Another note on McKinney and the morality of this "war".
First of all, it is quickly becoming less and less clear who we are at war with.
Second, a war can be both "moral" and "corrupt" at the same time. As in, we're right to bomb Afghanistan, but we're wrong to pay inflated prices for those bombs to enrich our cronies. In addition, the broader war may be "moral", but the associated details may not be. As in, we we're right to get rid of the Taliban, but we should at least raise an eyebrow about the fact that the newly installed President and our chief envoy are both long time Unocal bigwigs, providing some red meat for them conspiracy theorists who think it was all about oil in the first place.
Third, a war can start out being moral, but then be hijacked for other purposes. Given that it is increasingly unclear what we are doing, where we are doing it, how, why, to and even by whom, this global fog of war provides great opportunities for the defense industries to loot the treasury. Close ties to the administration makes it that much easier to do. Using war efforts to further commercial interests, as we are currently doing in Colombia is nothing new..Wrapping it all in the flag and declaring it a just and moral cause doesn't mean that underneath there is some seriously nasty and corrupt business going on, using my tax dollars and potentially taking lives..
As for Charles Kuffner's assertion that if Gore were President, McKinney wouldn't have accused him of these things. He's probably wrong about that. The article he links to did not come out of the Cato Institute, but from The Nation. I wouldn't expect them to be silent if Gore were in office right now, and I bet that applies to McKinney as well. She made her original remarks on a Pacifica program, to an audience which would by large and singing precisely the same song if Democrats were in charge. This is the "Nader Left", not Democrats. McKinney is a Democrat, but her biggest fans outside of the African-American community are likely essentially Greens, who like nothing more than a good chance to take down the evil DLC.
Finally, Kuffner perceives her remarks to be a simply political ploy to get attention and score points. And, I don't. Her original remarks were made, as I said, on a Pacifica show - hardly a way to get national attention. What she said didn't make it into the Washington Post until a couple weeks later. My guess is that the reporter who wrote the story didn't get the information from her office, though I do not know that. To me it seems that it was given national play to discredit her, and to give a signal to others who would raise questions about what would happen to them if they did.
Into the Buzzsaw...
