There has been much ado lately about Iran’s nuclear program and the possibility of the little dictator, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, developing nuclear weapons.
The trouble is there has been no secret about Iran’s nuclear ambitions to either the international community or, in particular, to the United States. But now, all of a sudden, it has become a problem that must be dealt with.
Funny, Iran wasn’t a priority for neither the mainstream news media nor the liberal progressives in Washington, D.C., during the Bush Administration.
If memory serves me correctly, former President Bush wanted to deal with Iran by imposing sanctions on its nuclear program. But his political opponents opposed this idea, arguing that we had no proof that Iran was using its nuclear program to develop weapons.
However, now that a liberal progressive is in the White House, a nuclear Iran poses a threat.
Excuse me? Where was all of this concern and attention over Iran when Bush was in office and appealing for action against the Hitler of the Middle East?
The answer is that Iran was considered an inconvenient nuisance during the Bush years that the left hoped it could ignore until it got one of its own in the White House. Now that the left again resides at 1600 Pennsylvania, Iran can be addressed as the threat to national security that it has been for several years.
As far as the left-wing progressives were concerned, they didn’t want to give Bush any more war legacies by allowing Iran to grow into an international issue. Bush already had 9/11/01 and America’s response under his watch. The left certainly didn’t want to give him any more chances at being mentioned in the history books—other than as a miserable, failed President.
With its willing accomplices in the press, the left-wing succeeded in sweeping the importance of Iran under the rug until the right time.
Evidently, now that President Obama is in office, and one of their own, there is no time like the present to make Iran the issue that it should have been in the first place. Only this time, whatever happens will be under the liberals’ watch, and they are going to do everything they can now to vilify Ahmedinejad and Iran in order to create the illusion that President Obama is tough on terrorism.
But Iran notwithstanding, this isn’t the first time that international affairs have been manipulated by the left to serve its purposes.
The mainstream news media—dominated and controlled by left-wing, liberal progressives—does not report the Wars On Terror with the same fervor it did under Bush’s watch.
The tone is very different these days; more positive, less negative.
Just the other day, the media reported the deaths of eight servicemen in Afghanistan, but their deaths were swiftly tied to their acts of heroism.
When Bush was in office, there was a death toll count added to every day, and the total emphasized regularly during broadcasts. Very little was mentioned of the heroism of the soldiers who lost their lives; simply that their convoys had been the victims of an RPG attack or roadside bomb.
In fact, the news media went out of its way to dig up whatever dirt it could find and connect the U.S. military to something negative. Whether it was Abu Graib Prison or a U.S. Marine court-martialed for firing on an unarmed civilian, we could count on two negative stories about the U.S. military for every positive one.
But now, after the success of the 2008 troop surge and an improved Iraqi security force—both of which it is never mentioned occurred under Bush’s watch—the new administration is able to enjoy some military successes that it has also been able to claim as its own.
Today, negative military stories may still get reported, but not with the same urgency or frequency they had been under Bush. Instead, positive stories of military success are the focus; especially since Barack Obama is now the Commander-In-Chief. When troop losses are mentioned, their mission and acts of heroism are added to emphasize that they died bravely and for a good cause.
Where was this same spirit during the Bush Administration? A troop death was reported as another senseless loss of life; rarely, if ever, connected with what he or she may have died for and doing his or her duty.
President Obama pledged during the 2008 election that U.S. forces would be withdrawn from Iraq by 2010. By my watch, he has 14 months to achieve this objective before it can be counted as another election year broken promise.
And near as I can tell, troop reductions thus far have been subtle.
It will be interesting to note when the ball drops on Times Square at the end of next year whether or not the Iraq War so loathed by liberals will be a recent memory, or a continuing saga.
My experience following politics, and my instincts, endorse the latter.
It takes more than election-year rhetoric to end a war the right way. It takes victories.
The big question in my mind, though, is whether or not the American people are awake enough to realize that they have been hoodwinked and manipulated by a political machine these past eight years.
Some say ignorance is bliss, and I imagine for most Obama voters, that is more or less the truth.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Parallels to Iraq
Critics and opponents of the Iraq War will either claim that America (1) went to war over there under false pretenses, or (2) had no valid purpose for being there in the first place. They argue that because no link was found between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda—the principal architect of the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks—and no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) recovered, we should never have been there to begin with.
I beg to differ.
First of all, to say that American forces were committed to a war under false pretenses is, in and of itself, a falsehood. The President of the United States and the Congress each reviewed the same intelligence that strongly suggested Saddam Hussein was an indirect supporter of al-Qaeda’s terrorist efforts, and the former Iraqi dictator was hiding WMDs. Both the executive and legislative branches voted for a resolution to invade Iraq and oust Hussein’s tyrannical Baath Party government from power.
Unfortunately, neither an al-Qaeda link nor WMDs could be established. But it would be a gross misstatement to say America went to war under false pretenses. There was nothing pretentious about the intelligence that both the White House and Capitol Hill relied upon to make the decision to go to war. It may have proved incorrect, but that doesn’t mean a war against a brutal dictator was somehow made invalid.
Under what pretenses, pray tell, did the United States, under the protection of NATO, invade Serbia, other than to oust another brutal dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, from power? That was all the reason America required then, and should have been all it needed to invade Iraq.
Nobody on the left criticized former President Bill Clinton for the decision to take the lead of NATO forces and drive the butcher Milosevic from power. But when George W. Bush led the effort to invade Iraq, the cries against the action were loud and numerous.
Why?
Was Saddam Hussein any better than Milosevic? Was the latter somehow more deserving of military justice than the former?
Let’s look at what the two dictators had in common: Both were butchers, who murdered people en masse, by the thousands. Both were greedy, power-hungry narcissists and blood-thirsty sadists who could never kill or torture enough to quench their violent appetites. Both were enemies of democracy and the virtues of liberty, equality and justice that go along with it. And both hated the United States of America.
The war in Serbia wasn’t any more or less virtuous than the Iraq War. But because a liberal democrat presided over the former, and a neo-conservative republican over the latter, somehow we are supposed to believe that one was good and the other bad?
Sorry, I don’t buy it.
Furthermore, where are all the protests against Iraq now that Bush is out of office and the liberals once again have one of their own in the White House? I’ve heard nothing but crickets singing on the issue of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 20, 2009.
I wonder why that is?
I beg to differ.
First of all, to say that American forces were committed to a war under false pretenses is, in and of itself, a falsehood. The President of the United States and the Congress each reviewed the same intelligence that strongly suggested Saddam Hussein was an indirect supporter of al-Qaeda’s terrorist efforts, and the former Iraqi dictator was hiding WMDs. Both the executive and legislative branches voted for a resolution to invade Iraq and oust Hussein’s tyrannical Baath Party government from power.
Unfortunately, neither an al-Qaeda link nor WMDs could be established. But it would be a gross misstatement to say America went to war under false pretenses. There was nothing pretentious about the intelligence that both the White House and Capitol Hill relied upon to make the decision to go to war. It may have proved incorrect, but that doesn’t mean a war against a brutal dictator was somehow made invalid.
Under what pretenses, pray tell, did the United States, under the protection of NATO, invade Serbia, other than to oust another brutal dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, from power? That was all the reason America required then, and should have been all it needed to invade Iraq.
Nobody on the left criticized former President Bill Clinton for the decision to take the lead of NATO forces and drive the butcher Milosevic from power. But when George W. Bush led the effort to invade Iraq, the cries against the action were loud and numerous.
Why?
Was Saddam Hussein any better than Milosevic? Was the latter somehow more deserving of military justice than the former?
Let’s look at what the two dictators had in common: Both were butchers, who murdered people en masse, by the thousands. Both were greedy, power-hungry narcissists and blood-thirsty sadists who could never kill or torture enough to quench their violent appetites. Both were enemies of democracy and the virtues of liberty, equality and justice that go along with it. And both hated the United States of America.
The war in Serbia wasn’t any more or less virtuous than the Iraq War. But because a liberal democrat presided over the former, and a neo-conservative republican over the latter, somehow we are supposed to believe that one was good and the other bad?
Sorry, I don’t buy it.
Furthermore, where are all the protests against Iraq now that Bush is out of office and the liberals once again have one of their own in the White House? I’ve heard nothing but crickets singing on the issue of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 20, 2009.
I wonder why that is?
Saturday, August 29, 2009
The Kennedy Myth
Much like the Camelot of Arthurian legend, the Kennedy family's American Camelot has flourished as mostly a myth.
With the death of Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy, D-MA, the grandiose chapter of a saga that has been "Camelot" for nearly a half-century is finally coming to a close.
Edward was the youngest, and last surviving, of patriarch Joe Kennedy's children. He's got two sons of his own, along with a nephew, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and niece, Caroline Kennedy, that will continue to carry on the family title. And undoubtedly, their own children will do the same one day, too.
The Kennedy saga will continue, of course, but Camelot just won't be the same without its original rulers.
Then again, Camelot was never the same after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Much the same way the Camelot of Arthurian legend was never the same after Arthur.
JFK made Camelot what it became; not Robert, not Ted, not even Eunice, whose contributions to the betterment of society were greater than all of her brothers' efforts combined.
Robert did not live long enough after Jack to wield the scepter of Camelot as effectively as his brother had in just the three short years he held it.
And Edward, well, he could never get his hands on it in the first place.
In fact, if the truth is known, Teddy contributed most to the Kennedy myth, and least to its glory.
It was Edward whose delinquency threatened to deface Camelot on more than one occasion; none more controversial than Chappaquiddick.
While Jack was the embodiment of courage and bravery, having distinguished himself as a gunboat commander in the Pacific theater of World War II, his youngest brother, Edward, was his antithesis.
Teddy's behavior reflected every bit the spoiled rich kid that he was. Unlike John, Edward did not serve his country in the Armed Forces. Instead, he fled for the safer and more comfortable surroundings of Washington, D.C., politics as his contribution to a lifetime of public service.
I'm not saying Teddy was a coward. But an argument certainly could have been made after Chappaquiddick.
I am also compelled to wonder about Edward's connections after both his older brothers were assassinated. Both were at or near the top of the political spectacle, highly visible leaders who had been known to take some controversial, and unpopular stands.
Oddly enough, Teddy Kennedy was mostly silent, working quietly behind the scenes in politics during the tenure of his older brothers, and he outlived them both to a ripe old age.
Again, I'm not saying Edward was given security by the underworld in exchange for his silence. But then again, the Kennedy fortune was built around the gangland mob of Prohibition days.
Old Joseph Kennedy, the family patriarch who started it all, made his money illegally as a bootlegger during 1920s Prohibition. He dealt rather closely with mobsters and mafia, who controlled the flow of black market goods, including and especially alcohol.
It is widely speculated that the mob was at least partially responsible for the deaths of Jack and Bobby Kennedy, because (1) they were in the very seats of political power, and (2) they had threatened on more than one occasion to get tough on crime and criminals; including and in particular, the underworld.
There is also speculation that Edward may have been approached at one time by representatives of the mob and was either bribed under the table to keep his mouth shut, or else told in no uncertain terms that anything less than total silence would mean an untimely death just like his brothers.
If such speculation is true, then Ted probably did both to (1) feather his own nest, and (2) to ensure for himself a long and secure life in public service. Any bribery at all would have come in the form of power and not profit, because Teddy had no need for money; he had plenty of his own from the family inheritance, and it came easy to him once elected to the U.S. Senate.
What's more appealing to a powerful aristocrat than more power, and a means to protect and ensure it.
The family's underworld connections could easily provide both.
And, frankly, the results speak for themselves. Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy served 47 years in the U.S. Senate from the same district, and went largely unchallenged. Whenever he was challenged, he always managed to come out on top. No doubt thanks to friends in both high, and low, places.
What's more, I never heard the late, great senator from Massachusetts talk tough on crime as his brothers once had. In fact, social justice became hs rallying cry; not crime control.
Coincidence perhaps? Or maybe just political pay back for some of his less legitimate supporters.
In the weeks that have followed Teddy's passing, the public has been fed nothing but filtered propaganda about the last of the original Camelot heirs.
According to the neutral and objective news media, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy was a champion of the poor and down-trodden. He was a man of great compassion and generosity. He was a renaissance man for all seasons.
Heck, he might as well have been the best thing since sliced bread, which, incidentally, was probably his older brother Jack.
If you believe that Sen. Kennedy really helped the poor, and truly cared about them, then I know of a bridge you could buy.
And, no, it's not the one crossing the pond over the Chappaquiddick River.
In Teddy's nearly five decades in the U.S. Senate, the poor are still poor, some poorer than before, and there are more of them than when he was first elected.
More people are on welfare and unemployment today than there were when Kennedy first championed President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society vision.
And more people than ever before are dependent upon government subsidies for their livelihoods.
That is very sad.
Sen. Kennedy obviously did not believe in the wise, old axiom, "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."
Instead, he believed in a patronizing, patriarchial government system that sustained people indefinitely.
And after more than 40 years of Great Society goodness, three generations have grown up under the protective, but watchful umbrella of Uncle Sam. And those of the last 30 years have known nothing better...like, perhaps, opportunity to follow their dreams, start their own businesses and become their own bosses.
How is keeping people poor helping them? What had Edward Kennedy ever done to lift the poor out of poverty and into his world of the wealthy elite, the American bourgeois?
Perhaps the senator gave to charity and that's fine. We average folks do that, too.
But Ted Kennedy was, first and foremost, a politician, who viewed the poor among us, first and foremost, as votes. He maintained his power, in part, because of all the promises he had made to the poor.
Near as I can tell, though, the poor are still poor. And I have yet to learn of any banquets given at the Kennedy Estate where the poor and hungry were invited. But many wealthy libs like Kennedy have eaten like kings there in honor of the poor.
The stark, cold reality is that Ted Kennedy was a social, economic and political elitist who lived high on the hog his entire life, never had to struggle to achieve anything, and had it all handed to him, including a matched set of silver spoons.
If that isn't enough, he had a nice, cushy federal pension and handsome benefits package that paid exponentially better than anything you and I could hope to get out of either Social Security or Medicare.
Did I mention that Edward Kennedy was also one of the biggest and boastful of political hypocrites in Washington, D.C.?
He was heralded as a champion of the poor. But neither his lifestyle, nor his voting record, nor his political career prove to me that he cared a wit about the have-nots.
In truth, Kennedy was a patronizing aristocrat whose idea of compassion was to put people on the government teat where they may sustain themselves but never prosper.
Among other things, Kennedy was also an irresponsible playboy, womanizer, hard drinker and alcoholic, and a harbinger of political, social and economic corruption.
The only gnawing regret I have over Kennedy's passing is that his propagandists in the mainstream press have succeeded in making him out to be the saint that he most definitely was not.
He has been unjustly canonized simply because of his relation to King Jack and Prince Robert.
The fact is, Edward had done as much if not more vile, contemptible things as a public servant as any other common, ordinary politician has; only he had a made-to-order cleaning service that conveniently swept everything under the rug for him, and a friendly watchdog news media that was willing to look the other way and pretend that everything around him was clean.
Meanwhile, scores of other politicians--in particular, Kennedy's political and ideological opponents--have been given routine anal exams by the same watch dog and run off the property.
Kennedy was at the helm of a very powerful political machine that is the Democratic Party. What he said went, which meant that whatever his handlers said also went.
What I just cannot understand is how a man with so much dirt under his finger nails could be placed on such a high pedestal of reverance.
Why does modern America insist on crown royalty after having fought so long and so hard to gain independence from a monarchy, and struggled over the past two centuries to keep it away?
And more importantly, why do we insist on casting our pearls before swine, when, time and again, they have turned to spite us?
You can put a gold ring in a pig's snout and a crown on its head. You can even dress it in the finest purple robes and call it royalty. But no amount of flattery or adornment will change the fact that the creature we have just transformed is still a pig.
Not that I'm calling the late Sen. Edward Kennedy a pig.
I'm just saying...
With the death of Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy, D-MA, the grandiose chapter of a saga that has been "Camelot" for nearly a half-century is finally coming to a close.
Edward was the youngest, and last surviving, of patriarch Joe Kennedy's children. He's got two sons of his own, along with a nephew, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and niece, Caroline Kennedy, that will continue to carry on the family title. And undoubtedly, their own children will do the same one day, too.
The Kennedy saga will continue, of course, but Camelot just won't be the same without its original rulers.
Then again, Camelot was never the same after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Much the same way the Camelot of Arthurian legend was never the same after Arthur.
JFK made Camelot what it became; not Robert, not Ted, not even Eunice, whose contributions to the betterment of society were greater than all of her brothers' efforts combined.
Robert did not live long enough after Jack to wield the scepter of Camelot as effectively as his brother had in just the three short years he held it.
And Edward, well, he could never get his hands on it in the first place.
In fact, if the truth is known, Teddy contributed most to the Kennedy myth, and least to its glory.
It was Edward whose delinquency threatened to deface Camelot on more than one occasion; none more controversial than Chappaquiddick.
While Jack was the embodiment of courage and bravery, having distinguished himself as a gunboat commander in the Pacific theater of World War II, his youngest brother, Edward, was his antithesis.
Teddy's behavior reflected every bit the spoiled rich kid that he was. Unlike John, Edward did not serve his country in the Armed Forces. Instead, he fled for the safer and more comfortable surroundings of Washington, D.C., politics as his contribution to a lifetime of public service.
I'm not saying Teddy was a coward. But an argument certainly could have been made after Chappaquiddick.
I am also compelled to wonder about Edward's connections after both his older brothers were assassinated. Both were at or near the top of the political spectacle, highly visible leaders who had been known to take some controversial, and unpopular stands.
Oddly enough, Teddy Kennedy was mostly silent, working quietly behind the scenes in politics during the tenure of his older brothers, and he outlived them both to a ripe old age.
Again, I'm not saying Edward was given security by the underworld in exchange for his silence. But then again, the Kennedy fortune was built around the gangland mob of Prohibition days.
Old Joseph Kennedy, the family patriarch who started it all, made his money illegally as a bootlegger during 1920s Prohibition. He dealt rather closely with mobsters and mafia, who controlled the flow of black market goods, including and especially alcohol.
It is widely speculated that the mob was at least partially responsible for the deaths of Jack and Bobby Kennedy, because (1) they were in the very seats of political power, and (2) they had threatened on more than one occasion to get tough on crime and criminals; including and in particular, the underworld.
There is also speculation that Edward may have been approached at one time by representatives of the mob and was either bribed under the table to keep his mouth shut, or else told in no uncertain terms that anything less than total silence would mean an untimely death just like his brothers.
If such speculation is true, then Ted probably did both to (1) feather his own nest, and (2) to ensure for himself a long and secure life in public service. Any bribery at all would have come in the form of power and not profit, because Teddy had no need for money; he had plenty of his own from the family inheritance, and it came easy to him once elected to the U.S. Senate.
What's more appealing to a powerful aristocrat than more power, and a means to protect and ensure it.
The family's underworld connections could easily provide both.
And, frankly, the results speak for themselves. Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy served 47 years in the U.S. Senate from the same district, and went largely unchallenged. Whenever he was challenged, he always managed to come out on top. No doubt thanks to friends in both high, and low, places.
What's more, I never heard the late, great senator from Massachusetts talk tough on crime as his brothers once had. In fact, social justice became hs rallying cry; not crime control.
Coincidence perhaps? Or maybe just political pay back for some of his less legitimate supporters.
In the weeks that have followed Teddy's passing, the public has been fed nothing but filtered propaganda about the last of the original Camelot heirs.
According to the neutral and objective news media, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy was a champion of the poor and down-trodden. He was a man of great compassion and generosity. He was a renaissance man for all seasons.
Heck, he might as well have been the best thing since sliced bread, which, incidentally, was probably his older brother Jack.
If you believe that Sen. Kennedy really helped the poor, and truly cared about them, then I know of a bridge you could buy.
And, no, it's not the one crossing the pond over the Chappaquiddick River.
In Teddy's nearly five decades in the U.S. Senate, the poor are still poor, some poorer than before, and there are more of them than when he was first elected.
More people are on welfare and unemployment today than there were when Kennedy first championed President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society vision.
And more people than ever before are dependent upon government subsidies for their livelihoods.
That is very sad.
Sen. Kennedy obviously did not believe in the wise, old axiom, "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."
Instead, he believed in a patronizing, patriarchial government system that sustained people indefinitely.
And after more than 40 years of Great Society goodness, three generations have grown up under the protective, but watchful umbrella of Uncle Sam. And those of the last 30 years have known nothing better...like, perhaps, opportunity to follow their dreams, start their own businesses and become their own bosses.
How is keeping people poor helping them? What had Edward Kennedy ever done to lift the poor out of poverty and into his world of the wealthy elite, the American bourgeois?
Perhaps the senator gave to charity and that's fine. We average folks do that, too.
But Ted Kennedy was, first and foremost, a politician, who viewed the poor among us, first and foremost, as votes. He maintained his power, in part, because of all the promises he had made to the poor.
Near as I can tell, though, the poor are still poor. And I have yet to learn of any banquets given at the Kennedy Estate where the poor and hungry were invited. But many wealthy libs like Kennedy have eaten like kings there in honor of the poor.
The stark, cold reality is that Ted Kennedy was a social, economic and political elitist who lived high on the hog his entire life, never had to struggle to achieve anything, and had it all handed to him, including a matched set of silver spoons.
If that isn't enough, he had a nice, cushy federal pension and handsome benefits package that paid exponentially better than anything you and I could hope to get out of either Social Security or Medicare.
Did I mention that Edward Kennedy was also one of the biggest and boastful of political hypocrites in Washington, D.C.?
He was heralded as a champion of the poor. But neither his lifestyle, nor his voting record, nor his political career prove to me that he cared a wit about the have-nots.
In truth, Kennedy was a patronizing aristocrat whose idea of compassion was to put people on the government teat where they may sustain themselves but never prosper.
Among other things, Kennedy was also an irresponsible playboy, womanizer, hard drinker and alcoholic, and a harbinger of political, social and economic corruption.
The only gnawing regret I have over Kennedy's passing is that his propagandists in the mainstream press have succeeded in making him out to be the saint that he most definitely was not.
He has been unjustly canonized simply because of his relation to King Jack and Prince Robert.
The fact is, Edward had done as much if not more vile, contemptible things as a public servant as any other common, ordinary politician has; only he had a made-to-order cleaning service that conveniently swept everything under the rug for him, and a friendly watchdog news media that was willing to look the other way and pretend that everything around him was clean.
Meanwhile, scores of other politicians--in particular, Kennedy's political and ideological opponents--have been given routine anal exams by the same watch dog and run off the property.
Kennedy was at the helm of a very powerful political machine that is the Democratic Party. What he said went, which meant that whatever his handlers said also went.
What I just cannot understand is how a man with so much dirt under his finger nails could be placed on such a high pedestal of reverance.
Why does modern America insist on crown royalty after having fought so long and so hard to gain independence from a monarchy, and struggled over the past two centuries to keep it away?
And more importantly, why do we insist on casting our pearls before swine, when, time and again, they have turned to spite us?
You can put a gold ring in a pig's snout and a crown on its head. You can even dress it in the finest purple robes and call it royalty. But no amount of flattery or adornment will change the fact that the creature we have just transformed is still a pig.
Not that I'm calling the late Sen. Edward Kennedy a pig.
I'm just saying...
Thursday, March 19, 2009
What Bush did right
There is a litany of criticisms out there that have been launched at the 43rd President of the United States over the years, and the things that went wrong during his administration—some of them founded, but many more of them not. Frankly, the accusations against former President George W. Bush are too numerous and lengthy to go into here. I would have to write a novel to address each and every one of them. Besides, a lot of the attacks on Bush are so baseless anyway that they do not deserve the extra attention.
The Bush haters are so hell-bent on portraying the man in a negative light for those things that he did wrong, or that went wrong, that they purposely ignore what he did right and what went right during his eight years in office.
So, without further delay, I will spell out in clear, concise English what President George W. Bush got right.
After Sept. 11, 2001 there has not been another international terrorist attack on American soil. There was not another domestic terrorism act on American soil since the D.C. sniper shootings of 2002. Period. Bottom line. End of story.
Commander-in-Chief Bush, with the support of the United States military and counterterrorism intelligence, managed to keep al-Qaeda and its allies at bay in the Middle East by taking the war to them, instead of waiting for our enemies to come at us again. In spite of pitfalls experienced during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the one stroke of brilliance of the offensive strategy is that it has kept al-Qaeda from wreaking further havoc on American soil. The United States selected ground of its choosing—Iraq—from which to conduct the “War On Terror” and engage our terrorist enemies. Instead of chasing terrorists all around the globe in an effort to engage them on ground of their choosing, the U.S. Armed Forces enticed them to crawl out of their caves and come to it.
While there have been terrorist attacks in other countries since Sept. 11, 2001 the United States of America has not been touched since. The credit for this is due in large part to the strategy of the Bush Administration. Under former President George W. Bush’s watch, the American republic has been kept safe to continue practicing its freedom and spreading its liberty to the tired, huddled and weary masses of the world.
If you are capable of acknowledging anything positive from the past eight years under George W. Bush, then at least acknowledge that.
The Bush haters are so hell-bent on portraying the man in a negative light for those things that he did wrong, or that went wrong, that they purposely ignore what he did right and what went right during his eight years in office.
So, without further delay, I will spell out in clear, concise English what President George W. Bush got right.
After Sept. 11, 2001 there has not been another international terrorist attack on American soil. There was not another domestic terrorism act on American soil since the D.C. sniper shootings of 2002. Period. Bottom line. End of story.
Commander-in-Chief Bush, with the support of the United States military and counterterrorism intelligence, managed to keep al-Qaeda and its allies at bay in the Middle East by taking the war to them, instead of waiting for our enemies to come at us again. In spite of pitfalls experienced during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the one stroke of brilliance of the offensive strategy is that it has kept al-Qaeda from wreaking further havoc on American soil. The United States selected ground of its choosing—Iraq—from which to conduct the “War On Terror” and engage our terrorist enemies. Instead of chasing terrorists all around the globe in an effort to engage them on ground of their choosing, the U.S. Armed Forces enticed them to crawl out of their caves and come to it.
While there have been terrorist attacks in other countries since Sept. 11, 2001 the United States of America has not been touched since. The credit for this is due in large part to the strategy of the Bush Administration. Under former President George W. Bush’s watch, the American republic has been kept safe to continue practicing its freedom and spreading its liberty to the tired, huddled and weary masses of the world.
If you are capable of acknowledging anything positive from the past eight years under George W. Bush, then at least acknowledge that.
Bush in review
Every president has a legacy, whether he wants it or not. A legacy isn’t just what people remember; it is also the judgment of history. Presidents have always been, and will always be, remembered by people for their accomplishments, their failures, and for things that happened during their administrations. History remembers them on a greater moral plane of right versus wrong.
No doubt if George W. Bush’s haters have their way, history will only judge the 43rd President of the United States on the things that he did wrong or that went wrong during his presidency. But a more objective examination of the legacy of George W. Bush reveals some things that he got right as well as some things that he got wrong during his eight years in office.
As with the 42 previous commanders-in-chief before him, George W. Bush didn’t always do the right thing; but he didn’t always do the wrong thing, either. He ought to be judged fairly as a president, rather than with subjective bias.
Since the very day George W. Bush was first sworn in as President, the political left has been leveling an unceasing litany of criticisms against him; some justified, but most not so much. He could never do anything right as far as the haters were concerned. He might as well have been a dead president walking, and treated as though he was on death row, because he was condemned long before he even took the oath of office and had a chance to do anything—right or wrong.
It all started during the 2000 Republican presidential primary when the haters compared George W. to his father and former President George H.W. Bush, our nation’s 41st commander-in-chief. I remember distinctly that candidate Bush’s critics called him “wishy-washy” like his father. They said he would never be able to make decisions on his own and that the elder Bush would always be looking over his son’s shoulder.
From there, he went from being called his father’s clone to a corrupt oil man who paid off the United States Supreme Court and bought the 2000 General Election. This, of course, was in response to a weeks-long challenge by the Gore Campaign over Florida’s contested 25 electoral votes. Despite multiple recounts, the request for still another was finally denied by then-Florida Secretary of State Katharine Harris, who had determined that there had been enough recounts and it was time to certify the election. Her decision, though, was then appealed by the Gore Campaign to the Florida Supreme Court, which sided with Gore and overruled the Secretary of State, allowing yet another recount to proceed. At that point, the state Supreme Court’s decision was appealed by the Bush Campaign to the United States Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled that the directive of the Florida Secretary of State to certify the election should stand. And, viola, George W. Bush received Florida’s hotly contested 25 electoral votes, which put him over the 270 votes required to win the presidency. And he was sworn in as President No. 43 instead of then-Vice President Al “I created the Internet” Gore.
At that point, the political left’s hatred of Bush had become embedded. And from then on, his enemies pursued a relentless campaign to either have him impeached or impugned beyond repair. They made it their mission in life.
What followed were the accusations that George W. Bush was not a legitimate president; that he was de facto, winning by default, instead of by popular vote. Most on the left—many of the same ones demanding that we recognize Barack Obama as our president—never recognized Bush as the President of the United States.
But then, not even eight months into his presidency, history was thrust upon George W. Bush with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. How the leftists seethed over those first somber days in the aftermath where the country appeared united behind President Bush and his vow to hunt down those responsible for the attacks, as well as those in support of them. Their only chance to thwart a war legacy for Bush was to make that war look bad; that is, worse than it actually was.
And so began Plan B of Operation Bush-wacker, which was to sabotage the war effort and make “Dubya” come out of it all with egg on his face.
Since Day One of the “War On Terror,” the Bush haters lambasted his every move. Things only got worse when Bush decided to invade Iraq, oust Saddam Hussein from power and implement a democratic government. His enemies literally charged him with treason for going to war under false pretenses, and lying to the American people about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam’s link to al-Qaeda.
The Bush haters called it an unnecessary war. And yet, they conveniently forgot how many United Nations sanctions the former Iraqi dictator violated prior to the Allied invasion that brought an end to his reign of terror. The war’s critics forgot just how many chances former President Bush gave Saddam to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors and how long it took from Bush’s first warning to his last. As I recall, the entire diplomatic effort lasted several months before the president decided it was time to put an end to Saddam’s defiance for good.
The Bush haters also have conveniently forgotten that President Bush received Congressional approval for the invasion. That is, the members of Congress—both Republican and Democrat—had access to and reviewed the same intelligence information that the White House did and apparently came to the same conclusion of Bush: That the probability Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was not only sound, but also evidence-based. As a result, Congress endorsed the invasion and Bush was given the green light.
Now, of course, we know that no WMDs were found in Iraq. This doesn’t mean there weren’t any there; just that they were never found. Chances are good that Saddam probably got rid of any WMDs before the invasion. He had, after all, plenty of time—several months, in fact—to move them during the diplomatic sanctions and appeals placed by the U.N. to admit weapons inspectors.
Nonetheless, Bush was called a liar for misleading the American public about WMDs in Iraq, even though the invasion was a joint effort between the executive and legislative branches of government. The intelligence was shared between the two branches and both reached the same conclusion. So, why didn’t the critics also level the same accusations at Congress that they had toward Bush?
The reason is because Bush was easier to hate. He was a single person, who could more easily be singled out. Plus, he was the president, and like the coach of a team, he gets the blame for everything that goes wrong. Furthermore, the critics did not want to call attention to those politicians who voted for the invasion and who happened to be their political and ideological allies. That would have been self-defeating. So, it was much more convenient, and served their political agendas better just to blame Bush for everything.
Forget the fact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have managed, for the most part, to keep al-Qaeda corralled in its own part of the world. President Bush and the United States military have taken the fight to the enemy, rather than wait for the terrorists to bring the fight back to us. Forget that the United States has not suffered another international terrorist attack on its soil since 9/11/01. And forget that our own intelligence efforts since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have thwarted multiple plans for more attacks, including the exposure of al-Qaeda cells right here in America.
I’m sure the Bush haters could write a litany of pages detailing everything that the man did wrong during his eight-year tenure as the President of the United States. Certainly, he made his share of faux-pas and is not without fault on some things that have gone wrong.
But the one thing George W. Bush did right, the one thing that his enemies cannot take away from him, and the one thing that objective, unbiased history will recall about the 43rd Chief Executive is that the United States of America was not attacked again after Sept. 11, 2001. The Bush White House, in spite of all of its faults, kept the nation safe from further terrorism. That much he said he would do, and that much, at least, he did.
No doubt if George W. Bush’s haters have their way, history will only judge the 43rd President of the United States on the things that he did wrong or that went wrong during his presidency. But a more objective examination of the legacy of George W. Bush reveals some things that he got right as well as some things that he got wrong during his eight years in office.
As with the 42 previous commanders-in-chief before him, George W. Bush didn’t always do the right thing; but he didn’t always do the wrong thing, either. He ought to be judged fairly as a president, rather than with subjective bias.
Since the very day George W. Bush was first sworn in as President, the political left has been leveling an unceasing litany of criticisms against him; some justified, but most not so much. He could never do anything right as far as the haters were concerned. He might as well have been a dead president walking, and treated as though he was on death row, because he was condemned long before he even took the oath of office and had a chance to do anything—right or wrong.
It all started during the 2000 Republican presidential primary when the haters compared George W. to his father and former President George H.W. Bush, our nation’s 41st commander-in-chief. I remember distinctly that candidate Bush’s critics called him “wishy-washy” like his father. They said he would never be able to make decisions on his own and that the elder Bush would always be looking over his son’s shoulder.
From there, he went from being called his father’s clone to a corrupt oil man who paid off the United States Supreme Court and bought the 2000 General Election. This, of course, was in response to a weeks-long challenge by the Gore Campaign over Florida’s contested 25 electoral votes. Despite multiple recounts, the request for still another was finally denied by then-Florida Secretary of State Katharine Harris, who had determined that there had been enough recounts and it was time to certify the election. Her decision, though, was then appealed by the Gore Campaign to the Florida Supreme Court, which sided with Gore and overruled the Secretary of State, allowing yet another recount to proceed. At that point, the state Supreme Court’s decision was appealed by the Bush Campaign to the United States Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled that the directive of the Florida Secretary of State to certify the election should stand. And, viola, George W. Bush received Florida’s hotly contested 25 electoral votes, which put him over the 270 votes required to win the presidency. And he was sworn in as President No. 43 instead of then-Vice President Al “I created the Internet” Gore.
At that point, the political left’s hatred of Bush had become embedded. And from then on, his enemies pursued a relentless campaign to either have him impeached or impugned beyond repair. They made it their mission in life.
What followed were the accusations that George W. Bush was not a legitimate president; that he was de facto, winning by default, instead of by popular vote. Most on the left—many of the same ones demanding that we recognize Barack Obama as our president—never recognized Bush as the President of the United States.
But then, not even eight months into his presidency, history was thrust upon George W. Bush with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. How the leftists seethed over those first somber days in the aftermath where the country appeared united behind President Bush and his vow to hunt down those responsible for the attacks, as well as those in support of them. Their only chance to thwart a war legacy for Bush was to make that war look bad; that is, worse than it actually was.
And so began Plan B of Operation Bush-wacker, which was to sabotage the war effort and make “Dubya” come out of it all with egg on his face.
Since Day One of the “War On Terror,” the Bush haters lambasted his every move. Things only got worse when Bush decided to invade Iraq, oust Saddam Hussein from power and implement a democratic government. His enemies literally charged him with treason for going to war under false pretenses, and lying to the American people about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam’s link to al-Qaeda.
The Bush haters called it an unnecessary war. And yet, they conveniently forgot how many United Nations sanctions the former Iraqi dictator violated prior to the Allied invasion that brought an end to his reign of terror. The war’s critics forgot just how many chances former President Bush gave Saddam to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors and how long it took from Bush’s first warning to his last. As I recall, the entire diplomatic effort lasted several months before the president decided it was time to put an end to Saddam’s defiance for good.
The Bush haters also have conveniently forgotten that President Bush received Congressional approval for the invasion. That is, the members of Congress—both Republican and Democrat—had access to and reviewed the same intelligence information that the White House did and apparently came to the same conclusion of Bush: That the probability Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was not only sound, but also evidence-based. As a result, Congress endorsed the invasion and Bush was given the green light.
Now, of course, we know that no WMDs were found in Iraq. This doesn’t mean there weren’t any there; just that they were never found. Chances are good that Saddam probably got rid of any WMDs before the invasion. He had, after all, plenty of time—several months, in fact—to move them during the diplomatic sanctions and appeals placed by the U.N. to admit weapons inspectors.
Nonetheless, Bush was called a liar for misleading the American public about WMDs in Iraq, even though the invasion was a joint effort between the executive and legislative branches of government. The intelligence was shared between the two branches and both reached the same conclusion. So, why didn’t the critics also level the same accusations at Congress that they had toward Bush?
The reason is because Bush was easier to hate. He was a single person, who could more easily be singled out. Plus, he was the president, and like the coach of a team, he gets the blame for everything that goes wrong. Furthermore, the critics did not want to call attention to those politicians who voted for the invasion and who happened to be their political and ideological allies. That would have been self-defeating. So, it was much more convenient, and served their political agendas better just to blame Bush for everything.
Forget the fact that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have managed, for the most part, to keep al-Qaeda corralled in its own part of the world. President Bush and the United States military have taken the fight to the enemy, rather than wait for the terrorists to bring the fight back to us. Forget that the United States has not suffered another international terrorist attack on its soil since 9/11/01. And forget that our own intelligence efforts since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have thwarted multiple plans for more attacks, including the exposure of al-Qaeda cells right here in America.
I’m sure the Bush haters could write a litany of pages detailing everything that the man did wrong during his eight-year tenure as the President of the United States. Certainly, he made his share of faux-pas and is not without fault on some things that have gone wrong.
But the one thing George W. Bush did right, the one thing that his enemies cannot take away from him, and the one thing that objective, unbiased history will recall about the 43rd Chief Executive is that the United States of America was not attacked again after Sept. 11, 2001. The Bush White House, in spite of all of its faults, kept the nation safe from further terrorism. That much he said he would do, and that much, at least, he did.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Knighthood not what it used to be
In the middle ages, men were knighted by the nobility for their acts of courage and bravery. Being of sound moral character helped a great deal, too.
Maybe it's just a sign of the times, but being knighted today just doesn't seem to mean as much anymore as it once did. The people being knighted these days are simply razing the bar too low and are redefining knighthood as a trendy status symbol instead of being a distinguished honor and a position of distinction.
Take, for example, Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy, D-MA, who was knighted last week by the British Empire for his work in the Northern Ireland peace process. In all likelihood, all Old Kennedy probably did was get the two sides to sit down in a pub with him and then proceed to drink them into such intoxication that they'd sign anything just to run to the men's room to throw up.
Truth be told, the knighting of Sir Edward Kennedy was for political distinction, and little else. I mean, the man is 77 years old and battling brain cancer. What else can the British do but knight the guy out of sympathy for his unfortunate condition and declining health.
He certainly wasn't knighted for the traditional acts of courage and bravery. His entire life has been one lived in sheltered cowardice.
I certainly wouldn't count the July 1969 incident at the Chappaquiddick River as a sterling example of Ted's courage. The Massachusetts senator was drunk and driving home from a party with a young woman in his passenger seat. He ended up driving off a bridge and into a pond. Although he escaped to safety, the young woman in the car, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne, did not. She drowned, and Sir Edward left the scene of the accident without notifying authorities until the next day...after the victim's body was discovered. For that breach of character and trust, Teddy boy should have been thrown out of the U.S. Senate. Instead, he got what amounts to a slap on the wrist, and the vast fortune of the Kennedy Estate paid the victim's family handsomely in hush money to avoid what would undoubtedly have led to a very lengthy and public criminal and/or civil trial that might have permanently damaged the Camelot reputation built and maintained by the Kennedys.
And let's not forget about Sir Edward's two older brothers who fell victim to an assassin's bullet. After brother Robert's assassination, Ted was the last surviving son of bootlegger Joe. It is a fact that the Kennedy fortune was built upon illegal and criminal activity during the Prohibition years. It is also a fact that old Joe Kennedy dealt frequently with the mob as part of his bootlegging activities. The Kennedys were knee-deep in mob corruption.
So, when Jack and Bobby went to Washington as the nation's highest ranking military commander and the highest ranking law enforcement officer, respectively, the mob naturally became very concerned.
In fact, there is speculation by some conspiracists and even historians that the deaths of JFK and RFK were contracted out by the mob.
I've always found it fascinating that Sir Edward has never had an attempt on his life, despite what happened to his older brothers and in spite of his higher political aspirations. The conclusion I've come to is that Sir Edward was confronted by his brothers' enemies at one point and given a choice: Either die like the other two, or keep his mouth shut tight and live. My hunch is that Ted knew as much about the mob as his older brothers did. He holds between his ears information that would have him killed if he ever breathed a word of it. He knew this, and he chose to save his own neck yet again. Ted's reward, in turn, has been a long, fruitful 47-year career in the U.S. Senate that has also included a few runs for the Democratic Presidential nomination. His re-election every term since his first in 1962 has been virtually guaranteed by the political--and perhaps even criminal--powers that be. Another shining example of Sir Edward's bravery and courage.
Finally, the piece de resistance of courage has to be Sir Edward's reputation as a real party guy.
I'm talking, of course, about his rather well-known and even better documented propensity for womanizing and hard drinking. Besides the scarlet letter of Chappaquiddick, Kennedy's drunken escapades have included numerous parties, where he'd enjoyed the company of loose women. Much of this occurring as a married man. Truly courageous, I must say.
Sir Edward is a long-time alcohol abuser, who passed this trait onto his son, Patrick, who, as a U.S. Congressman from Rhode Island, has had a history of alcohol and drug abuse. Now, that takes courage to drown yourself in a bottle for the sheer hell of it, then sit back and watch your own child follow in your footsteps.
Yes, sir, they are certainly scraping the bottom of the barrel for knights these days.
Maybe it's just a sign of the times, but being knighted today just doesn't seem to mean as much anymore as it once did. The people being knighted these days are simply razing the bar too low and are redefining knighthood as a trendy status symbol instead of being a distinguished honor and a position of distinction.
Take, for example, Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy, D-MA, who was knighted last week by the British Empire for his work in the Northern Ireland peace process. In all likelihood, all Old Kennedy probably did was get the two sides to sit down in a pub with him and then proceed to drink them into such intoxication that they'd sign anything just to run to the men's room to throw up.
Truth be told, the knighting of Sir Edward Kennedy was for political distinction, and little else. I mean, the man is 77 years old and battling brain cancer. What else can the British do but knight the guy out of sympathy for his unfortunate condition and declining health.
He certainly wasn't knighted for the traditional acts of courage and bravery. His entire life has been one lived in sheltered cowardice.
I certainly wouldn't count the July 1969 incident at the Chappaquiddick River as a sterling example of Ted's courage. The Massachusetts senator was drunk and driving home from a party with a young woman in his passenger seat. He ended up driving off a bridge and into a pond. Although he escaped to safety, the young woman in the car, 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne, did not. She drowned, and Sir Edward left the scene of the accident without notifying authorities until the next day...after the victim's body was discovered. For that breach of character and trust, Teddy boy should have been thrown out of the U.S. Senate. Instead, he got what amounts to a slap on the wrist, and the vast fortune of the Kennedy Estate paid the victim's family handsomely in hush money to avoid what would undoubtedly have led to a very lengthy and public criminal and/or civil trial that might have permanently damaged the Camelot reputation built and maintained by the Kennedys.
And let's not forget about Sir Edward's two older brothers who fell victim to an assassin's bullet. After brother Robert's assassination, Ted was the last surviving son of bootlegger Joe. It is a fact that the Kennedy fortune was built upon illegal and criminal activity during the Prohibition years. It is also a fact that old Joe Kennedy dealt frequently with the mob as part of his bootlegging activities. The Kennedys were knee-deep in mob corruption.
So, when Jack and Bobby went to Washington as the nation's highest ranking military commander and the highest ranking law enforcement officer, respectively, the mob naturally became very concerned.
In fact, there is speculation by some conspiracists and even historians that the deaths of JFK and RFK were contracted out by the mob.
I've always found it fascinating that Sir Edward has never had an attempt on his life, despite what happened to his older brothers and in spite of his higher political aspirations. The conclusion I've come to is that Sir Edward was confronted by his brothers' enemies at one point and given a choice: Either die like the other two, or keep his mouth shut tight and live. My hunch is that Ted knew as much about the mob as his older brothers did. He holds between his ears information that would have him killed if he ever breathed a word of it. He knew this, and he chose to save his own neck yet again. Ted's reward, in turn, has been a long, fruitful 47-year career in the U.S. Senate that has also included a few runs for the Democratic Presidential nomination. His re-election every term since his first in 1962 has been virtually guaranteed by the political--and perhaps even criminal--powers that be. Another shining example of Sir Edward's bravery and courage.
Finally, the piece de resistance of courage has to be Sir Edward's reputation as a real party guy.
I'm talking, of course, about his rather well-known and even better documented propensity for womanizing and hard drinking. Besides the scarlet letter of Chappaquiddick, Kennedy's drunken escapades have included numerous parties, where he'd enjoyed the company of loose women. Much of this occurring as a married man. Truly courageous, I must say.
Sir Edward is a long-time alcohol abuser, who passed this trait onto his son, Patrick, who, as a U.S. Congressman from Rhode Island, has had a history of alcohol and drug abuse. Now, that takes courage to drown yourself in a bottle for the sheer hell of it, then sit back and watch your own child follow in your footsteps.
Yes, sir, they are certainly scraping the bottom of the barrel for knights these days.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Selling license plates should be next for Blago
Note to Rod Blagojevich: If at first you don’t succeed, then just keep trying.
So you weren’t able to sell President Barack Obama’s senate seat to the highest bidder as you had hoped to. No big deal.
There’s always make-up or the manufacturer of the hair-care product you use to maintain that impeccable coif.
Better yet, how about selling license plates? This way you don’t have to risk committing a felony. And even if you did, what would it matter? You’d already be doing the time.
Considering the level and severity of the allegations against Blago—not to mention the empirical evidence stacking up against him—his next stop after impeachment ought to be a federal court room to face trial on charges of corruption and conspiracy to commit election fraud.
The Illinois legislature did the right thing impeaching and removing the democratic governor from office. The amount of incriminating evidence against him—including months of taped telephone conversations—is more than enough to warrant a vote of no confidence in the chief executive of Illinois. And it should be sufficient to bring about a criminal indictment as well. All that’s left unanswered is whether or not the Illinois politicians have the cojones to take their grand-standing to another level by condemning one of their own to a criminal court and possibly prison.
Indeed, how many of the state’s powerbrokers, including the attorney-general, might have skeletons in their closets, blood on their hands, and mud on their shoes that they wouldn’t want Blago exposing in a court of law? I mean, really, what’s to stop the now-disgraced former democratic governor? He’s got nothing more to lose. And besides, if he’s going down, then to hell with them all, he’ll take as many down with him as he can.
If Blago’s actions are taken beyond impeachment—and I think they should be—then get ready for the biggest circus show since the Ringling Bros., because you will see grand-standing, high-wire acts, juggling and political acrobatics like you’ve never seen before. Who knows? The whole rotten political system in Chicago could be exposed and brought to ruin thanks to its sacrificial lamb, Rod Blagojevich.
And if I were President Barack Obama, his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, or any other high-profile politician from Chicago, I’d better warm up the shredder and start paying off the right people now to keep their mouths shut or to shut the mouths of potential snitches. I’m not saying that the President is corrupt. But, then again, how do we really know he is or isn’t?
Up until last Thanksgiving, Blago was a hero of the people. He was looked up to, admired, and probably even worshipped the way Obama has been. Now, of course, Blago’s no better than a piece of disguarded gristle that has been chewed up, spit out, and generally rejected by the body.
And yet, the fallen Blago is not too terribly different from Obama.
Both appealed to the masses as candidates for the people. Both campaigned as harbingers of change, champions of social justice, and self-righteous opponents of political corruption. Both are young, relatively good looking, and ambitious. Both are Illinois state democrats. And both are from Chicago, which has a very long, dark history of molding ordinary people into corrupt politicians.
From former U.S. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski to the Governors Ryan and now Blagojevich, the Windy City has a pretty poor track record of producing high-quality politicians.
Kind of makes one wonder about President Obama, Chief of Staff Emanuel, and others in the new White House Administration who hail from the city that Al Capone built. What skeletons are lurking in their closets, and who will be the unwitting stooges that open them?
I have yet to see a politician without dirt under his or her fingernails—especially one from a big city like Chicago.
The bottom line is that Blago isn’t alone in his corruption. He isn’t the first—and he certainly won’t be the last—politician caught doing something illegal. He has sufficient company.
Politicians seem drawn to corruption the way flies are to a pile of … well, you know.
There’s former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who resigned amidst a prostitution scandal; former U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, D-LA, who was caught on tape accepting a bribe and found with $90,000 in his freezer; former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-AK, who was convicted of felony corruption stemming from unproper political gifts he received; U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, R-ID, who illegally solicited gay sex in an airport public restroom; former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, R-FL, who resigned from Congress after he was caught sending sexually explicit emails and instant messages to teen-aged Congressional pages; Rostenkowski, who was convicted of mail fraud while serving as a democratic Congressman from Chicago at the time; and, of course, former democratic President Bill Clinton, who was found guilty of committing perjury in front of a federal grand jury as part of a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against him and was impeached by the House of Representatives.
There are so many other examples, of course, the list of which would be so long it would literally take an act of Congress to name them all here.
Speaking of an act of Congress, I have one: Why don’t We The People insist on a dress code for all elected federal officials? I’m thinking orange and yellow jumpsuits with a serial number across the chest and the acronyms “USC” or “USS” printed on the back—denoting, of course, U.S. House and U.S. Senate. Senators can be orange and representatives yellow, while the president and vice-president wear denim blue.
This would be one way to keep our politicians honest. They’d be dressing the part and they’d have no choice in the matter.
So you weren’t able to sell President Barack Obama’s senate seat to the highest bidder as you had hoped to. No big deal.
There’s always make-up or the manufacturer of the hair-care product you use to maintain that impeccable coif.
Better yet, how about selling license plates? This way you don’t have to risk committing a felony. And even if you did, what would it matter? You’d already be doing the time.
Considering the level and severity of the allegations against Blago—not to mention the empirical evidence stacking up against him—his next stop after impeachment ought to be a federal court room to face trial on charges of corruption and conspiracy to commit election fraud.
The Illinois legislature did the right thing impeaching and removing the democratic governor from office. The amount of incriminating evidence against him—including months of taped telephone conversations—is more than enough to warrant a vote of no confidence in the chief executive of Illinois. And it should be sufficient to bring about a criminal indictment as well. All that’s left unanswered is whether or not the Illinois politicians have the cojones to take their grand-standing to another level by condemning one of their own to a criminal court and possibly prison.
Indeed, how many of the state’s powerbrokers, including the attorney-general, might have skeletons in their closets, blood on their hands, and mud on their shoes that they wouldn’t want Blago exposing in a court of law? I mean, really, what’s to stop the now-disgraced former democratic governor? He’s got nothing more to lose. And besides, if he’s going down, then to hell with them all, he’ll take as many down with him as he can.
If Blago’s actions are taken beyond impeachment—and I think they should be—then get ready for the biggest circus show since the Ringling Bros., because you will see grand-standing, high-wire acts, juggling and political acrobatics like you’ve never seen before. Who knows? The whole rotten political system in Chicago could be exposed and brought to ruin thanks to its sacrificial lamb, Rod Blagojevich.
And if I were President Barack Obama, his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, or any other high-profile politician from Chicago, I’d better warm up the shredder and start paying off the right people now to keep their mouths shut or to shut the mouths of potential snitches. I’m not saying that the President is corrupt. But, then again, how do we really know he is or isn’t?
Up until last Thanksgiving, Blago was a hero of the people. He was looked up to, admired, and probably even worshipped the way Obama has been. Now, of course, Blago’s no better than a piece of disguarded gristle that has been chewed up, spit out, and generally rejected by the body.
And yet, the fallen Blago is not too terribly different from Obama.
Both appealed to the masses as candidates for the people. Both campaigned as harbingers of change, champions of social justice, and self-righteous opponents of political corruption. Both are young, relatively good looking, and ambitious. Both are Illinois state democrats. And both are from Chicago, which has a very long, dark history of molding ordinary people into corrupt politicians.
From former U.S. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski to the Governors Ryan and now Blagojevich, the Windy City has a pretty poor track record of producing high-quality politicians.
Kind of makes one wonder about President Obama, Chief of Staff Emanuel, and others in the new White House Administration who hail from the city that Al Capone built. What skeletons are lurking in their closets, and who will be the unwitting stooges that open them?
I have yet to see a politician without dirt under his or her fingernails—especially one from a big city like Chicago.
The bottom line is that Blago isn’t alone in his corruption. He isn’t the first—and he certainly won’t be the last—politician caught doing something illegal. He has sufficient company.
Politicians seem drawn to corruption the way flies are to a pile of … well, you know.
There’s former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who resigned amidst a prostitution scandal; former U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, D-LA, who was caught on tape accepting a bribe and found with $90,000 in his freezer; former U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-AK, who was convicted of felony corruption stemming from unproper political gifts he received; U.S. Sen. Larry Craig, R-ID, who illegally solicited gay sex in an airport public restroom; former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, R-FL, who resigned from Congress after he was caught sending sexually explicit emails and instant messages to teen-aged Congressional pages; Rostenkowski, who was convicted of mail fraud while serving as a democratic Congressman from Chicago at the time; and, of course, former democratic President Bill Clinton, who was found guilty of committing perjury in front of a federal grand jury as part of a sexual harassment lawsuit brought against him and was impeached by the House of Representatives.
There are so many other examples, of course, the list of which would be so long it would literally take an act of Congress to name them all here.
Speaking of an act of Congress, I have one: Why don’t We The People insist on a dress code for all elected federal officials? I’m thinking orange and yellow jumpsuits with a serial number across the chest and the acronyms “USC” or “USS” printed on the back—denoting, of course, U.S. House and U.S. Senate. Senators can be orange and representatives yellow, while the president and vice-president wear denim blue.
This would be one way to keep our politicians honest. They’d be dressing the part and they’d have no choice in the matter.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Worms sliding down a hill
When the federal government proposed a $700 billion bailout of financial lending institutions in September 2008 as a way to stave off massive closures and bankruptcies, I said to myself that this was only the beginning. Once Uncle Sam handed over the bailout money, it was only a matter of time before other industries came crawling to Washington, D.C., on their hands and knees like street beggars looking for spare change to buy their liquor with.
Sometimes, I just hate being right.
No sooner had President Bush and Congress passed legislation approving the bank bailout then other entities began to whimper. We heard from the National Automobile Dealers Association, the Big Three automakers, as well as the state of California and several county and municipal governments seeking life preservers to stay afloat amidst budget deficits threatening to burst their infrastructures.
A can of worms had just been opened and the federal government was about to create a slippery slope.
It happened just before Christmas 2008 when President Bush authorized $350 billion in bailout money to the Big Three automakers. The bill had actually been killed in Congress, but the President gave the auto industry the money anyway.
Now, as late as this week, another industry has come forward to claim its share of the federal coffers: pornography, of all things.
What’s next, the Aryan Nation, the Klu Klux Klan, ELF, La Raza, NAMBLA and other extremist groups?
Heck, if Uncle Sam so much as even considers giving cash to porn kings, then he might as well just start giving money to any and all fringe elements of society—regardless of their levels of depravity. If the perverts in the porn industry can get a hand-out from Uncle Sam, then those who practice bestiality or man-boy love probably could, too.
The worms are out of the can and sliding down the slope fast.
If Congress actually bails out porn, then there’s no limit to how low it will go to usher in the era of American socialism.
That porn kings would even have the gall to beg from Uncle is an insult to the taxpayers, who have to foot the bill. Haven’t we always been told by the makers and purveyors of smut that it is market driven and that the perverts are simply providing what the people want?
Well, if that’s the case, then evidently the people don’t want porn any more, because they aren’t buying it and the perverts are losing money. And this is why they are now going to Washington to beg for bailout funds.
Without being too candid here, if porn is in jeopardy of disappearing from the marketplace, then hallelujah and amen. Let it go out of business. America would have been better off without it to begin with. Good riddance.
Quite frankly, I never endorsed or even understood the logic behind the federal bailouts in the first place. What makes our elected officials and the industries being bailed out think that they will be able to remain afloat with bailout money if the American consumer is not buying? Just how long will the Big Three stay in business after all the bailout money is used up on infrastructure if the consumer is not yet ready to buy a new car? A few months, perhaps.
Then it will be back to the floor of the House, begging for more money.
Bailing anybody out in a sick economy is like trying to bail water out of a boat riddled with holes. It is futile.
I have to wonder whether or not it would be better in the long run for companies to file bankruptcy, reorganize and then start over, rather than continue to patch holes.
All the bailout money does is give temporary relief. It’s kind of like putting ointment on a burn: The relief will eventually wear off and the wound will start hurting again, requiring more ointment.
What happens when that money runs out and the bailed out companies are still in the red? Will they come groveling back for more? How many times will this need to happen before businesses are in the black again?
There’s a vicious cycle being started with the bailouts—a cycle of dependency on government to provide the funds to keep operating.
Sooner or later, such a cycle becomes permanent. And when that happens, we no longer have free markets, but rather a government-controlled economy…otherwise known as socialism, which is an authoritarian, and not republican, form of government.
Do we really want to go down this road? I caution against it.
But I fear any warnings, either coming from me or elsewhere, may be too little too late. The can has been opened, the slope is slippery and the worms are sliding fast down the hill toward ruin.
I’m afraid that we may be looking at the sunset of republican democracy, the cornerstone for which has been free-market capitalism. As the free market goes, then so goes the United States of America and its beloved republic.
At that point, the light from the city on the hill will cease to shine and hope will fade with it.
Long live the Peoples Republic of Amerika.
Sometimes, I just hate being right.
No sooner had President Bush and Congress passed legislation approving the bank bailout then other entities began to whimper. We heard from the National Automobile Dealers Association, the Big Three automakers, as well as the state of California and several county and municipal governments seeking life preservers to stay afloat amidst budget deficits threatening to burst their infrastructures.
A can of worms had just been opened and the federal government was about to create a slippery slope.
It happened just before Christmas 2008 when President Bush authorized $350 billion in bailout money to the Big Three automakers. The bill had actually been killed in Congress, but the President gave the auto industry the money anyway.
Now, as late as this week, another industry has come forward to claim its share of the federal coffers: pornography, of all things.
What’s next, the Aryan Nation, the Klu Klux Klan, ELF, La Raza, NAMBLA and other extremist groups?
Heck, if Uncle Sam so much as even considers giving cash to porn kings, then he might as well just start giving money to any and all fringe elements of society—regardless of their levels of depravity. If the perverts in the porn industry can get a hand-out from Uncle Sam, then those who practice bestiality or man-boy love probably could, too.
The worms are out of the can and sliding down the slope fast.
If Congress actually bails out porn, then there’s no limit to how low it will go to usher in the era of American socialism.
That porn kings would even have the gall to beg from Uncle is an insult to the taxpayers, who have to foot the bill. Haven’t we always been told by the makers and purveyors of smut that it is market driven and that the perverts are simply providing what the people want?
Well, if that’s the case, then evidently the people don’t want porn any more, because they aren’t buying it and the perverts are losing money. And this is why they are now going to Washington to beg for bailout funds.
Without being too candid here, if porn is in jeopardy of disappearing from the marketplace, then hallelujah and amen. Let it go out of business. America would have been better off without it to begin with. Good riddance.
Quite frankly, I never endorsed or even understood the logic behind the federal bailouts in the first place. What makes our elected officials and the industries being bailed out think that they will be able to remain afloat with bailout money if the American consumer is not buying? Just how long will the Big Three stay in business after all the bailout money is used up on infrastructure if the consumer is not yet ready to buy a new car? A few months, perhaps.
Then it will be back to the floor of the House, begging for more money.
Bailing anybody out in a sick economy is like trying to bail water out of a boat riddled with holes. It is futile.
I have to wonder whether or not it would be better in the long run for companies to file bankruptcy, reorganize and then start over, rather than continue to patch holes.
All the bailout money does is give temporary relief. It’s kind of like putting ointment on a burn: The relief will eventually wear off and the wound will start hurting again, requiring more ointment.
What happens when that money runs out and the bailed out companies are still in the red? Will they come groveling back for more? How many times will this need to happen before businesses are in the black again?
There’s a vicious cycle being started with the bailouts—a cycle of dependency on government to provide the funds to keep operating.
Sooner or later, such a cycle becomes permanent. And when that happens, we no longer have free markets, but rather a government-controlled economy…otherwise known as socialism, which is an authoritarian, and not republican, form of government.
Do we really want to go down this road? I caution against it.
But I fear any warnings, either coming from me or elsewhere, may be too little too late. The can has been opened, the slope is slippery and the worms are sliding fast down the hill toward ruin.
I’m afraid that we may be looking at the sunset of republican democracy, the cornerstone for which has been free-market capitalism. As the free market goes, then so goes the United States of America and its beloved republic.
At that point, the light from the city on the hill will cease to shine and hope will fade with it.
Long live the Peoples Republic of Amerika.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
