Mendenhall came under fire for essentially peeing on everyone's celebration of bin Laden's death. He had problems with the excessive celebration of the death of another human being. Additionally, he tweeted his doubts that al Qaeda actually pulled off the 9/11 attack. These were poorly timed comments, and (regarding 9/11) under-supported conspiracy bunk that if investigated further may have some valid claims but it is far from a reasonable theory. His dismay over the celebration of a death is not to be discounted, however, and I think he was entitled to these words, and too his credit he has not claimed to have been taken out of context.
Still, there is a palpable rage directed at him for his ill-timed quotes and propagation of a dubious, at best, conspiracy. So where is the outrage for Luke Scott? There is none. It doesn't help that Mendenhall is black and Scott is white. On ESPN's Website, there is not a word about Scott's moronic statements. Yet on the front page of ESPN is still a link to the ever growing Mendenhall statement. Scott is doing the same thing Mendenhall did: He's ignoring a historical success for our nation and focusing on a crackpot conspiracy theory that has all been settled. The lack of outrage towards Scott, shows that it is acceptable to still categorize Obama as not-American. The birther claims hold water to so many people, who may say, "I'm not certain the theory is true, but the people who claim Obama wasn't born here do have some valid points." The simple truth is that Obama has many layers of Otherness that idiots like Scott latch onto. The name, the ethnicity, these are un-American in Scott's eyes, and impossible for him to give validity to Obama as his president and that Obama is nothing more than a birth certificate scandal, despite the fact that he made the gutsiest military order in recent history (more on that down below).
First, I'd like to look at Scott's claims. He says the certificate has not been "validated." If by not validated he means the registrar of vital statistics didn't put his stamp of approval on it, well he's wrong. By not validated he means the document has not been given to public scrutiny, well he's wrong, as factcheck.org, will attest to having seen and examined it.
Next, he makes a false analogy by claiming $100 bills can be counterfeited. Often counterfeiting is done by a small group, which is easier to control the secret from being let out of the bag. In order to counterfeit a birth certificate of this magnitude, the governor of Hawaii would have to be in Obama's pocket as would Alvin T. Onaka, the registrar of vital statistics - their staffs, Obama's staff, his inner-circle, and likely a long list of bureaucrats who would have to be in on this to not let the conspiracy reach the public sphere. This stupid line of it's a million times easier to forge birth certificate is ludicrous. It would take a systemic cover-up that any government cannot sustain.
I know a number of people in government, have studied it a great deal, and if there is one thing I am aware of it is that a large organization like a government is incapable of keeping secrets. Eventually whistle-blowers come forward. If not, we'd never have the UFO stories come to light that we do. These were people sworn to secrecy who come forward and spill the beans. Although their claims are dubious. But look at the Pentagon Papers. It didn't take long for those to come to light, or Watergate. People get jaded, jilted, or a conscience and people then talk.
This point is paramount to my rejection of 9/11 conspiracies that it was an inside job (and a repudiation of Mendenhall's ideas). I listen to people expound their theories, and while they will make valid points, I can't shake the fact that the government would never be able to keep it a secret. People come forward. Or people slip up. There is a question as to whether Flight 93 was shot down on 9/11. Rumsfeld while over in Iraq, slipped up and said, the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down. Now, I know I'm opening a whole can of worms with this, and I'll pursue it no further. The point of bringing it up is that Rumsfeld's misstep at least opens the door to the idea of a cover-up as to how the plane went down, although there is little to disprove that the passengers did not heroically try to retake the plane - the evidence overwhelmingly supports they did - whether their efforts brought down the plane or our planes did does not in anyway take away from the facts of their heroism.
Finally, to Scott's overall political bent, he is clearly on the far right- who believe that government is a devil, an insuperable testament to inefficiency. The government can get nothing done in Scott's political world. Yet, he seems to believe they are capable of a mass conspiracy to create a fake birth certificate. Moreover, the birther movement seems to believe that Middle Eastern governments, along with our own, carefully drafted a plan to take a boy born in 1961, and anoint him the future president in some large scale plan of malfeasance. How can Luke Scott reconcile his belief that government is inept with this unfathomably complicated plan that was hatched back in 1961? Clearly these two components of the far right's beliefs don't jive. Frankly, if they could put together a plan like this and sustain it over 50 years, well, shoot, I think they could be pretty good with solving our jobless problems.
One little addendum to this, why does Luke Scott not question whether McCain was born in the US? The story is McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone on a US military base, but does that fit the Constitutional requirement of native born? And can we really prove he wasn't born off base in a Panamanian hospital? His grandfather, a high ranking military officer would immediately know that citizenship was vital for his grandson, and would have had the ability to forge a document on base saying his grandson was born there. But this is just me trying to play the part of conspiracy theorist. And I certainly do not entertain these thoughts as more than satirical what-if. It's not that I'll buy whatever is told to me; but what ever skepticism I may have I let reason and facts dictate how long I will hold on to that skepticism.
To other things that bother me with Luke Scott. He is still unconvinced. He has a right to that opinion however idiotic it is. As a person in the public sphere, his words will get out. Derrick Rose, recently showed up at an Obama fundraiser, to drum support for the president. There Rose said he enjoyed meeting Obama and his cabinet. One problem, Obama's cabinet was not there. His advisors were, his reelection team was, but no individual cabinet member attended, and the fact that Rose did not know this difference let me know that he was speaking purely from admiration, but he was not a voice of authority, nor did he really try to come across that way. (Scott makes it sound like he knows what's up.) Moreover, he was there as a private citizen, and did not use his locker room/place of employment for his political stump, as Luke Scott and Curt Shilling have - and I guarantee you, either one of those guys would jump all over actors spouting political twaddle at award shows.
Still the timing of Scott's comments, as were Mendenhall's, was awful. At a moment when the president made one of the biggest military gambles in recent memory, Scott had to drum up that tired old chestnut of accusing the president of not being American and thus not patriotic. This does a great disservice to what Obama has demonstrated. Without flinching he ordered the neutralization of Somali pirates threatening US citizens. Then this last week he ordered an incursion into foreign nation, with 60-80% certainty according to the CIA that bin Laden would be there.
Starting from he disastrous raid into Iran by Jimmy Carter (which was a huge risk) let's analyze the risk level of engagements since then. This is not intended to disparage or minimize the risk our troops have taken. They took the orders and executed them well, but from the standpoint of a president's butt being on the line, I look at the risk (1 being the least riskiest to the president and 10 being the greatest).
Grenada: A small island defended by Cuba. Let's face it, Cuba was not a major military power. We made it a big deal because they were communist, but honestly, there was no real threat of failure. It was hostage rescue, thus the danger of dead Americans was a real danger, but the thought that we would not be in control of the island was never in doubt. Ronnie Reagan's butt on the line, a 3.
Panama: George Bush's first military issue. We went up against that central American power in Panama, with a defense force of 5,000, to get our old CIA shill Manuel Noriega; he who wore red bikini briefs because it brought him good luck. Scary. We had control of the nation in a day. The risk was to the Panama Canal, but since our forces were already there and in charge, the likelihood of any damage to the structure was negligible. Butt on the line, a 1.
Iraq/Kuwait: Bush's second military venture was risky. Iraq was in the top five militarily worldwide. They were battle hardened from an eight year war with Iran, and we were trying to coordinate a coalition of unwieldy size. The risk was high, although the end result seemed to easy. We obligated ourselves to only liberating Kuwait, and not occupation. Additionally, the military equipment of the Iraqis was so odd of date, and clunky that they did not stand a chance. Still, butt on the line, 8. Only in hindsight can we say it was really a 4.
Somalia: Clinton got this one dropped in his lap when he came in. It was as if Bush said, "Screw you for beating me; I'm putting troops into Somalia, ya jag." He had to rely on advisors and military personnel whom he was just starting a working relationship with. He ordered a high level take down in a heavily Aidide part of Mogadishu, and the results were disastrous. His defense secretary was fired, and we were made to look like fools, butt on the line 8.
Bosnia: After Somalia, Clinton had brass ones committing us to ending ethnic cleansing in. Again, he inserted us into a civil war, which is a bad idea to involve an outside party in. On top of that, Clinton sent in SEALS to capture and bring to trial Serbian war criminals. Much of the military operations were from the air, and in the midst of the Lewinsky debacle, Republicans were crying for Clinton to be impeached for Bosnia as well. They kept saying Clinton did it to distract from the Lewinsky trial. End result, criminals were brought to trial, ethnic cleansing was halted and Milosevic was toppled and brought to trial, where he died in captivity. Butt on the line, 9. Clinton later launched cruise missile attacks into Iraq for their plot to assassinate former president Bush. So despite dumping Somalia in Clinton's lap, he held no grudges and stood up for his predecessor.
Afghanistan: W, nearly didn't do this one. His delay allowed for bin Laden and Mullah Omar to bolt to the hills before we could arrive. Initially, he let the Northern Alliance do the battles, with our air support and Special Forces advisors. America was clamoring for retaliation. He had to do something. What he did was relatively safe: the Afghan national army was hardly ready for the conventional war we brought to them, and thus they fled. Butt on the line, a 1.
Iraq: W really screwed this one up. I'd put butt on the line at 9 because we were invading a nation against worldwide outcry, to occupy the nation, on the pretense that WMDs were so prevalent in Iraq, that we'd be tripping on them as soon as we crossed the border. But as soon as the invasion was over, and no WMDs were found, the mission was recast as spreading democracy, and who doesn't like that? Suddenly we were so magnanimous and doing God's work. Moreover, the Iraqi army was a shell of itself from the Gulf War. They had no chance. The ensuing guerrilla war was disastrous, but since W and Rumy thought it nothing more than deadenders, I'll hold them to it. This was a war sought because they thought we could end it before breakfast of the next news cycle for nothing more than the cost of a cup of coffee at the Waffle House. That's how they saw it, that's how they cast it and thus, butt on the line, 1. This proved true since W was reelected.
Obama and Pakistan: To recap above. The intelligence was not certain. The choice Obama took required that multiple helicopters could evade a decently equipped radar net, land in a building that had been re-conned by satellite, had children in the line of fire, and no idea what the extent of the resistance would be. On top of that, the whole mission would fail if the firefight was prolonged and bin Laden got away. Dead troops would mean leaving them behind, or taking assets to recover the body. If the mission was delayed, the Pakistanis would show up guns ablazing. Not to mention this was a major military town. He ran the risk of the Pakistanis saying the action was an act of war. Pakistan is on edge with India. Both nuclear powers, they might think they were under attack from India and launch. Nothing was guaranteed in this operation, but Obama weighed the risks, and took a reasonable gamble, and it was successful because he believed in the ability of our military and intelligence services, didn't cherry pick information like Cheney did, and went in knowing the risk, but also confident in the reward.
And then Luke Scott has to go shoot his mouth off about a stupid conspiracy theory that leaves no lingering questions now that it has been resolved. So Luke Scott, in military parlance: Sierra, Tango, Foxtrot.
