Tag: joe wilson
Is The American Dream For Everyone? Ask Ilhan Omar

Is The American Dream For Everyone? Ask Ilhan Omar

Is American citizenship conditional? The country certainly will welcome the immigrant, the newcomer — “as long as.” And that list is long. As long as you don’t criticize. As long as you don’t make a mistake. As long as you fit a certain, undefined ideal of “American.”

Watching President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address to Congress on Tuesday night, I realized how much decorum matters only for some, and an impossible “perfection” is demanded for others who will never clear the bar.

A wild-eyed Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia can stand and point and yell, interrupting the president of the United States with her disrespect, and instead of feeling any shame for acting out, will probably replicate the moment to raise money from constituents and fans who love the show.

After all, it worked in 2009 for fellow Republican representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who no doubt earned extra points because the object of his ire was Barack Obama, the first Black president of the United States, a man who had to be “perfect.” That “You lie” has since been used against him doesn’t mean Wilson would change a thing.

While witnessing Greene’s act, I remembered the scene on the floor of the same Congress about a week ago, when Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota mounted a futile defense before Republicans, as predicted and promised, cast her out of its House Foreign Affairs Committee for words used to criticize policy on Israel, something she had quickly apologized for years ago.

The irony is that some of the same colleagues who ultimately voted against her — including Greene and the speaker of the House — had never felt the need to walk back their own comments, including a now deleted Kevin McCarthy tweet about Democratic donors trying to “buy” an election, employing the same trope members of the GOP and some Democrats had accused Omar of using.

Their Americanness would never be called into question.

In Omar’s presentation, I was struck by the riveting photo of herself as a child, staring straight ahead, both ready and unsure of what would come next after fleeing one war-torn country and spending years in a refugee camp in another.

That the little girl is now a congresswoman in the U.S. House of Representatives should be Exhibit No. 1 in the resilience of the American dream, the tale of someone starting out with little who has risen to the top.

But since the girl-turned-congresswoman is Ilhan Omar, a Black woman, a Muslim and born in Somalia, her story will always be suspect for some. Instead of seeing her global experience as something that could inform any debates on a committee devoted to exploring U.S. policy in the world, it has become a cudgel to threaten when she steps outside the boxes she is put into.

What has been the go-to command for politicians from Donald Trump to GOP Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas? They never hesitate to tell the woman who is as American as they are to “go back,” to “leave.” At the same time, they are insulting the voters she won over and the Americans she represents.

And when Trump targeted her, he also included American-born Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib, making clear that his test for being entitled to have a voice includes more than being born on U.S. soil.

"What opinions do you have to have to be counted as American?” Omar asked. “That is what this debate is about.”

Anyone viewing Biden’s speech had to be struck by the disconnect. It is Republicans who always complain of “angry” Americans trying to impose their will, but who never hesitate to not just display anger but revel in it.

Who is this “woke mob” Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders referred to in her rebuttal?

I have no idea what is “mob-like” about Americans asking for empathy for fellow citizens, for law enforcement dedicated to protecting and serving everyone in every neighborhood, for truth-telling in an inclusive history of our country, the last being something Sanders herself barred in one of her first acts as governor of a state with a lot of citizens who have been excluded. She banned the teaching of “critical race theory,” which has not been shown to have ever been taught in her state’s public schools but has become a convenient shorthand for any mention of race and racism in the study of a mythical American history.

It was Republicans in that congressional audience Tuesday night who seemed to find it darn near impossible to stand and clap for Biden’s defense of democracy and condemnation of the true “mob,” who tried to undermine it on Jan. 6, 2021.

If all those who broke windows and attacked police and tried to stop the vote-counting that day had looked like Ilhan Omar, does anyone doubt the reaction would have been quite different? Many Republicans have tried to wish away that day, showing contempt for the America they profess they are protecting from Ilhan Omar.

Despite talk of moving past the white-hot, divisive rhetoric of Donald Trump, the choice of his former press secretary to set their future with a speech that rivaled Trump’s scene of “American carnage” proves who matters in their America versus who can never complain and has to always explain.

Some, like Sanders, are obsessed with “woke fantasies.” Others strive for their own hopeful version of the American dream, where all may not agree but everyone definitely belongs.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q. Q. Who is Ilhan Omar?

A. Ilhan Omar is a Somali-American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Minnesota's 5th congressional district.

Q. What are some of Ilhan Omar's political beliefs?

A. Ilhan Omar is a member of the Democratic Party and has been an advocate for progressive policies such as Medicare for All, a $15 minimum wage, and criminal justice reform.

Q. What is Ilhan Omar's position on immigration?

A. Ilhan Omar is an immigrant herself and is a vocal advocate for comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants.

Mary C. Curtis has worked at The New York Times, The Baltimore Sun, The Charlotte Observer, as national correspondent for Politics Daily, and is a senior facilitator with The OpEd Project. She is host of the CQ Roll Call “Equal Time with Mary C. Curtis” podcast. Follow her on Twitter @mcurtisnc3.

Reprinted with permission from Roll Call.

Back To The Dark Side: Dick Cheney’s Pax Americana

Back To The Dark Side: Dick Cheney’s Pax Americana

This book review originally appeared in The Washington Spectator.

The former vice president’s latest book smacks of sedition.

Exceptional, the new book from former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter, Liz, is not. It is nothing more than an unhinged rant that smacks of sedition.

“The children need to know the truth about who we are, what we’ve done, and why it is uniquely America’s duty to be freedom’s defender,” the prologue proclaims. The book, however, is not about who we are but who Cheney wants us to become. It is a call for Americans to reject constitutional government and those values that have guided our nation for 227 years and replace it with imperial rule in the name of “freedom”––even when that rule includes wars of choice, intrusive violations of our privacy and civil liberties, and of course, an aggressive regime of torture.

Part One begins with Uncle Dick recounting how “the American Century” has been marked by a fight that he and a few other white-hatted cowboys have waged to keep the world safe for “freedom.” In Cheney’s telling, pro-war and wartime leaders were strong and “right,” and the others weak and feckless. World War II is reduced to: “We liberated millions and achieved the greatest victory in the history of mankind, for the good of all mankind. America––the exceptional nation––had become freedom’s defender.”This review assumes that Exceptional represents Dick Cheney’s ideas, and so we will refer to the author only in the singular. (To the extent the book reflects Liz’s original thinking, consider it a mind meld.)

Manichean World View

In Cheney’s Manichean worldview, Truman was right to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, and Eisenhower’s farewell speech was not a warning of the growing power of the military-industrial complex as is commonly understood, but, rather, a strong endorsement of it. Reagan’s unwillingness to give up America’s right to missile defense (SDI) was “an exercise of diplomacy that should be studied by all future policy makers.” Obama’s foreign policy strategy is simply, “don’t do stupid stuff.”

Left out of Cheney’s idyllic tale of American exceptionalism in that era are such inconvenient freedom-defending events as the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 and the imposition of the oppressive Shah who ruled with an iron fist until his downfall in 1978; the overthrow of the democratically elected Allende government in Chile, replaced by the military dictator, Pinochet; the Reagan administration’s support of the Contras in Central America in the 1980s; and the slavish support of African dictators like Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Seko.

Cheney conflates the Gulf War, conducted when he was George H.W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense, with the Iraq War (“We were right in 1991 and we were right in 2003.”) but without noting important differences. The Gulf War was a true coalition off the willing, with 32 nations contributing forces operating under the authority of the United Nations and very specific Security Council resolutions, and the rest of the world paying 90 percent of the war’s costs. At its conclusion, the United States was at the pinnacle of its power, which it used to advance the cause of conflict resolution in the region. By contrast, the Iraq War was essentially a United States operation to remove Saddam with limited support, no U.N. resolution, and the entire cost borne by the United States. The consequences are abundantly clear: the region is in chaos, overrun by the same brutal terrorists and radical forces that the Cheney doctrine was supposed to eliminate.

Cheney’s selective memory is again on display as he recounts the events surrounding 9/11. Absent are the infamous CIA memo of August 2001,“Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US,” the reports of missed signals such as suspicious pilot training, and the fact that the CIA was on the highest possible alert while Bush was cutting brush in Texas and Cheney fishing in Wyoming.

The recounting of the war on Afghanistan is rich in bravado (“we have to work the dark side”) and ultimatums (“the Taliban will turn over the terrorists or share their fate”), but poor on facts. Cheney omits the meeting at Camp David where Paul Wolfowitz kept turning the conversation from Afghanistan to Iraq; the directive Bush gave to Richard Clarke to go back and find some link between 9/11 and Saddam; and Donald Rumsfeld’s observation that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq. There is no discussion of the pivot to Iraq just when we were on the verge of finding Bin Laden.

Defending Torture

Cheney then turns to a vigorous defense of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the torture policies he championed. Rather than share with the reader the influence he and his key staffers exerted on the decision-making process, Cheney instead recounts the statements of Democrats who voted to support the war, spreading the blame. He neglects to mention the massive propaganda operation directed by the White House or the fact that the whole case was built on lies. Other omissions: Yellowcake, aluminum tubes, mobile bioweapon labs, 9/11 attacker Atta’s supposed meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, and intelligence conclusions cooked up in the Pentagon Office of Special Plans and foisted on Colin Powell by Cheney’s chief of staff Scooter Libby for presentation to the United Nations. Instead, “History will be the ultimate judge of our decision to liberate Iraq,” Cheney tells us, “and it is important for future decision makers that those debates be based on facts.” But only those facts he cares to share.

Smearing Obama

By the end of Part One Cheney has fully transitioned from defender of the indefensible to bare-knuckled attacker of President Obama. The Cheney snarl is on full display as he engages in an extended personal smear, complete with dog-whistle comments questioning the president’s patriotism and allegiance. The tirade is a new low, even for those of us who have personally experienced the depths to which Cheney will go to destroy an adversary. The opening paragraph of Part Two says it all: “The . . . level of self-regard was apparent, as was his underlying belief that America had played a malign role in the the world . . . . He [Obama] assessed the last fifty years of American foreign policy through the lens of Indonesia, a nation he called ‘the land of my childhood.’”

“Where some see an exceptional nation, unmatched in the history of the world in our goodness and our greatness, in our contributions to global freedom, justice and peace,” Cheney writes, “Barack Obama sees a nation with at best a ‘mixed’ record.”

Cheney combs the record for every quote and factoid that might be used to undermine the authority and legitimacy of the administration. Former senior intelligence officials are selectively quoted to criticize President Obama’s decision to end the torture program. Cheney would have us believe that

Ending programs that kept us safe, revealing the details about those programs to the terrorists, and spreading untruths about our policies was misguided, unjust, and highly irresponsible. . . . President Obama, having so consistently distorted the truth about the enhanced interrogation program and the brave Americans who carried it out, is in no position to lecture anyone about American values.

The personal attacks are unremitting and obnoxious, but they have a purpose: to whip up resentment, hatred, and every other base emotional reaction that makes civil discourse impossible. It is sedition, plain and clear.

One example is the Benghazi tragedy, where Cheney cannot resist offering his own interpretation: “At the most fundamental level it is the difference between being honest about what happened in Benghazi . . . and adopting a false narrative because it serves political purposes. It is the difference between lying to the American people and dealing with them truthfully—which is what we deserve.” The irony drips from the words.

Cheney saves his harshest attack for the Iran nuclear deal, flatly accusing the president of lying to the American people. The most comprehensive arms control deal with the most intrusive inspection regime ever negotiated, it is a deal not just between the United States and Iran but between the world and Iran, unanimously approved by the U.N. Security Council and lauded by nuclear arms specialists worldwide. To Cheney it is presidential “falsehoods.”

After concluding “In the seventy years since World War II, no American president has done more damage to our nation’s defenses than Barack Obama,” Cheney’s solution to Obama’s perfidy is simple but profoundly disturbing: return to the past failed policies. He advocates massive additional infusions of money to the Pentagon, abandonment of key agreements, further attacks on civil liberties, and imposition of an American Diktat on the rest of the world, by force of arms if necessary. It is difficult to imagine a more ill-advised approach to American national security or international relations.

Exceptional deserves to be dismissed and ignored, except that to ignore it is to risk that the subversive ideas therein actually gain some currency, if left unchallenged. They are an affront to our history, to our values, to our culture, and must be fought.

Valerie Plame is the author ofFair Game: How a Top CIA Agent Was Betrayed by Her Own Government,and two works of fiction.

Joe Wilson is a retired career United States diplomat and author ofThe Politics of Truth: A Diplomat’s Memoir: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity. In 2003, Plame’s identity as a covert CIA officer was betrayed in retaliation for an article by her husband, Ambassador Wilson, critical of the Bush administration’s lies that led to the Iraq war. Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, was later convicted on four counts of obstruction of justice and perjury in the matter.

Photo: Former Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, presenting former United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C, the “Defender of the Constitution Award.” Taken on February 10, 2011. (Gage Skimore via Flickr.)

This originally appeared in the October 1, 2015 print edition of The Washington Spectator.

5 Ways Obama And The Liberal Media Have Tried To Distract You From #Benghazi

5 Ways Obama And The Liberal Media Have Tried To Distract You From #Benghazi

Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Former U.S. Representative Allen West broke embarrassing new ground in the politicization of the 2012 attack against the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, when he suggested that the abduction of 200 Nigerian schoolgirls by terrorist group Boko Haram is somehow a smokescreen to distract Americans from the Benghazi attack.

“Are we witnessing an Obama ‘Wag the Dog’ moment with Boko Haram in Nigeria? I say yes,” West wrote on his blog on Monday. “Consider all the scandals facing the Obama administration, especially Benghazi and the Select Committee, which Rep. Nancy Pelosi referred to as a ‘political stunt.'” West then went on to list a number of discredited conspiracy theories related to Benghazi, before suggesting, “So what better time than right now, to create the straw man of Boko Haram, another distraction for which no real action will take place.”

West’s accusation — that the Obama administration is actively exploiting the kidnapping of 200 girls to distract from a baseless faux-scandal about Sunday show talking points — is perfectly awful. But it’s far from unique. In fact, West is just the latest in a long list of Republicans to see Benghazi lurking in the shadows of just about every major news story to break over the past two years.

Here are five other ways that the right has accused the Obama administration — and the “liberal media” — of distracting you from what’s really important: #Benghazi.

Donald Sterling’s Racist Breakdown

Donald Sterling

AFP Photo/Robyn Beck

Before he was spreading Boko Haram conspiracy theories, Colonel West was warning anyone who would listen that the media was focusing on Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s racism scandal to distract you from the horrible truth about Benghazi.

“[T]he media lead us along like sheep to the slaughter, turning us into reactionary, shallow thinking, low-information voters along the way,” West wrote on his blog shortly after the controversy erupted. “We know more about Sterling than Benghazi — or the IRS scandal.”

He later took his case to Fox News, complaining that “the outrage of the public seems to be totally focused on Mr. Sterling but, you know, you’ve got this thing with Benghazi and we have an even bigger lie, an even bigger deceit, which is even more impactful on the country that no one is really caring about.”

The Crisis In Syria

AFP Photo/Ward al-Keswani

AFP Photo/Ward al-Keswani

The civil war in Syria has been a brutal, devastating crisis that has claimed the lives of at least 150,000 people. When Bashar al-Assad crossed the Obama administration’s “red line” by using chemical weapons against civilians, the White House prepared to take military action.

To congressional Republicans, however, the president’s real purpose was clear.

“One of the problems with all of the focus on Syria is it’s missing the ball from what we should be focused on, which is the grave threat from radical Islamic terrorism,” Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said in September. “When [the Benghazi attack] happened, the president promised to hunt down the wrongdoers, and yet a few months later, the issue has disappeared. You don’t hear the president mention Benghazi. Now it’s a ‘phony scandal.'”

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) was even more direct, and alleged an even greater conspiracy:

“With the president’s red line, why was there no call for military response in April?” Wilson asked Secretary of State John Kerry during a hearing. “Was it delayed to divert attention today from the Benghazi, IRS, NSA scandals, the failure of Obamacare enforcement, the tragedy of the White House-drafted sequestration or the upcoming debt limit vote?”

Climate Change

U.S. Geological Survey/Flickr

U.S. Geological Survey/Flickr

On May 6, the Obama administration released its quadrennial National Climate Assessment, warning that climate change will have a devastating impact on the United States.

Although the report is legally mandated by Congress and published every four years, no matter which party controls the White House, Fox News still saw a more nefarious motivation for the sobering report.

“The White House is set to unveil a dire new report on global warming. But with multiple scandals swirling around the administration, is it just to distract Americans?” America’s Newsroom host Bill Hemmer said on the morning that the report was released.

One day earlier, The Five co-host and former Bush administration press secretary Dana Perino criticized President Obama’s plan to do interviews on the report with meteorologists, complaining that they weren’t sufficiently Benghazi-centric.

“I hope they ask him about Benghazi,” Perino said. “Like the weatherman from Montana should ask him about Benghazi, that would be great. I dare you.”

The IRS “Scandal”

IRS seal

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Although allegations that the Obama administration directed the IRS to harrass the president’s political opponents are completely unfounded, many Republicans still hoped that it would be the scandal that finally brought Barack Obama down.

Michele Bachmann was too smart for that, though. In May 2013, she revealed what the IRS scandal was really about. You can probably guess the answer:

Why would an administration ever confess to such a flagrant misuse of politics and power?

Bachmann, who chairs the House Tea Party caucus, said it’s the Benghazi scandal.

“There’s no doubt this was not a coincidence that they dumped this story today, a Friday dump day,” Bachmann told [WorldNetDaily]. “This is when they put their negative stories out.”

But she said the looming storm cloud called Benghazi is the “soft underbelly” of the Obama administration and likely will keep Hillary Clinton from fulfilling her dream of occupying the Oval Office.

That would make it logical to release an IRS story that, while embarrassing, also could be cubbyholed as another “conservative” dispute with the White House….

Bachmann said the IRS announcement of misbehavior was intended to provoke conservatives and draw their anger and attention.

“I was in that Benghazi hearing,” she told WND. “I think the Obama administration is desperate to spin Benghazi, and they can’t. I think they saved this story up for a day like today so that conservatives would focus on this admission.”

The Shoe Attack Against Hillary Clinton

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Perhaps the most devious distraction from the Great Benghazi Scandal came in April, when Hillary Clinton supposedly arranged to have a shoe thrown at her head to discredit those pushing for the truth about the Benghazi attack.

Failed presidential candidate Herman Cain got the conspiracy ball rolling on Twitter:

 

And before long, Rush Limbaugh connected the dots.

“I don’t know why anybody would be throwing a shoe at Hillary,” he mused on his radio show, “unless, maybe it’s an attempt to make the Benghazi people look like nuts and lunatics and wackos.”

If that was really Clinton’s plan, there’s only one thing left to say: Mission accomplished.

Want more political analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!