. Make no mistake about it: In future years, Sec. Rice will do considerable advance work to determine where and when she will be able to travel abroad. Legal authorities in many countries will not be as tolerant as Beth El Synagogue.
Moreover, Sec. Rice was complicit in dozens of misstatements of facts, gross exaggerations, and outright lies leading up to the invasion of Iraq. That has led to several hundred thousand deaths. She continues to be an apologist for the Bush administration with false statements about the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Security in Europe calling Guantanamo a model medium security prison, and misleading claims that the ICRC made no allegations about interrogations at Guantanamo. She still says that we did not torture, in spite of ICRC reports, contrary claims by F.B.I. interrogators, Bush administration withdrawals of Office of Legal Counsel torture memos, and statements of dismissal by our own Military Commission judges.
I realize Beth El Synagogue leaders do not feel they can disinvite Sec. Rice at this time. However, if they were truly interested in having a dialogue on "difficult topics," they could easily invite a second speaker to appear along with Sec. Rice. Locally, we have an internationally renowned expert on torture issues in Dr. Steven Miles, a University of Minnesota bioethicist. I am sure he would be willing to discuss these "difficult topics" with the Secretary at a fraction of the price she must have required.
Fifty years ago this December I was bar mitzvahed at Beth El Synagogue. I expect more from it than to traffic in war criminals to assist in its fundraising efforts. I apologize for the demonization.
Be forewarned, war criminals being harbored by a variety of coastal institutions: we Minnesotans will welcome you with the appropriate greeting.
(The following Op/Ed was submitted to the Editorial Page Editor of the News Media Group's Pioneer Press on Tuesday, September 05, 2006 to commemorate the fifth anniversary of 9-11. At that time, virtually all "news" organizations were focusing on Iraq - they, too, had taken their eye off the ball. Three years ago, Afghanistan's heroin prouction had reached 90% of the world's supply. Today, not surprisingly, Afghanistan still produces 90% of the world's heroin supply. As we mourn the lives lost 8 years ago, this Op/Ed written three years ago demonstrates that old saying: the more things change, the more they stay the same.)
The RumsFailed Doctrine
On September 11th, 2001, our country was attacked. President Bush rightfully issued ultimatums that the Taliban ignored, and he made the correct decision to send troops into harm's way. Americans united and the world stood with us as American forces led coalition troops into Afghanistan.
The initial results were spectacular. Our volunteer military performed with valor and distinction in this war of necessity. In little more than two months, our enemies had been driven from power and the interim Afghani government was sworn in. The Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, and al-Qaeda were on the run.
The Battle of Tora Bora in Afghanistan's White Mountains marked the change in U.S. military doctrine. The replaced Powell Doctrine called for overwhelming air and ground forces and a specific exit strategy. But this is the era of the Rumsfeld Doctrine. Indigenous troops staged the direct assaults backed by American air support but only a few American Special Forces Teams. The perimeter of Tora Bora was left unsecured. Most experts now agree that this strategic decision allowed the majority of trapped al-Qaeda fighters to escape.
Then the colossal error by Rumsfeld and others to more or less cut and run from Afghanistan to Iraq was made.
We the people of these United States face two serious moral crises. One is the atrocious war against Iraq, Afghanistan and anyone else in the way. We've destroyed one nation, killed 4,324 Americans, killed a million plus Iraqis, and destroyed thousands of American families, all to feed the voracious appetite of the Defense complex, ultimately cycling money back to members of The Congress. This whole operation is the most immoral act committed by any civilized nation in centuries. We are told that we have to continue to outspend the rest of the world in military might, fulfilling Karl Marx's prediction that capitalism would implode by spending itself to death.
The right appears to have won this war. In addition to rewriting the history of Vietnam, we are now to believe that we have no choice but to wage eternal war.
The second crisis is our government's unbelievable refusal to provide health care for all citizens. We are the only civilized nation to live in this bizarre reality. Our leaders spew forth the old smelly bromides about socialized medicine, it will bankrupt the country, we can't afford it, or it will be a disaster. 75% plus of the people in this country want universal health care - 75% of Congress members are addicted to lobbyists money. Guess who wins that one?
These two moral issues are intertwined. Stopping the trillions dumped into defense contractors pockets would pay for health care in a minute. A sane, moral military budget would be less than half of current level. The other major source of revenue for health care is to remove government protection of the useless health care insurance industry. They no longer provide anything resembling insurance; it's just a another money fountain for the financial elite and their employees in Washington.
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) has always been staunchly anti-war. After voting for the very first supplement back in early 2007 and catching a lot of heat for it, Keith has voted against supplemental funding bills that do not contain clear exit strategies.
Now it's 2009, Obama is our President and Congress is still passing supplemental funding bills without clear exit strategies. While we're beginning to back out of Iraq, we still have no exit plan for Afghanistan. Once again, Keith voted against the supplemental.
How has a Democratic Congress, which has both the sole constitutional authority to declare war, and the purse-strings to fund it (or not), continued this? One major problem is that the ongoing use of supplemental appropriations bills, such as the one pending this week, minimizes Congressional oversight (as acknowledged by the Congressional Research Service) and reduces both transparency and actual debate.
In response to what by now seems like an endless series of blank checks, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA3) offered an Exit Plan Amendment to the supplemental bill, requiring that any continued funding be contingent on there being an exit strategy in place. The amendment was not allowed, and so this morning, McGovern introduced it as a standalone bill. As of this morning, the bill had 64 co-sponsors.
(Jeff in Evanston's diary at Daily Kos)
I think that nobody will be surprised that Keith is a co-sponsor of McGovern's Afghanistan exit strategy bill.
It's a little long, at 9 minutes and 36 seconds, but this one is a somber discussion of what Jay Bybee wrote concerning torture, how he got through his Confirmation Hearing, and the dilemma with him now sitting on the bench as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
President Obama has announced Iraq plans - and Paul Rieckoff of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) has been hitting the airwaves. Last Friday, he was on The Ed Schultz Show, and if and when I get a link, I'll post it. On February 26th, Paul was on the Rachel Maddow show - let's look!
Yesterday on AM950, TwoPuttTommy and I guest hosted the Mark Heaney Show and were discussing vet issues. Rep. Jeremy Kalin (DFL-North Branch) called in to let us know he was proposing a great new program. The basics of the programs is vets would provide troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan peer counseling.
This is a great idea. It would also be the first program like it in the nation. A vet can relate to another vet at a level that even the best trained and well-intentioned civilian counselor cannot.
TwoPutt summed it up best with this anecdote: "My wife said that when her Dad and I get together, he'll talk about things with me that he'll never discuss around her." I'll keep you posted on the progress of Jeremy's bill.
A reconciliation agreement was announced recently in Iraq, modeled after similar agreements in South Africa and Northern Ireland.
This is a step along the road not just to political peace, but true societal peace among the various factions known to those of us on the outside as "Iraqis."
It's not directly related to Minnesota politics, but I mention it because of my personal connection to the process -- one of the leading figures in the agreement, Sherman Teichman, is the leader of a program in which I took part in college. Sherman is a quite incredible individual, and the Institute for Global Leadership is a more-than-quite incredible entity at Tufts, of which I'm proud to have been a part.
Next week, General David Petraeus will travel to Capitol Hill and make his report to Congress on the war in Iraq. If, as expected, he announces a pause in the withdrawal in troops from Iraq, our Congress must say "no" for the sake of our military and of our servicemembers.
We can not pause the withdrawal of our troops because we are seeing, everyday, the absolute devastation our wars, with frequent, long, often extended deployments, are having on our men and women in uniform.
How can we constantly churn our troops like this? How can we consciously compound the wounds of war? We are sending men and women back for fourth and fifth tours of duty when the Department of Defense, by its own estimation, says that with each additional tour, troops are 60% more likely to develop severe post-combat mental health issues.
The right has been smug the last few months, as the troop surge in Iraq brought violence in the country down to terrible, rather than apocalyptic levels. "See! We were right all along!" they said, as they pushed the surge's architect, John McCain, to the GOP nomination. "Iraq is going to be all ponies and oil! Democracy! Whiskey! Sexy!"
Those of us who've actually been watching what's going on in Iraq these last five years held our tongues, for the most part, other than to occasionally point out that while violence was down a bit, nothing much was actually getting done in terms of stabilizing the Iraqi government. The surge was working in no small part because Sunni militias were willing to buy into the process and work with American and Iraqi government forces, or at the very least, not work against them.
But given that the Iraqi government, such as it is, is still dominated by the Shi'a, and given that there isn't really a functional Iraqi government, and given that the U.S. is getting ready to pull some of our troops out...well, one didn't have to be a very serious foreign policy expert to realize that our success in Iraq was destined to be short-lived:
In addition to the 10 original cosigners, seven more Democratic congressional candidates from around the nation have signed on to the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq.
The Responsible Plan, touted as a progressive Contract with America, was unveiled this week at the Take Back America conference in Washington, D.C. The plan includes several components focused on ending U.S. military action in Iraq and refocusing America's military and energy policy.
The original sponsors include Netroots favorite Darcy Burner, who lost a close race in Washington's 8th district in 2006 and is back for a second run against incumbent Dave Reichert this year, and Donna Edwards, who recently defeated Blue Dog Democrat Al Wynn in Maryland's solid-blue 4th district's primary.
Now the rush appears to be on, with more Democratic candidates, from Larry Grant in Idaho to Dennis Shulman and Tom Wyka in New Jersey. Jeff Merkley and Steve Novick, two Democrats squaring off for the Democratic nomination in the Oregon Senate race, both endorsed the plan within 24 hours of its release.
Traditionally, congressional candidates do not engage in detailed policy pushes like this one, but the Responsible Plan is being touted as a win-win for Democratic candidates and the progressive movement as a whole: end the war responsibly, elect Democrats in a policy-platform wave as the Republican Contract with America did in 1994, and move the proverbial ball down the field on important legislation already before Congress. The plan (available in full here) highlights several bills, along with their current cosponsors, that would serve as components of a successful execution of the plan. Notable among them is H.R. 4102, the Stop Outsourcing Security Act, sponsored by Rep. Janice Schakowski (D-IL) and 24 cosponsors, which would end the use of private military contractors like Blackwater in conflict zones such as Iraq.
A group of Democratic congressional candidates is set to roll out a comprehensive plan to change the policy dialog on national security and the continuing occupation of Iraq.
The announcement was made Sunday by Darcy Burner, candidate for Congress in Washington's 8th Congressional district, and Matt Stoller, who blogs at OpenLeft.com, at a blogger forum and training in Washington D.C. today. The plan will be rolled out Monday at the three-day Take Back America conference, which will include progressive activists, Democratic officials, and bloggers from across the country.
Burner said in her remarks, "ten years ago it would have been impossible for a congressional candidate like me to have an impact on the policy dialog," and noted that the candidates who are signing on to this plan are taking a large risk. Burner called on bloggers from across the country to call attention to the plan, to which currently has ten congressional candidates are currently signed on.
Stoller said of the plan "we want to allow the public to translate their desire to end the war by voting for candidates who want to end the war...this is an important effort, and we're going to put it to the voters." According to Burner, retired Gen. Paul Eaton, who preceded David Petraeus in commanding U.S. forces in Iraq, was a major resource in building the plan.
The main points of the plan include:
-No residual troops
-A diplomatic surge
-Humanitarian work -- engaging the international community
-Fixing the structural problems at home that got us into the war in the first place: eliminate presidential signing statements, eliminate the use of torture, phase out the use of private contractors
The full plan will appear on Monday at ResponsiblePlan.com.
What happens when you deploy troops who have seen high intensity combat time and time again with inadequate dwell time between tours? You see skyrocketing mental health issues.
After months of investigative work, talking to our troops and veterans, we released a report on the situation at Fort Drum in Watertown, New York. Since 9/11, the 2nd Brigade Combat Team has been deployed for more than forty months, more than any other brigade in the Army, and we are seeing what is nothing short of a cry for help from the men and women on the base; a cry we will answer for the Guard and Reserve troops here in Minnesota as well.
A cry for help that is also coming from the leadership on the base. In a New York Times article today about our report, Major General Michael Oates, commander of the 10th Mountain Division, says: "We recognize that there is stress on our force and their families from this conflict, but until recently, we have not fully appreciated the extent of some of the mental stresses and injuries or how to best identify them." Please read the rest of the article here.
What is happening at Fort Drum -- with Soldiers still on active duty suffering from PTSD, with Soldiers and their families in need of counseling, with Soldiers literally dying while still on duty -- is going to happen all around America unless we begin to address some of the basic issues of this war. As our report explains, DoD itself has stated that the likelihood of troops having mental health problems increases by 60% with every tour of duty. So, in short, through ourdeployment policies, we are consciously compounding the wounds of war.
This is unacceptable to us. Veterans for America's Wounded Warrior Outreach Program will continue to address these problems from the bottom up.
We are going to go to as many bases as we can afford to go to, see what is happening on those bases and see how we can help. If you can help us, we would greatly appreciate it.
We are going to continue our Wounded Warrior Registry Outreach -- if you or someone you know needs help getting help with PTSD or TBI, please click here.
And above all, we are going to continue to serve and help those that serve and have served us with the same level of dedication and courage they have shown. Click here to learn more about what we are doing.
