Daily Topics - Wednesday March 6th, 2013
By shawnt56
Catch The Thom Hartmann Program LIVE 3-6pm ET M-F!
Hour One: Right wing crazies aren't crazy anymore...
Hour Two: Iraq 10 years after the invasion...mission accomplished? Douglas Feith, Hudson Institute
Hour Three: In for Thom this hour - Dr. Mike Newcomb, The Mike Newcomb Show" (1480AM KPHX, Phoenix, AZ) will be taking your calls!
Comments
#2
Thom, I'm very, very disappointed in how poorly you handled Douglas Feith. You allowed this man to reshape history. You have allowed this man to push out the lies and misinformation about GW's war. Shame on you. It would appear you did not do your homework in preparing to debate the Iraq War or you chose not to challange him. As you can see by my handle ThomHFan, I am a fan but am very disappointed in how this interview was handled. Please challenge the lies and misinformation by anyone trying to retell the lead up to the war - I lived through it and know how the weapon inspectors said nothing was found. I remember Saddam delivering black notebooks to the UN detailing what happened to his WMD's. And how the Bush administration dismissed these. I remember how Powell toted the line at the UN. I remember how the Bush cronies lied to get us into this war - yet not one Bushite is in jail. Again, DO NOT ALLOW MISINFORMATION TO BE BROADCAST ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
From Screwed:
"I think many of us recognize that for all but the wealthiest, life in America is getting increasingly hard. Screwed explores why, showing how this is no accidental process, but rather the product of conscious political choices, choices we can change with enough courage and commitment. Like all of Thom’s great work, it helps show us the way forward."
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"If you wonder why and when giant corporations got the power to reign supreme over us, here’s the story."
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Right through the worst of the Bush years and into the present, Thom Hartmann has been one of the very few voices constantly willing to tell the truth. Rank him up there with Jon Stewart, Bill Moyers, and Paul Krugman for having the sheer persistent courage of his convictions."
I have to disagree with you about the hypothetical use of drones to kill in the US. I think the AG is absolutely right that if someone is presenting an imminent threat AND can't be apprehended the use of a drone to kill cannot be ruled out. If a criminal kills some people, is threatening to kill others, refuses to be taken into custody and they are fugitives from justice, it is not uncommon for them to be killed in a shoot out with police when they are found. Right? Consider all such similar events that have happened in this country. Do you think the police should just walk away? What about the recent case of the ex cop? The point is that there may be some criminals who represent an imminent threat and can't be apprehended. The other point is that in this country it is hard to imagine that apprehension could not be at least tried. That's what makes use of drones here in US hypothetical.
In other countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Yemen capture was not feasible. That's why the use of drones there is not hypothetical. It is a law enforcement tool. I agree that there must be strict criteria applied, but you are arguing that we should not use them with any criteria at all, no matter how strict. If those countries truly didn't like the US use of drones, they are free to assist in the capture of terrorists-yet they don't, they harbor them. If terrorists don't want drones to kill them or their nearby friends and family, they are free to quit terrorist activities, turn themselves in-yet they don't, they purposely hide among the innocent.
You are using examples in the US that don't meet the AG criteria. You're talking about people who don't represent an imminent threat and could be apprehended. Everyone agrees drones should not be used in those cases.
And your use of the oath of office to imply that elected and appointed officials have no obligation to protect the persons in the US from imminent harm just can't be right,Thom. The police and the military are not for the purpose of protecting a document, but it's implementation, it's realization. Security is an important part of that.