know its hard on America. And in some small corner of this vast
country in Nevada or Idaho, these places I've never been but always
wanted to go, there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly
happily, minding his own business, saying to you the political
leaders of this nation: why me? Why us? Why America? And the only
answer is: because destiny put you in this place in history, in
this moment in time and the task is yours to do. And our job,
my nation that watched you grow, that you've fought alongside
and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our
alliance and great affection in our common bond, our job is to
be there with you." Tony Blair, 7.17.03, Washington
does Tony Blair
want? That question, which likely should've occurred to those
in attendance on July 17th as he spoke
to a Joint Session of the US Congress, wasn't voiced by the cable
news pundits, most of whom were happy that the US had a "friend"
as steadfast as the Prime Minister. Most attention given to the
speech was stylistic, dealing with elocution, word play, and all
the things that make British voices [Chris Hitchens, button your
shirt and call your office] irresistible to the US media establishment.
speech was jolly good, if you buy into the post-9/11 rhetoric
about Twilight Struggles for Democracy and American Values. If
you feel otherwise about the US's role in the world, however,
the speech sounded like nothing so much as a sales pitch for something
that will be worthless by the time it's paid off.
indictment? Perhaps, but Blair's address to the Congress was rich
in imagery exhorting American Values in a way that would be embarrassing
to even domestic politicians not involved in a stalled-out re-election
campaign. As it was, Blair 's speech paradoxically kissed the
arses of the American people while being delivered for no discernable
payoff from anyone but media elites and Washington pols. It was
a speech for a global audience, very explicit in its delineation
of the American role in the new century. With that in mind, the
question of Blair's motives is paramount.
set the tone for his remarks from the outset, claiming to "feel
a most urgent sense of mission about today's world", adding
that "September 11th was not an isolated event, but
a tragic prologue. Iraq; another Act; and many further struggles
will be set upon this stage before it's over." Naturally,
"there never has been a time when the power of America was
so necessary; or so misunderstood." Compounding such difficulty
for Blair is the idea that history "provides so little instruction
for our present day."
who refer to the War on Terror as a neo-colonial enterprise likely
weren't heartened by the following: "none of us expect our
soldiers to fight a war on our territory. The immediate
threat is not war between the world's powerful nations.
Why? Because we all have too much to lose."
indeed we do, as our bodies, lives, and souls are worth exponentially
more than those in regions in "another part of the globe,
[where] there is shadow and darkness where not all the world is
free, where many millions suffer under brutal dictatorship; where
a third of our planet lives in a poverty beyond anything even
the poorest in our societies can imagine; and where a fanatical
strain of religious extremism has arisen, that is a mutation of
the true and peaceful faith of Islam and because in the combination
of these afflictions, a new and deadly virus has emerged."
what? Does the panhandler on the corner, pimping out his dignity
to get fifty cents for a cheeseburger, care one iota about "tyranny"
in a place he will never visit? Of course not. Why would he, when
his own survival is paramount to his existence, dwarfing abstract,
altruistic concerns about the "blighted peoples of the world"?
why should we care? Are we any better off than the panhandlers?
Budget deficits, debauched currency, a credit bubble that's about
to pop like a cyst such conditions have made us no better than
beggars. Why is it up to America to save the world? Because, as
Blair puts it, "we love freedom"? Or because "the
universal values of the human spirit and anywhere, any time, ordinary
people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same.
Freedom not tyranny. Democracy not dictatorship."
don't know about you, but I'm about sick of men in two thousand
dollar suits sending Americans off to foreign lands to fight no-win
wars such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq. That sickness is only
compounded when the war pimps are foreign rather than domestic.
But who can argue with this? "The purpose of terrorism is
. . . the elimination of tolerance; until societies cease to reconcile
their differences but become defined by them."
elimination of tolerance? That's cause for bloodshed? The Revolutionary
War, in part, was fought so that officious jackasses like Blair
wouldn't determine American policy. After hearing Blair feted
by a docile, slack jawed Washington press and pundit corps for
these and similar statements throughout the speech, you'll pardon
me for wondering if the American revolution didn't completely
work the first time around.
from Nancy Zakhary: "Clear Channel Radio stations are operated
locally based on extensive audience research. Local managers make
their own decisions about programming and community events
including rallies to thank and support the men and women in their
communities who are serving in the armed forces. At the urging
of their listeners, a few (approximately 1%) of these local managers
chose to have their stations participate in pro-troop rallies.
The corporate offices of Clear Channel Communications are not
directly involved in the Rallies for America. And other radio
groups have also sponsored rallies, including: Infinity Broadcasting
(owned by Viacom), Cox Radio, Federated Media and Susquehanna
response follows my column in this space from last week, "Is
Iraq Hell on Earth?" Nancy wants a retraction of my claim
that Clear Channel "conjured" up "pro-war rallies."
She's not getting one.
handful of radio groups control the American airwaves. That control,
especially since 1996,
has coincided with an erosion of the standards of American popular
music as well as public morality itself. This writer (who has
written about music for myriad publications in three decades so
far) believes that if these companies want to control the American
airwaves, then their executives and henchmen should understand
that the parent companies are responsible for all the good their
stations do. Certainly, these rallies were considered contributions
to the public good as they were happening, and were presented
as such on radio stations throughout the country.
is my belief that this letter wouldn't have appeared in my mailbox
in Iraq were proceeding more smoothly. That belief, of course,
can't be substantiated. But I don't seem to recall anyone with
real stroke from Clear Channel distancing themselves or the company
at large from these "support your troops (or else)"
rallies beyond using this tired argument about the stations being
"operated and programmed locally" based on "extensive
audience research." We can talk about "local operation",
but as anyone in the business knows, content is determined in
the end by the parent company, which can change or curtail "local
programming" at its leisure.
Nancy, if Clear Channel wants to have it both ways, they can do
so on their own media outlets. This column stands by its original
assessment, which is that Clear Channel received material benefit
from helping to popularize and even glamorize military action