One Opinion.

From time to time since September 11, 2001, I've often been moved to write more about politics than about light entertainment. To make a clear separation between my music and my political opinions, I've decided to put up this special page.

If the spirit moves you, please feel free to torch or bulldoze my CDs by the hundreds. They can be ordered at "Music & CDs"

Tony Lewis

February 19, 2009

Inauguration Eve

Thanksgiving, Christmas and the 4th of July all wrapped up in one.  I don’t know if I’m more excited about Obama coming in, or about Bush disappearing from my TV screen and my country’s helm. I guess both.

The world has suffered through the most damaging U.S. presidency of all time.  Years ago I wrote in this space that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the Merry Morons have caused such damage to our country, constitution and international image, that it might take a generation to fix it.  At that time I didn’t count on the possibility of a miracle.  The election of Barack Obama by the American People has in one fell swoop changed everything. Of course, the economy is still in ruins and will take a long time to recover, but we can now look forward to enjoying a renewal of warm feelings towards the US from nations who since shortly after 9-11 have looked at us with a mixture of fear, mistrust, disappointment and disgust. A people can make a mistake, as we did in 2000 by (almost) electing Bush, but unfathomable and unforgiveable was to re-elect someone in 2004 that over four years had already proven himself dangerous, incapable and idiotic.  “A country gets the government they deserve” is not a phrase that I’ve wanted to contemplate during the last 8 years.

But here we are on the eve of a brand-new epoch:  An Administration which is intelligent, principled, and educated.  We can now pick up our beloved Constitution, wipe off the filthy footprints of Cheney, Gonzales, Wolfowitz etc, and place it back where it belongs. Are we really so lucky as to have a President who has taught constitutional law and who understands, and respects our most precious concepts?  An Attorney General who states publically that water boarding is torture? A Secretary of State who seems to understand the concept of diplomacy?

Whether the new President is black, white, brown or striped shouldn’t make any difference in the long run, except for one effect: It’s inconceivable that there is not a change coming to American society which could begin to fix one of the most intractable problems we’ve had. Many black Americans have held the view that since the country was controlled by rich white men who made the rules and kept Black America down, it was not their America and they simply opted out.  Now it will be difficult for a black man to say that getting an education or playing by the rules is a waste of time since “they won’t let you get ahead anyway”.  Real integration from both sides is now a distinct possibility.

We still have two wars going on and our economy is in tatters and stomach-wrenching rending sound hasn’t stopped yet, but we have a window in which to win back the support and respect that we’ve squandered over the last two terms.  I for one am confident that with Barack Obama as the new “Decider”, we have a chance to not blow it this time.

Tony Lewis

March 27, 2008

IRAQ: SURGE, SMURGE

The Bush administration is so desperate to not have to admit to a completely mistaken policy, that their grasping at amazingly dubious straws in order to claim progress towards "victory" has sunk to a new level.

Turns out the currently touted "success" of The Surge has a lot more to do with US payments to Iraqi militias than increased security brought by more US troop presence. Yep, in case you missed it, we are holding off the insurgents from killing our soldiers by paying them protection money. In other words, we are paying terrorists blackmail money. This news is out there, but weirdly, it's rarely talked about, even by the "left-wing liberal-biased" media.

The US has been paying local militias to switch sides, setting up "Awakening Councils" to fight Al-Qaeda and to stop violence against US troops. A condition of their employment has also been to cease sectarian attacks. Since this policy is the reason for the calming of violence and tensions, what do you think will happen when the payments stop? Or if another party (Iran, Al-Qaeda, The Saudis) outbids us?

Take a moment to research this for yourself. We are not headed for a "Victory" in Iraq. They hate us, and the last thing on their minds is to be more like us. It will end badly no matter what, and the sooner we recognize that, the sooner we can get out, stopping the tragic and wasteful deaths of US servicemen, and beginning to mend the tatters of our international standing. Not to mention the dollar hemorrhage and the mortgaging of our future...

Thanks for your attention,

Tony Lewis

Five Years On

As everyone, I remember exactly where I was when the news came of the attacks of September 11, 2001. I was sitting at this very desk, working on the next season's tour details. What seemed like an interesting and unusual piece of news at first reporting ("An airplane is reported to have crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers in new York"), developed into one of the seminal events of modern times, certainly of our lives. Looking back, so much has changed, so much has been lost.

Tragically, much of what we as Americans have lost has been taken away from us by our own government, with our permission. We used to be secure that we lived in one of the world's fairest and most moral countries. The Rule Of Law was supreme, and arbitrary transgressions of those laws were something we looked down on as being the stuff of banana republics and aging communist regimes.

Five years on, we are a country who runs secret prisons in cahoots with shady regimes, who tortures prisoners, who blatantly lies and manipulates information in order to push through its agenda, who uses illicit tactics to control election outcomes, who breaks its own laws in order to spy unimpeded on its own citizens, and who through fear mongering attempts to keep control of the populace. Our moral standing, not only in the eyes of the world, but in our own hearts, has eroded to an almost Stalinesque level. Capturing and bringing Ben Laden to justice is no more a priority and rarely talked about.

Lying is OK now. The Bush Administration lied about Iraq, they lied about secret prisons and a policy of torture, they lied about the outing of Valerie Plame, they lied about the cost of the Medicare Drug bill, and the list goes on. Clinton lied about an extramarital affair, and was impeached. Bush got reelected. That's how good the Republican machine has gotten at controlling the American public through propaganda, fear and subterfuge.

This degradation didn't start five years ago, but this Administration seized upon those events to solidify a policy of enriching its backers at any price. And the price is high. We have mortgaged our economic future and exhausted our military while handing the Islamists every enlistment tool they wanted on a platter. Sadly, we have seen thousands of soldiers (not to mention tens of thousands of civilians) die as a result of the vilest betrayals of trust in American history.

But it's not all bad news five years on. Halliburton's stock price has tripled since the Iraq invasion and the oil companies are making record profits. See, there's always a silver lining if you just look hard enough.

Tony Lewis

June 4, 2003

FREEDOM FRIES & A BUMPKIN BURGER TO GO

As an American patriot, I take offense at the arrogance surrounding the French refusal to support Bush's war in Iraq. But this time the arrogance is not Gaulic, but home-grown. Now that the easy part - military action against an inferior opponent - has finished and not a trace of the much vaunted Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found, I wonder how long it will take before the American media (and consequently the American people) will come to the realization that the French were right all along.

France is a sovereign nation with the legitimate right to make their own foreign policy. Chirac, along with just about everyone else on Earth (except for half the British and a few elected "leaders" against the wishes of those who elected them), were simply not convinced that going to war was necessary at that time. They saw the US Administration grabbing at straws trying to find a justification that would stick, and weren't buying it. Powell's weak presentation in the UN didn't convince anyone who wasn't already on the band wagon, and time has born out that the intelligence about Iraq's WMD program was at best doctored, and at worst simply made up.

The Administation's threats that France would be shut out of the lucrative contracts for rebuilding Iraq's civilian infrastructure and oil business were not - to France's credit - enough to strong arm them into supporting a war they felt was unjustified. The US's military might does not make moral right, and the argument that France did not support an ally should in reality be turned around that the US acted illegally in persecuting a virtually unilateral aggression against a non-threatening state.

Friendship and gratitude for midwifing the US's birth have given way to "freedom fries" and cries of "traitor!". The government-fed anti-France campaign in the US shows a level of arrogance that not even the French could aspire to.

Tony Lewis

May 2, 2003

A TOTAL VICTORY

Now let's see:
No Weapons of Mass Destruction found;
Saddam and his sons vanished;
The Western street hates us almost as much as the Arab street;
'Liberated' Iraq resembles occupied Palestine more each day;
Two weeks after cessation of hostilities, total infrastructure still down (except for pumping of oil);
Ahead lies 5-10 year hostile occupation at $2 billion a month;
US is debasing its own values by using cheap semantics to contravene the Geneva Convention in Gitmo, Afganistan and Iraq;
US economy worsening week by week

Well, Mr. Bush, I'd say you've done one hell of a job ensuring the security of our country. Thanks!

Tony Lewis

March 25, 2003

Arrogance is a dangerous thing. It clouds your judgment, convincing you that you are right, or worse, that you can't be wrong. In the lead up to the war, the triumvirate of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush presented an arrogance rarely seen in international affairs, alienating our allies and strengthening our adversaries in the eyes of their citizenry. Now it appears that this arrogance might have led them to make errors of judgment which we Americans will pay for for many years to come, and which could earn us the condemnation of history.

This adventure was sold to the American people and the world on three points: The need to destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, to liberate the Iraqi people from a brutal and hated tyrant, and as an important step in the War on Terrorism. At this point, there is still no evidence that these weapons exist. Worse, our invasion has served to place the Iraqis solidly behind Saddam, to fight with vigor to protect their country from a foreign occupier, and to allow the vacuum of lawlessness to be filled in by an influx of outside terrorists who had no place in Iraq before the invasion. And we couldn't have been more effective in assuring that these terrorist organizations will have all the fodder and support they could dream of, for years to come.

This war seems to quickly be degenerating into the worst-case scenario. If it turns out that we were misled, or worse, that our leaders are so inept that they couldn't foresee the cost, then we will be forced to reexamine our knee-jerk patriotism, and in the future look with more critical eyes on our government's actions. They can be wrong.

In the absence of Iraqis dancing in the street to welcome us as liberators and the discovery of weapons of mass destruction, this war takes on the appearance of an imperialistic adventure with the goal of conquest of Iraq's oil wealth. In other words, a large-scale replay of what Saddam did twelve years ago in Kuwait. It has already started to take on some characteristics of the Vietnam conflict, and could well drag on for years producing unimaginable casualties in urban guerilla warfare, or send us packing with our tail between our legs. All this in the name of the American people. And the shame will not just be on Bush, but on all Americans.

I really hope that I am wrong about all this.

Tony Lewis

Dear Friends,

As I write this, the bombs are falling on Baghdad, American and British troupes are moving north from the Kuwaiti border, and my attitude towards the war has changed somewhat from what I wrote last month (read below).

My brother's son, Trent, is in the Persian Gulf on a Navy ship. Neither Putin, Chirac nor I could do anything to prevent President Bush from starting military action against Iraq. But now that it is a reality, I will try to fully support my country's armed forces, trusting that the benevolent nature of the American people will be extended through the Commander-in-Chief's orders, and bring a better lot to the Iraqi people. They need an end to their suffering, not an augmentation to it.

I believe that my position is similar to any other American who has not been in agreement with this Administration's decision to bypass the international community. But once the fight has been engaged, we rally behind our sons, nephews and fellow citizens, hoping for a short war, a clean victory, and a clearly democratic result for a better life for the Iraqis.

Interesting enough, following the French television coverage of the unfolding conflict, the reaction is similar. The French were certainly never 'pro-Iraqi', but along with many others were simply not convinced that the moment had yet come when military action was inevitable. But now, the attitude is clear, acceptance has already set in, and I'm sure that French prayers tonight will be the same as ours.

I strongly suspect that this same process has been general, including with Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks and the uproar surrounding her comments during a concert in Britain. Excuse me, but our constitution and traditions allow and encourage differences of opinion and freedom of speech. This knee-jerk reaction of conservatives to equate opinions divergent from theirs with aiding and abetting the enemy is simplistic at its best, and fascistic at its worst. I salute anyone who has stood up for their beliefs, damn the consequences.

Disagreement with Bush is not tantamount to supporting Saddam Hussein. But now that our kids are in harm's way, it's certainly time to give them our full support, and hope that we see them return soon from an Iraq free of Saddam, and on the road to a secure and democratic future.

Tony Lewis

February 18, 2003

Dear President Bush,

It seems that you have decided that you will lead our country into war against Iraq. There are just a few things I would really like to understand, so that I might be more supportive of the US position. I've heard your speeches, as well as Mr. Powell's, but there must have been some bits of information that I missed.

Please explain to me again how Iraq poses an imminent threat to the US, being on the other side of the planet?

Please make clear to me the evidence of that direct connection between Iraq and terror groups such as Al Qaida?

Please enlighten me as to why, if Saddam does indeed possess these horrible weapons as you assert, you are going to do everything possible to ensure that he actually uses them?

Please tell me if it is now our policy to go in unilaterally and overthrow every tyrannical leader of every country who does not meet our standards of behavior?

Please elucidate your new doctrine of "preemptive defensive attacks" and what, if any, limits it has?

Please put in plain words to me why Iraq's possible development of nuclear weapons is a higher priority to you than North Korea's, who has recently boasted openly of that capacity, in addition to having a long and proud track record of exporting destructive technology to rogue states and terrorists?

Please justify our apparent double standard of singling out Iraq for possessing weapons of mass destruction and committing crimes against the human rights of its own citizens, while actively supporting other nations that do the same?

Please clarify why you and Mr. Rumsfeld think the French, the Germans, the Belgians, the Russians, the Chinese, etc… are less informed, less intelligent or otherwise less gifted to see things as clearly as you? Does their failure to see things in your way disqualify them from deserving respect?

I thank you in advance Mr. President, for helping a fellow citizen who also loves his country, to understand why committing thousands to death is necessary at this time.

Sincerely,
Tony Lewis

MUSIC TRANSCENDS POLITICS. Keeping that in mind, I will put down my guitar and Stetson, and put on my 'political commentator' hat for a minute.

I love my country as one loves a spouse, a family member or one's self - for its basic goodness and in spite of its faults. And keeping in mind that critical thinking is the food of democracy, I offer the following comments.

America is a land of goodness and beauty, but also contradiction. Fiercely independent, justice loving and well-meaning, Americans sometimes confound these core values in matters beyond their borders. Without losing sight of worthy actions like WWII and the freeing of Kuwait, we also have been capable of superciliousness and bullying. True, every country must look out for its welfare, but not at the cost of belying its own values and principles. This cheapens it morally, and lessens its effectiveness in areas where it can do real good.

George W. Bush surely has his reasons for wanting to go to war with Iraq. Saddam is certainly a very unpleasant character, a tyrant and a danger to his own people. But what we've seen by way of argument from this Administration is a clumsy succession of backwards rationale and hegemonic arrogance. Mr. Bush started out by saying that we needed a regime change in Baghdad. When the international community rightly reminded him that we didn't have the right to change the government of a sovereign State just because we don't like it, he tried another tack: the need to keep Saddam from developing and using weapons of mass destruction. On the advice of some of his cooler-headed advisors, we went to the UN, acknowledging the importance of an international mandate. Months later, the UN weapons inspectors haven't made any finds to substantiate the Administration's claims, so he's come up with yet another attempt to justify going to war. Now it seems we have proof that Iraq is working with Al Qaida. This would be very disturbing indeed, but up to now Bush expects us to simply accept his damning accusations as fact without supplying proof, on the grounds of not wanting to compromise his sources. This rationale sounds disturbingly similar to that used by the Clonaid people.

So this month Colin Powell will go before the Security Council and present the proofs that have so far been withheld. Three outcomes are possible:

Powell does present irrefutable evidence of Iraq's transgression of UN resolutions and/or Al Qaida links and we go to war with overwhelming international backing;

Powell's presentation fails to convince, and the US decides to go after Saddam on its own along with a few allies, earning us pariah status among our own allies as well as unprecedented anti-Americanism around the world; or

In the absence of international support, Bush is persuaded to give the UN inspectors more time, and the whole story fizzles out and the troops are brought back home - alive.

Let's hope that vision, international law and rational thinking prevail, and that the heavy and possibly irreparable damage that would be the result of unilateral action will be avoided.

To people around the world, let me assure you that not all Americans are in agreement about a rush to war, and that the American character is not as aggressive, arrogant and messianic as some of our current President's rhetoric would have you believe.

Tony Lewis
February 1, 2003

LIFE GOES ON. There are personal and universal tragedies, wars holy and un-holy, assassinations, riots, sundry deaths, lone bombers, international coalitions, etc. - all the threads that woven together form the fiber of history. Since last month we have the very dubious distinction to be alive during one of history's moments of great movement. It is an old maxim that starting a war is easy, but stopping one is a bit trickier. We can't do much on an individual level to affect the outcome of all this. But we can continue to live our lives, to continue to be reasonable, feeling and thinking people. Our first responsibility is to our families, and to give them a sense of constancy and shelter. Part of going forth with our lives is to continue with activities which uplift us, which give us a sense of being part of a larger, better humanity. Music is a part of this. Therefore I make no apologies about getting on with music, which is my small contribution to positivism in the world. We shouldn't be blind to the reality of what's going on in the world, but neither should we close our eyes to things which will help us heal after the last bombs have fallen.

Peace,
Tony
November, 2001

September, 2001

13.09.2001

Two scenes this week were incongruous enough to move me from numb incredulity to tears. The first was seeing the humble and apparently heartfelt offer of aid to the United States by Washington's erstwhile bogeyman, Fidel Castro, and the second looking out my window and seeing the Swiss flag flying at half-mast over the 12-century Chillon Castle here in the heart of Europe. Both vignettes brought into focus how the horrific attacks that occurred on American soil on Tuesday had brought some heretofore very disparate elements huddling together, as humanity passed into a new, very frightening era.

After the unprecedented terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, we find ourselves on the brink of a constantly escalating spiral of hatred and killing in the mold of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but the scope of which the world has not yet seen. This is a big statement, but consider the following: The United States will rightly punish heavily whoever it ascertains had a part in the attacks, most probably Osama bin Laden and his Taleban hosts. But even if the US and its allies are successful in wiping out bin Laden and his immediate cells, the result will hardly be a dissuasion to further terrorist attacks by other Islamic extremist groups, leading just as assuredly to further reprisals from the West. The cycle of violence will follow the same pattern as it has in the Middle East but without limits, either in terms of geography, or in terms of destruction.

What friends and allies we enjoy among the Muslim nations would be forced into abandoning those ties, or face ouster by an increasingly radicalized populace. The swelling polarization will likely lead to the western Judeo-Christians pitted against the world's Muslims in a 21st Century version of the Dark Age's Holy Wars.

If this sounds like the far-fetched stuff of best sellers, so did a successful attack on the US's mightiest institutions by an army of international terrorists until last Tuesday.

We are still at a point where we could conceivably affect the inevitability of such a future. Responsibility for furnishing bin Laden or his successor with an unlimited supply of eager volunteers to carry out evermore audacious suicide attacks (not to mention the devastating prospect of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons being put into use), will be shared by the Western powers led by the US, if they do not take the opportunity to defuse the situation now. They are holding the ball.

The extreme hatred engendered among many in the Muslim world towards the United States did not appear in a vacuum. It has its seeds in the policies followed by successive US administrations in the Middle East conflict. These inequalities of treatment have fueled frustration and resentment among the displaced Palestinians and their fellow Arabs, and led directly to them regarding America as their enemy on an equal footing with Israel in their struggle to regain their homes, land and status as a nation.

The United States must now strike hard against the responsible parties for Tuesday's massacre. In the future much energy and resources will have to be spent in order to prevent replays of this new form of hyper-terrorism. But the Bush Administration must also find the insight and maturity to go beyond the rhetoric of reaction, and search for the root causes of this dangerous polarization with 1.5 billion of the world's inhabitants. In our prayers for the victims and their families, we should ask that US policy-makers be granted the retrospect to ask themselves some hard questions about past strategies, and that they find the wisdom and courage to steer a more equitable course in the future.

Events have shown that the government agencies in charge of intelligence and protection of American institutions were shockingly incompetent. Let us hope that we will not some day have to come to the same realization about our leaders.

Peace (I realize I haven't signed with this since 1974),

Tony Lewis