As a Rutgers alumni myself, I am not sure that I have ever been prouder of my old college than upon hearing this news.
Not when I was admitted, or while attending, although I was proud to be a student.
Not when I graduated, and I heard a man make one of the most important and thought-provoking commencement speeches that I have ever heard.
Not on subsequent visits.
Not when the Rutger's women's team was contending for the national title, or the men's team was ranked in the top 25 in the country.
Not when the football program suddenly bolted into national relevance after starting the season 9-0 back in 2007 (I believe).
No, not ever have I been so proud of Rutgers, my former college.
Condoleeza Rice was slated to be the commencement speaker at Rutgers this year, but she backed out after considerable protests from both students and staff, who were outraged over her prominent role in the Iraq war.
I know that some people will find this offensive. Some people feel that a former high ranking member of government, such as Secretary of State, should be treated with more respect, and that the protestors in this case went too far.
To those critics, all I can say is this: the Iraq war was illegal, as well as immoral. In order to achieve it, the Bush administration (and Condoleeza Rice as a member of it) failed to respect the laws of the Constitution of the United States. The invasion was pursued with such a measure of arrogance and ignorance, flaunting America's perception of being exempt from any limitations that other countries face, that the whole world was offended. Remember Bush telling the world that we didn't need a permission slip (from the UN) to defend ourselves? All of those weapons of mass destruction that were used as the smoking gun for the invasion, and which were never found, because they obviously did not exist. And we dare to criticize Russia, or any other country, when they act out in much the same manner?
Yes, I am aware that I have railed against the Bush administration quite often here, and will continue to do so. For all of those "Miss me yet?" bumper stickers and online postings portraying his picture, presumably to stoke sympathy for those who feel that they are suffering under President Obama's tenure, the fact of the matter is that I still feel that Bush was the worst president that this country ever had. He may be funny at times, and he always had a good sense of humor. But that a good president does not make. During those eight long years, there were numerous corporate scandals, from Enron, Halliburton and Blackwater and no bid contracts in Iraq, to the most recent, and most obvious example of the financial crisis of 2008, and the huge bailout to all of those "too big to fail" banks that continued on with the same behavior after receiving the bailout money that got them into trouble in the first place. Of course, there was the illegal invasion of Iraq, which we entered while already at war in Afghanistan, and the arrogance with which these operations were pursued and conducted remains staggering to think about. There was Abu Ghraib and the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay. Bush's team tried to redefine the legal term for torture, so that we could get away with more borderline actions. And let us not forget that he and his administration did all of this, and aggressively pursued the wars, while also doggedly sticking to tax breaks that particularly benefitted the rich and most fortunate among us, which the nation could not afford. In the process, he raised the national debt to truly staggering heights, and that is not even adding in the money that Obama was forced to borrow quickly after taking office in order to try and deal with the very real financial crisis that he was handed.
Don't get me wrong: I am not a fan of Obama, either. Anyone who regularly follows "The Charbor Chronicles" surely knows that by now, as well. But here's my main problem with Obama: he and his administration have not made as clear a distinction between themselves and their predecessors as they promised, and as many had hoped. They have stuck to many of those abusive policies that the Bush administration initiated, which has eroded the freedoms of Americans, and American democracy itself, which frankly, has been in decline for decades now. But recent leaders have grown increasingly comfortable with a greater level of transparency at this decline of the nation, and it's status as a democracy with certain freedoms guaranteed for it's citizens, and Bush's term remains the most glaring example of this unfortunate trend.
So for that, and that lone, anyone prominently associated with the Bush administration and it's role in the erosion of democracy and freedom in the United States hardly deserves the respect that a diplomat of repute might normally receive. I would not have objected if, say, Jimmy Carter, or even someone from the Reagan administration (even though I am not a big fan of the Reagan years, either) had been selected as speaker.
But Rice is different. She was a very prominent player in the Bush administration, and particularly with the invasion of Iraq. We are still paying for those crimes committed, and my question, far from "Miss me yet?", is more along the lines of why such "leaders" have not been tried for their war crimes, as well as for their treason upon trampling of our constitutional rights. Frankly, I'm getting closer to asking the same questions about Obama and his administration, as well.
Failing that, though, at the very least we should not hold these people up on some sort of pedestal, simply because they officially held a certain title that they proved unworthy of. Neither those prominent players of the Bush administration or the Obama administration deserve such veneration, and that certainly would include Condoleeza Rice, in my book. It seems that she is using her time and prominence during those years to gain leverage and perhaps make a run for higher political office some day. And whenever I see these people promoted, particularly by a university (like Rutgers), it angers me, because it is granting them a legitimacy that, in my opinion, they do not deserve. To give them such recognition is to honor the detrimental policies that they instituted. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died because of our actions, and their country's infrastructure was hugely damaged. Plus, well over 4,000 American troops were killed between Iraq and Afghanistan, with many more thousands coming home with serious injuries. And all the while, the Bush administration, like many Americans themselves, pretended that prominent patriotic displays worn on their sleeves, while hiding away the fact that they were cutting veterans benefits, was somehow acceptable.
This is not the behavior of any self-respecting leader, or the people under that leader. And Condoleeza Rice, since she obviously held such a high position during those dark days, deserves the same scrutiny that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfelt, Wolfowitz, and even Colon Powell get. If anything, they should be explaining themselves and their actions before a court of law, rather than being given a chance to speak to new graduates and receiving honorary degrees and other distinctions.
So, while many will feel disgusted by the actions of Rutgers students and some staff in their role in effectively blocking Rice from speaking at the upcoming commencement, I instead offer my congratulations to them on actually doing their patriotic duty, and caring enough about this country, and the horrendous direction that it has taken, to actually voice their opinions loudly enough to be heard! I do not say this lightly, but again, I have never been prouder of Rutgers, my alma mater!
Most of the information about Condoleezza Rice's backing out of Rutgers Commencement ceremonies came from the article below:
"Condoleezza Rice backs out of Rutgers commencement" by the Associated Press, May 3, 2014:
http://news.yahoo.com/condoleezza-rice-backs-rutgers-commencement-133847265.html
No comments:
Post a Comment