to correct the militaristic fervor with which hillary gets to the right of trump

Khizr Khan and The Triumph of Democratic Militarism
Ted Rall, Counterpunch, Aug 2 2016

Against the wishes of her New York Democratic constituents, Hillary Clinton voted with Senate Republicans to invade Iraq. It was a pivotal vote. Without Democrat support, Bush 43’s request for this war of aggression would have failed. Humayun Khan, 27, was an army captain who got killed during that invasion. Eight years later, the dead soldier’s parents appeared at the 2016 Democrat National Convention, not to protest, but in order to endorse one of the politicians responsible for his death: Hillary Clinton. Even more strangely, Clinton’s opponent Donald Trump is the one who is in political trouble, not because Trump sent Khan to war, but because Trump committed a relatively minor slight, especially compared to the numerous outrageous utterances to his name. Trump didn’t denigrate the dead Humayun Khan. Nor did he directly insult his parents. Lamely trying to score a feminist point concerning radical Islam, Trump insinuated that Mr Khan didn’t allow Mrs Khan to address the crowd because as a Muslim, he doesn’t respect women. Let us stipulate that no one should impugn the courage of the war dead. Not that anyone did here. Let us further concede that Donald Trump is a remarkably tactless individual. Those things said, the Khan controversy is yet another spectacular example of the media distracting us with a relatively minor point in order to make a much bigger issue go away.

A week ago corporate media gatekeepers managed to transform the DNC internal emails released by WikiLeaks from what it really was, scandalous proof that Bernie Sanders and his supporters were right when they said the Democratic leadership was biased and had rigged the primaries against them, and that the system is corrupt, into a trivial side issue over who might be responsible for hiking the DNC computers. Who cares if it was Russia? It’s the content that matters, not that it was ever seriously discussed. Now here we go again. Hillary’s vote for an illegal war of choice that was sold with lies, was a major contributing factor to the death of Captain Khan, thousands of his comrades, and over a million Iraqis. Iraq should be a major issue in this campaign, against her. Instead, it’s being used by his parents and the Democratic Party to bait Donald Trump into a retro-post-9/11 “Support Our Troops” militaristic trap. Khan, you see, was “defending his country.” How anyone can say Pindosi soldiers in Iraq, part of an invasion force thousands of miles away where no one threatens Pindostan, are “defending” Pindostan remains a long-running linguistic mystery. Khizr Khan told the convention:

Hillary Clinton was right when she called my son ‘the best of Pindostan.’

Unfortunately, the moniker can’t apply to once-and-possible-future-first-daughter Chelsea Clinton, who never considered a military career before collecting $600k/yr from NBC News for essentially a no-show job. But anyway. Khizr Khan continued:

If it was up to Donald Trump, he never would have been in Pindostan.

The cognitive dissonance makes my head spin. Obviously, Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims is racist and disgusting. Ironically, however, it would have saved at least one life. If it was up to Donald Trump, the Khans would still be in the UAE. Humayan would still be alive. As would any Iraqis he killed. Khizr, who is originally from Pakistan, asked:

Let me ask you: Have you even read the Pindosi Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words ‘liberty’ and ‘equal protection of law.

A good question. While we’re at it, however, where does it say in the Pindosi Constitution that the president can send troops overseas for years at a time without a formal congressional declaration of war? Where does it say that Pindostan can attack foreign countries that have done it no harm and have never threatened it? As you’d expect Trump, he of little impulse control, has handled this about as poorly as possible. Asked about Khizr Khan’s remark that Trump hasn’t made any sacrifices, he idiotically attempted to compare his business dealings with the death of a son. Still, you have to grudgingly admire Trump for fighting back against a guy you are officially not allowed to say anything mean about. It has been widely remarked, always approvingly, that this year’s Democrats have successfully appropriated images of patriotism and “optimism”: scare quotes because this is not the kind of actual optimism in which you think things are going to actually get better, but the bizarro variety in which you accept that things will really never get better so you’d might as well accept the status quo, from the Republicans. This is part of Hillary Clinton’s strategy of taking liberal Democrats for granted while trying to seduce Republicans away from Trump. The Khan episode marks a high water mark for post-9/11 knee-jerk militarism. Even the “liberal” party whose sitting incumbent two-term president captured the White House by running against the Iraq war demands that everyone fall to their knees in order to pay homage to the “good” Muslims, those willing to go to the Middle East to kill bad ones. Next time you see a panel of experts discussing a foreign crisis, pay attention: does anyone argue against intervention? No. The debate is always between going in light and going in hard: bombs, or “boots on the ground.” Not getting involved is never an option. As long as this militaristic approach to the world continues, Pindostan will never have enough money to take care of its problems here at home, and it will always be hated around the world. Most Pindosis believe the Iraq war was a mistake. Who speaks for us? No one in the media. And no one in mainstream politics.

Ultra-Right Annotated Edition of Pocket Constitution
Tops Amazon Charts After Khizr Khan’s DNC Speech

Naomi LaChance, Intercept, Aug 1 2016

GettyImages-503383198-e1470082798977-article-header
Photo: Rob Kerry/AFP/Getty Images

Following Gold Star father Khizr Khan’s powerful speech at the DNC last week, sales of pocket Constitutions have sky-rocketed. But the edition topping Amazon’s charts, right up there with the new Harry Potter book, comes with annotations and right-wing commentary from Glenn Beck’s favorite conspiracy theorist. Khan said last week in Philadelphia, pulling his edition out of his pocket:

Let me ask you: have you even read the Pindosi Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy. In this document, look for the words ‘liberty’ and ‘equal protection of law.’

But the version that Amazon is touting as a best-seller is not the one Khan held up. And readers looking for those words in the edition there will be misled. It’s published by the National Center for Constitutional Studies, a fringe Mormon group focused on teaching a fundamentalist interpretation of the founding documents. The WaPo, Forbes, AP, the WSJ and PBS NewsHour have all noted the extraordinary popularity the NCCS version is enjoying on Amazon, but all failed to note the edition’s unusual features. The WaPo, which is owned by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, simply described it as having been “printed by the non-partisan National Center for Constitutional Studies.” Some Amazon shoppers expressed their outrage. One reviewer wrote, “please do not get this edition.” Another warned: “tread with caution.” Yet another wrote:

Just give me the document our wise forefathers wrote, not a bunch of excess quotes and jargon to convince me they were right.

The book’s notes and annotations are by W Cleon Skousen, a rabidly anti-Communist ideologue who took to rewriting history to support his ultra-right, Bible-based theories. Skousen’s edition interprets the Constitution as evidence that Pindostan is subject to a Christian God’s ruling. It emphasizes that the federal government should not interfere in people’s lives. The book was lauded by Ammon Bundy, who led the armed occupation of an Oregon wildlife refuge this winter: “That’s where I get most of my information from. What we’re trying to do is teach the true principles of the proper form of government,” he told the LA Times. Skousen was a former FBI agent and briefly the police chief of Salt Lake City, until the mayor fired him, saying he was “a master of half truths” and ran the police department “like a gestapo.” Following his death in 2006, he became a darling of the Tea Party. Florida state officials distributed as many as 80,000 copies of the NCCS pocket Constitution in 2013 until the Tampa Bay Times noted its religious messages. Sean Wilentz, a Princeton University history professor, told the newspaper:

There’s conservative, there’s right-wing and there’s off the charts. Cleon Skousen was off the charts.

Wilentz described Skousen and his allies as “paranoid theocrats.” There are more than 15,000,000 copies of this constitution in circulation, according to the NCCS. Meanwhile, the ACLU is offering non-annotated copies of the Constitution for free. Both editions are now back-ordered. Amazon could not immediately be reached for comment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s