|
DECEMBER 12, 2003 - The above
quote is taken from a right-wing news source called
NewsMax.
General Tommy Franks, the man who led our recent invasion of Iraq,
was interviewed this month in Cigar Aficionado magazine (also a
right-wing news source) and NewsMax did a story on the interview.
NewsMax wrote: “In (Cigar Aficionado
magazine’s) December edition, the former commander of the military’s
Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a
weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our
allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our
cherished republican form of government.”
Their lead-in paragraph was even
starker: “Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit
with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties,
the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military
form of government.”
Now, go take a look at the NewsMax
site. There is no question it is a heavily right-wing biased news
source.
They go on to assert: “Already, critics
of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the
Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil
liberties and sets a dangerous precedent. But Franks’ scenario goes
much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly
speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a
military form of government.”
Well, numerous left-wing news sources,
websites, and commentators are in a fury over the comments. They
are posting this NewsMax coverage of the Cigar Aficionado interview
on their pages as a shocking, alarming warning; more proof that the
Bush administration and people associated with it are out to turn us
into a dictatorship – and on the verge of doing so. In fact, these
quotes absolutely make it sound like they are just waiting for an
excuse to get rid of the Constitution and impose “martial law,” as
Tina Brown of the Washington Post (link:
Paris Hilton, In An Age Beyond Embarrassment) deemed Franks’
comments to be speaking of.
In fact, if you look at the report from
NewsMax, backed up and supported by direct quotes from General
Franks, you can easily get alarmed that there is something very
devious afoot.
But while in many ways this Bush
administration is clearly acting as if they find our
Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms are a hindrance, General Franks
in no way says what they say he says, even if the quotes are
entirely accurate. In fact, the General Franks interview is
positive and negative for both the Bush side and the opposition.
How can such an alarming statement not
be as bad as it sounds? Well, it comes down to one
misrepresentative word and one omitted sentence.
Notice above in both of the first two
quotes from NewsMax the word “likely.”
“… Franks says that if the United States
is hit with a weapon of mass … the Constitution will likely
be discarded.”
“…warned that if terrorists succeeded in
using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD)… it would likely
have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of
government.”
The quotes they back it up with really
seem to support this. Franks is quoted as saying (and, in fact, we
checked the interview and he does): “If (terrorists use WMD’s,)
Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it
cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a
couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call
democracy.”
Wow, that sounds terrible. They then
continue, quoting entirely accurately: “Franks then offered “in a
practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of
such an attack. “It means the potential of a weapon of mass
destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event
somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of
America – that causes our population to question our own
Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to
avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in
fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two
steps, very, very important.”
So if you are reading this, thinking
this is what General Franks said will “likely” happen in the event
of a WMD attack on the US – or even just on one of our allies – you
might see it as the left-wing sites are seeing it, as General Franks
tipping the Bush administration’s hand, accidentally spilling the
beans of their secret plan to get rid of the entire Constitution the
next chance they get.
Now remember, the news source that wrote
this article, NewsMax, is a staunch Bush ally, and about as much of a
right-wing puppet as a news source gets. So it seems unlikely they
would make up something to sound so bad about their own side.
Well, as we like to say at The Moderate
Independent, choose your news sources carefully. Just as a person
who doesn’t see lying as wrong will lie for no reason other than
they want to, it is no different with a news source. So while
usually NewsMax bends the truth to make things sound good for the
right, this time they twist things just to make a story seem
exciting, important, and interesting, when in fact, the comments
Franks made were not quite such a big deal.
No, General Franks never used the word
“likely.” In fact, he made clear he was talking about the most
extreme possibility and one of the two ultimate goals of terrorism.
Yes, NewsMax ignored the sentence
preceding the above quotes, in which General Franks made clear that
all he was going to do was lay out a worst-case scenario, the most
extreme hypothetical he could think of as representing the ultimate
goal of terrorists.
Describing why he felt the War on
Terrorism was important, Franks explained that the terrorists had
two aims: first, to affect the culture of a country, causing the
people to alter their lives and for the country to lose, “what it
cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a
couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call
democracy.”
Oops. Nothing like the “likely”
doomsday in the event of another attack that both right-wing NewsMax
and the left wing alarmist press is making it out to be.
What about the second part of the
General’s comments, about the “likely” “martial law” in the event of
another attack?
Look at his comments again, this time
realizing he is talking about the ultimate goal of terrorists and
worst scenario he can imagine:
“In a practical sense… it means the
potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive,
casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be
in the United States of America – that causes our population to
question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country
in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing
event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our
Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”
Is this, in fact, alarming and more
evidence, as the NewsMax article relates and the left-wing sites
pick up, supporting what “critics of the U.S. Patriot Act,” are
worried about, only that “Franks’ scenario goes much further?”
Clearly, no. It is just an answer most
educated, properly-valued Americans would give if asked, “What do
you think the worst result of terrorist attacks could be?” Most
Americans would, and indeed have, said that it would be to destroy
the freedom-enjoying country we are.
NewsMax is even playing on genuine
concerns that the Bush administration has taken steps toward giving
terrorists that victory with their freedom- and
Constitution-attacking PATRIOT Act.
And then, just completely giving up on
any semblance of truth, the story declares, entirely falsely, “He is
the first high-ranking official to openly speculate
that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a
military form of government.”
This whole statement is just a fiction
and distortion of the highest magnitude. Speaking in the general
sense that General Franks was – discussing worst-case scenarios for
terrorism – most, if not indeed all, high-ranking officials
acknowledge that the ultimate goal of the terrorists is to get us to
give up our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
And the word “could” is a
flat-out lie; General Franks never once said that this “could”
happen. He was saying we must be vigilant and aggressive in the War
on Terror to ensure that this never does happen, and he never, at
any point, suggested that we would fail in that war or that, under
any circumstances, this “could” happen to America. He only said
that was the goal of the terrorists.
Yes, he spoke of it as a worst-case
scenario possibility, but he never said that he saw this, “in a
practical sense,” as something that could happen in America. He
only said that “in a practical sense” that is what the terrorists
want to achieve.
Now, the General does say a number of
provocative things that are big news.
For example, he states plainly that he
disagrees with President Bush and everyone else who chastises the
French and Germans for not going along with us. They each have
their own “interests” to look out for, he says, and he has respect
for that, unlike the President and others who act as if the French
and Germans are acting incomprehensibly and inexcusably.
He also disses the notion that Bill
Clinton ran the military down. Franks says he does believe the
military has been made to atrophy too much, but it was not Clinton,
he clearly states, but the whole direction of things in the
“post-Vietnam era.”
This also shines very well upon Franks,
showing he is not a partisan – as he points out repeatedly – who
will play the unfair game of saying everything was bad when Clinton
was President and everything is perfect under Bush. In one breath
he praises President Bush as “the best” type of Commander-In-Chief,
but in the next he in effect slams the President and his
administration politically by pointing out how unfair the claims are
that Clinton had run the military into a reduced state of readiness
– claims which Bush, Cheney, et. al used both in the 2000 campaign
and since.
Franks shows himself to be a man of
integrity, not a villainous man on the inside of a dastardly plot
that has us a step away from losing our Constitutionally guaranteed
freedoms. You can tell – and as he admits – he is very
conservative, but he is conservative in the honest sense of the
word, not in the Bush/Limbaugh distortive use of it. Franks has
conservative values and ideologies, but isn’t unfair and dishonest,
or political at all.
So, in this instance you see how
important it is to choose your news sources wisely. Both the
right-wing puppet press and the left-wing press are at fault. The
right-wing press, so used to lying it is now like breathing for
them, lied this time just to try and make an interesting, alarming
story out of something not so big. And the left-wing press did not
fact check or bother to spend the five dollars to buy the crappy,
right-wing magazine carrying the interview and read to see if
NewsMax was reporting things accurately. This is a big lesson for
both right-wingers and lefties, and, indeed, for us Moderate
Independents. Be careful who you trust, and don’t take up a cause
without checking your facts first.
Kudos to Franks, who may be a
conservative, but he is also clearly an independent. In both
praising and criticizing the President’s policies, he shows what
democracy is supposed to be, and what matters most to we apolitical
independents: truth, and what is best for America. |
