Outstanding opinion piece, well-supported by drawing a strong parallel with McNamara concealing information from the public. There is just the right amount of indignation in posing what the greater risk to national security would be -- Hegseth, or the press.
Love it that Johnson is keeping the party in control of the House working hard to get things done before the midterm elections. Johnson has delivered his own head on the platter.
Why does the image of lemmings jumping off the cliff come to mind. Of course there is an orange tinged leader secured to the top in a golden pulpit cheering the GOPers as they happily jump to their doom.
History does not reflect well on McNamara’s tenure at the Pentagon, and it won’t reflect well on Hegseth’s either.
There's a difference. McNamara came to feel remorse and guilt over this. True, it was too little, too late, but at least he died with a tormented soul over it. Hegseth, OTOH, it too stupid to know, let alone care.
Pete Hegseth is a bad apple who lies, hides the truth, and gives Donny bad advice based on wishful thinking. If the Democrats flip the House, they should impeach him. A lot of Senate Republicans lost faith in him too.
How does a guy whose highest rank in the military was that of Major have the knowledge, abilities, critical thinking, strategic planning, etc…to be the Secretary of whatever?
Just like his boss and the rest of the clown buss, Pete is a proud member of the know nothing group. To add insult to injury, he fired all the generals and admirals who could mitigate his lack of knowledge and surrounded himself with a loyal gang. This is a perfect way to lose a war!
It seems to me that McNamara, in promoting the Vietnam War, was doing the bidding of the oligarchic "military-industrial complex" (as President Eisenhower dubbed it in his farewell speech) of that day and age.
If my impressions are correct, is it not reasonable to suspect that the new "tech-bro oligarchs" are now wielding that same sword against democracy? If so, isn't it reasonable to assume that their fascist revolution was purchased by their "dark money"--purchases of thePresidency, Congress, SCOTUS and, now, The Fourth Estate?
If so, wouldn't those purchases be in keeping with an implementation of the Lewis Powell Memorandum of 1971, addressed to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the representatives of the aforementioned military-industrial complex of Eisenhower's day?
If so, then isn't their fascist revolution (albeit "bloodless") one they are accomplishing "by trick and device", instead of bullets?
If so, does that make their "bloodless revolution" any less treasonous than that of the Confederacy's oligarchs?
But, was called to serve mass at funerals for several soldiers killed from a nearby small town - all the local alter boys were related to or knew to well those killed.
It was a WTF moment for that 10-12 yr old person I used to be.
This is an instance in which the SCOTUS majority's opinion in Citizens United in 2010 might do some good. "When Government seeks to use" official "power" to "command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." "The censorship we now confront" has "muffle[d some of] the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy."
More important, "the electorate [has been] deprived of information, knowledge and opinion vital to its function." “The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information” is essential “to enlightened self-government” (self-government implies sovereignty) and it is “a necessary means to protect it” (our self-government and our sovereignty). Thinking and speaking about government is the primary purpose and duty of government. It also is the primary power and duty of sovereignty.
The first principle here is that “the people are sovereign” in our “republic.” Our powers as sovereigns necessarily include “the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices” about many public servants and public issues. That “ability” is “essential” to the operation of our Constitution. “Speech” (and hearing speech) “is an essential mechanism of democracy” as a “means to hold officials accountable to the people.”
“Political speech” is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy” by citizens who are sovereign. “The Constitution” clearly “confers upon voters” (as sovereigns) the “power to choose” (directly or indirectly) some of our public servants. “Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of” current or potential public servants “are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.”
“In the realm of protected speech,” government “is constitutionally disqualified from dictating the subjects about which persons may speak and the speakers who may address a public issue.” “Political speech” is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this” is “true” regardless of whether “the speech comes from a corporation” or “an individual.”
“Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints.” “Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others.” “As instruments to censor, these categories are interrelated: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.” “The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.” So “the First Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker’s identity.”
“[T]he worth of speech” cannot “depend upon the identity of its source.” “Government cannot restrict political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity” or individual identity. “[T]he First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity” or individual identity.
Our sovereignty means that “political speech” (and the ability to hear political speech) “must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. Laws that burden political speech" (and the ability to hear political speech) "are ‘subject to strict scrutiny,’ which requires the Government to prove” two important points: first, that “the restriction” actually does support a legitimate “interest” that is “compelling,” and, second, that “the restriction” is “narrowly tailored to achieve that [compelling] interest.” That is a burden of proof that Trump cannot bear.
Outstanding opinion piece, well-supported by drawing a strong parallel with McNamara concealing information from the public. There is just the right amount of indignation in posing what the greater risk to national security would be -- Hegseth, or the press.
Great article, unfortunately, nothing will happen to Kegseth unless the Democrats win big in both houses on November 3.
Pipsqueak Johnson won't let Massie's impeachment of Kegseth come to a vote.
My understanding is that it has to come to a vote if the House is in session. Is Johnson going to keep the house on recess the rest of its term?
Agreed.
Love it that Johnson is keeping the party in control of the House working hard to get things done before the midterm elections. Johnson has delivered his own head on the platter.
Why does the image of lemmings jumping off the cliff come to mind. Of course there is an orange tinged leader secured to the top in a golden pulpit cheering the GOPers as they happily jump to their doom.
History does not reflect well on McNamara’s tenure at the Pentagon, and it won’t reflect well on Hegseth’s either.
There's a difference. McNamara came to feel remorse and guilt over this. True, it was too little, too late, but at least he died with a tormented soul over it. Hegseth, OTOH, it too stupid to know, let alone care.
Hegseth will just drink away any spark of conscience.
Pete Hegseth is a bad apple who lies, hides the truth, and gives Donny bad advice based on wishful thinking. If the Democrats flip the House, they should impeach him. A lot of Senate Republicans lost faith in him too.
How does a guy whose highest rank in the military was that of Major have the knowledge, abilities, critical thinking, strategic planning, etc…to be the Secretary of whatever?
He’s a nothing and a very dangerous nothing.
He does not have any of the skills you mention, nor has demonstrated others. None. Zero. Nada.
I agree, he is very dangerous.
Just like his boss and the rest of the clown buss, Pete is a proud member of the know nothing group. To add insult to injury, he fired all the generals and admirals who could mitigate his lack of knowledge and surrounded himself with a loyal gang. This is a perfect way to lose a war!
It seems to me that McNamara, in promoting the Vietnam War, was doing the bidding of the oligarchic "military-industrial complex" (as President Eisenhower dubbed it in his farewell speech) of that day and age.
If my impressions are correct, is it not reasonable to suspect that the new "tech-bro oligarchs" are now wielding that same sword against democracy? If so, isn't it reasonable to assume that their fascist revolution was purchased by their "dark money"--purchases of thePresidency, Congress, SCOTUS and, now, The Fourth Estate?
If so, wouldn't those purchases be in keeping with an implementation of the Lewis Powell Memorandum of 1971, addressed to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the representatives of the aforementioned military-industrial complex of Eisenhower's day?
If so, then isn't their fascist revolution (albeit "bloodless") one they are accomplishing "by trick and device", instead of bullets?
If so, does that make their "bloodless revolution" any less treasonous than that of the Confederacy's oligarchs?
Rocking good piece. History does haunt.
I was too young to be drafted to go to Vietnam.
But, was called to serve mass at funerals for several soldiers killed from a nearby small town - all the local alter boys were related to or knew to well those killed.
It was a WTF moment for that 10-12 yr old person I used to be.
Hegseth is the threat to national security and so is his boss. MSNOW, CNN and Politico are suing Trump.
This is an instance in which the SCOTUS majority's opinion in Citizens United in 2010 might do some good. "When Government seeks to use" official "power" to "command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." "The censorship we now confront" has "muffle[d some of] the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy."
More important, "the electorate [has been] deprived of information, knowledge and opinion vital to its function." “The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information” is essential “to enlightened self-government” (self-government implies sovereignty) and it is “a necessary means to protect it” (our self-government and our sovereignty). Thinking and speaking about government is the primary purpose and duty of government. It also is the primary power and duty of sovereignty.
The first principle here is that “the people are sovereign” in our “republic.” Our powers as sovereigns necessarily include “the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices” about many public servants and public issues. That “ability” is “essential” to the operation of our Constitution. “Speech” (and hearing speech) “is an essential mechanism of democracy” as a “means to hold officials accountable to the people.”
“Political speech” is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy” by citizens who are sovereign. “The Constitution” clearly “confers upon voters” (as sovereigns) the “power to choose” (directly or indirectly) some of our public servants. “Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of” current or potential public servants “are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution.”
“In the realm of protected speech,” government “is constitutionally disqualified from dictating the subjects about which persons may speak and the speakers who may address a public issue.” “Political speech” is “indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this” is “true” regardless of whether “the speech comes from a corporation” or “an individual.”
“Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints.” “Prohibited, too, are restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing speech by some but not others.” “As instruments to censor, these categories are interrelated: Speech restrictions based on the identity of the speaker are all too often simply a means to control content.” “The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each.” So “the First Amendment generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker’s identity.”
“[T]he worth of speech” cannot “depend upon the identity of its source.” “Government cannot restrict political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity” or individual identity. “[T]he First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity” or individual identity.
Our sovereignty means that “political speech” (and the ability to hear political speech) “must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence. Laws that burden political speech" (and the ability to hear political speech) "are ‘subject to strict scrutiny,’ which requires the Government to prove” two important points: first, that “the restriction” actually does support a legitimate “interest” that is “compelling,” and, second, that “the restriction” is “narrowly tailored to achieve that [compelling] interest.” That is a burden of proof that Trump cannot bear.
Wow…just wow
Thank you for reporting the truth.