After receiving the stunning news that General Colin Powell was going to support and vote for Senator Barack Obama the few GOP backers that McCain still has were quick to the airwaves with their pathetic attempts at damage control. Make no mistake that even though the Republicans tarnished his image and damaged his credibility to sell the Iraq War, Colin Powell remained the consummate solider and never once spoke out against this act of betrayal by the Neo-Cons. While he discontinued vocally supporting the war, he remained a loyal member of the party. I on the other hand would not have been so gracious to the people who bent me over to take one for the team. And now even after remaining silent about all the deceptions, lies, and misdeeds once again the GOP heaps another pile of crap on Powell.
The spin from the RNC and their shrills is that of course General Powell would support Senator Obama *wink *wink. You see General Powell was never really one of us. It’s like I’ve always said you know what the state troopers in Alabama call General Powell? A ni**er. So after he falls on his sword to advance their causes and now that he has outlived his usefulness the truth is being exposed. You see of course General Powell would support Barack Obama, he’s black isn’t he.
Whether you agree with his remaining silent and being loyal, you have to respect his sense of duty even though it was misplaced. Many Americans still regard General Powell as a hero and a professional worthy of respect so his supporting Senator Obama was huge. Not only was his support big but the reasons for giving that support spoke volumes about what other moderate Republicans are thinking. According to General Powell, Senator Obama possesses the necessary intellectual curiosity, demeanor, and judgment to be President. He cited the current economic crisis and the Senator’s steadiness during the last 7 weeks as evidence of his readiness to lead. He stated that while he didn’t have all the answers (Who among us does?), he was thoughtful in his responses and was willing to consult with those who did. General Powell went through a list of characteristics that separated Senator Obama from McCain that included judgment, temperament, and intelligence.
The biggest bombshell for John McCain was not his reasons for supporting Senator Obama but his reasons for not supporting McCain who has known for years. General Powell contrasted the behavior of McCain during the last 7 weeks and the erratic strategies of his campaign. He also leveled concern at the direction the Republican Party has taken in the last 8 years culminating in the campaign of John McCain and his selection of Governor Palin as his running-mate, a person clearly not ready to assume the Presidency. General Powell gave voice to a growing concern among many suburban Republicans who feel that the Party has been tilted to far to the right by the conservative wing of the Party. Despite the public face the Republican Party is not unified, we are watching it war against itself in front of our very eyes. If it continues to veer more and more to the right and ignore the moderate and suburban voters in favor of the rural and small town voters it will no longer continue to be a major Party in American Politics.
There are times in all of our lives when we have the opportunity to define the kind of people we are and what we truly believe in. John McCain is at one of those periods. As I watched video of some of his supporters waiting in line to attend one of his rallies I could not believe the vile things they were saying about Senator Obama. I understand wanting to support your candidate and your team and I understand that people can have policy and philosophical differences with candidates, what I cannot understand are these rabid and vicious personal attacks against Senator Obama. John McCain is fond of saying he is willing to put “country first”, well he has the opportunity to do just that. While my suggestion would be for him to just withdraw from the race, I am not counting on that happening. What he can do though is something just as important. He must remove the toxic partisanship from this election.
If I were advising John McCain I would have him go before a national audience and state clearly and unequivocally that we must stop the toxic political discourse that is engulfing this election. That while he and Senator Obama have real policy differences they must not be an excuse to demean and dishonor him or any other American with whom we disagree. He needs to state that this type of behavior is reprehensible and will not be tolerated by all respectable Americans. I believe that if he were to do this it would not only raise his respect among voters, but it would also allow him to keep his legacy intact. After the election McCain is going back to the Senate and if he allows this type of behavior to continue then he will be toxic in the Senate. He would lose any chance he had to have any influence with his colleagues (except Joe Lieberman of course) or the American people.
Senator McCain it is now time to truly put America first.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Of Course He Would Support Obama
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Why Blacks Don’t Trust Barack Obama
The Barack Obama phenomenon has caught most people black and white by surprise. Many thought that he was a flash in the pan and that his appeal would not transcend into a viable national campaign. Iowa has done much to dispel those ideas and now those who previously regarded him as unelectable are starting to jump on the bandwagon. What has caught the pundits and many cynics by surprise is the degree to which many Americans want change. Barack Obama could not have existed prior to George W. Bush. If George Bush had not done such an awful job the past eight years, the country would not even have considered electing a black man no matter how much hope he inspired or how eloquently he spoke. Despite his enormous popularity there is still concern among many blacks, bloggers included about Mr. Obama’s agenda and if it will address the concerns of black Americans.
There are two main reasons for this concern in my opinion. The first is that during his campaign so far Mr. Obama has done little to highlight the issues that affect blacks specifically. His message has been from the start equality and justice for all Americans, with no special emphasis towards blacks. Now many have chalked this up to the American political landscape and how a black man has to run for national office in this country. He cannot appear too black; he can be black in appearance only. I read an interesting quote from General Colin Powell when I was researching this essay that I would like to share. When asked during his deliberation of running for the presidency in 1995 about his appeal to white voters, Mr. Powell had this to say.
No one was blunter about this than Powell himself. Asked in 1995 to explain his appeal to whites, he volunteered that "I speak reasonably well, like a white person," and, visually, "I ain't that black."[1]
The second reason and the one that I think has caused the greatest concern for blacks is the fact that Barack Obama is not a product of black America. To many this statement will be confusing so I will try to elaborate on its significance to blacks. First consider the black men who have run for President prior to Mr. Obama, there was Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Both of these men were creations of black America, their status as leader’s right or wrong were created by their perceived service to blacks. When running for President they spoke directly to the issues that blacks faced. They were in fact black candidates who were running grass-root campaigns that originated in the black communities. Neither man had ever held to my knowledge any prior elected office, let alone a statewide office like a Senator.
In my analysis, let me state that in my opinion Mr. Obama is black; I have no misgivings about his “blackness” or his ability to address the concerns of blacks. He will just do it in a way that is different from the way things have been done in the past. Mr. Obama will do it in the context of larger social issues that face all Americans in a certain class status. But to continue with the point at hand, while Mr. Obama came to fame as a community organizer in Chicago, he had little notoriety outside of Chicago. Mr. Obama went to Columbia and Harvard and was a civil rights lawyer, so unlike the others he was educated at prestigious white schools. There is also the fact that Mr. Obama does not share the direct history of American slavery with other black Americans.
Much has been made of his being the son of a black Kenyan and a white American, but to me this is a red herring. We have had many politicians and black leaders who were of mixed race and they did not receive the same scrutiny that Mr. Obama has received. To understand where a lot of this uneasiness is coming from I think we have to look at his history in politics. From the outset Mr. Obama has had the financial backing of white supporters and has always enjoyed the support of white voters. He did not ascend to his position as a result of the turbulent civil rights movement of the sixties and so he owes no allegiances to the past in that regard. Because Mr. Obama projects a non-confrontational style of discourse with whites, he has been labeled as not being black enough by many blacks.
With his Kenyan father and white American mother, his upbringing in Honolulu and Jakarta, and Ivy League education, Obama's early life experiences differ markedly from those of African American politicians who launched their careers in the 1960s through participation in the civil rights movement.[2] During his Democratic primary campaign for U.S. Congress in 2000, two rival candidates charged that Obama was not sufficiently rooted in Chicago's black neighborhoods to represent constituents' concerns.[3] In January 2007, "The End of Blackness" author Debra Dickerson warned against drawing favorable cultural implications from Obama's political rise. "Lumping us all together," Dickerson wrote in Salon, "erases the significance of slavery and continuing racism while giving the appearance of progress."[4] Film critic David Ehrenstein, writing in a March 2007 Los Angeles Times article, compared the cultural sources of Obama's favorable polling among whites to those of "magical negro" roles played by black actors in Hollywood movies.[5] Expressing puzzlement over questions about whether he is "black enough," Obama told an August 2007 meeting of the National Association of Black Journalists that the debate is not about his physical appearance or his record on issues of concern to black voters. "What it really lays bare," Obama offered, is that "we're still locked in this notion that if you appeal to white folks then there must be something wrong.[6][7]
The majority of black politicians and so-called leaders are and have been homegrown or products of the struggles of the civil rights movement. Mr. Obama represents a different type of black politician and leader in that he was created outside the community and came into the community to earn his stripes, for many blacks they are apprehensive of anyone black or white who wants to help that is not from the neighborhood or community. They are mistrustful of the motives of outsiders wanting to “help” due to the fact that many so-called outsiders have used them for their own nefarious purposes, especially concerning politics. The problem is that many of those same insiders have done equally as much damage as the outsiders, you would think it would be more damaging coming from insiders. Yet, we have always been more forgiving of the inside thieves and cons for some reason. Unfortunately for Mr. Obama rather than being cheered for his efforts, they are being met with aspersions. Instead of praise for giving up an opportunity to live a wealthy life based on his education and opportunities, he is getting derision for not being “black” enough.
The questions being asked by blacks concerning Barack Obama say more about the state of blacks in America than they do about Mr. Obama’s state. Have we become so petty and “institutionalized” by the past that when presented with an opportunity for changing the whole dynamics of America we get lost in the “crab syndrome”? Barack Obama represents an opportunity for change not just in politics, but in America as a whole. As a nation we must move beyond the racial and class divides that have kept us fighting the civil war for over 140 years. If elected will Barack Obama solve all of America’s problems? No. Will he solve all of black America’s problems? No. What his election will do is be the first step towards changing the agenda and the tone in America. I want to say thank you to George W. Bush and all of his Neo-Con cronies, because of them we will possibly have our first black nominee for President from any major Party and for me as a black man that is something to cheer about. The question we as black Americans must ask ourselves is this, are we ready to divorce the strategies of the past that have lost their effectiveness or shall we continue to watch as our young people and our communities are devastated by those policies.
[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/30/opinion/main2413315.shtml
[2] Wallace-Wells, Benjamin. "The Great Black Hope: What's Riding on Barack Obama?", Washington Monthly, November 2004.
[3] McClelland, Edward. "How Obama Learned to Be a Natural", Salon, February 12, 2007.
[4] Dickerson, Debra J. "Colorblind", Salon, January 22, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-09-30.
[5] Ehrenstein, David. "Obama the 'Magic Negro'", Los Angeles Times, March 19, 2007.
[6] Payne, Les. "Sen. Barack Obama: In America, a Dual Audience", Newsday, August 19, 2007
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Monday, December 10, 2007
When Lying Isn’t Lying
While I will admit that most if not all candidates sometimes have trouble with the truth. They have a tendency to overstate positive and understate negative facts concerning their records. We, as the voting public are aware of these liberties with the truth and have accepted them as part of the political process. Most voters are not that concerned with exact figures or facts so long as the candidates overall message or point rings true. Here is where a certain Republican presidential candidate is having a problem, Mr. Rudy Giuliani seems to be overstepping the occasional missed fact and figure tolerance that we allow candidates. In what appears to be a deliberate campaign of false facts and figures, Mr. Giuliani is churning out incorrect data at an alarming rate. For more information on prostate health and the work being done I have included a link to a website for more information. Thank you Dr. Krongrad...
In almost every appearance as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination, Rudolph W. Giuliani cites a fusillade of statistics and facts to make his arguments about his successes in running New York City and the merits of his views...All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong. And while, to be sure, all candidates use misleading statistics from time to time, Mr. Giuliani has made statistics a central part of his candidacy as he campaigns on his record.[1]
It is one thing to mistakenly recite a figure that is incorrect, no one can be expected to remember every fact or figure concerning an issue. Even if that issue does concern the candidate’s own record, we all make mistakes. The problem with Mr. Giuliani is, even after the figures have been proven to be false, he continues to stubbornly use them in spite of the fact they are wrong. This indicates to me a certain lack of character on the part of the candidate, if he continues to use false information to prove a point then it calls into question the truth of the point. It also calls into question the basic truthfulness of the candidate. I’m sorry Mr. Giuliani if you’ll lie about some stupid fact on the campaign trail, would you not also lie about Iran’s WMD capabilities? It makes me wonder.
An example of Mr. Giuliani’s departure from the truth is his oft repeated prostate cancer figure. According to Mr. Giuliani, if he were in England and had been diagnosed with prostate cancer his chances for survival would only be 44% as opposed to the US where his survival chances would be 82%. This is quite a disparity and one that would be worthy of noting to contrast the state of health care in America versus Britain, the only problem is the figures are not true and Mr. Giuliani knows they are not true. The actual figure is 74.4% in the UK, a difference still but not the great disparity being touted by Mr. Giuliani as fact. Even after the figure had been debunked, Mr. Giuliani continued to quote the figure and use it in advertising. Isn’t this the same type of behavior that was exhibited by the current administration when confronted by facts that did not support their positions?
Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist who once worked for Mr. Giuliani, said he doubted that the issue would hurt him politically.
“When he talks about New York, people see it,” Mr. Luntz said of Mr. Giuliani, “and they feel it, and if a number isn’t quite right, or is off by a small amount, nobody will care, because it rings true to them.”[2]
Here’s the deal Mr. Luntz, no one would begrudge a candidate a little fudging, but these are not small discrepancies on an occasional basis, this is a regular conscious misrepresentation of the facts. So, because he is talking about New York facts suddenly become irrelevant, he can spew out any information he chooses no matter its basis in fact? I don’t think so, I believe that the general public will care even if the Republican base does not. It seems that Mr. Giuliani believes that since no one has called Mr. Bush and his cronies on their lies, no one will call him on his. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Giuliani must believe in the adage if you throw enough crap on the wall some of it is going to stick.
Dear Mr. Giuliani, if you don’t know your facts please stop quoting them, obviously math was not your strong suit. The American public is not being served by your misrepresentations and you are not projecting a presidential image, in fact it appears to be more fake know-it-all. When a person continues to spout information he knows to be false it is no longer a mistake, it is lying. No matter what the spin, it is lying. If you are willing to spread lies to advance your campaign, what else are you capable of? Mr. Giuliani seems to be running the same campaign Georg W. ran in 2000, remember the passionate conservative that lied his way to the White House, lied his way into war, and now wants to lie his way into history. When is a lie not a lie, when it comes from a politician, then it is just business as usual.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/politics/30truth.html?hp
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/politics/30truth.html?pagewanted=2&hp
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Intelligence Report Bodes Bad For Iran
There are many who have interpreted the latest intelligence estimate as a slow-down for the march to war with Iran and an opportunity for this administration to engage in diplomacy. These voices would be wrong, they obviously have forgotten who they are dealing with. The tough rhetoric and war posturing by this administration towards Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weapon ambitions, WMD’s, or the price of oil in China. This administration has had a strategy from the beginning to alter the appearance of the Middle-East and that plan has not changed. This administration does not rely on reports or estimates, it relies on an ideology. The ideology that you are either with us or with the terrorists and any information that does not support these views is discounted.
The findings, though, remain open for interpretation, as they always do, even in documents meant to reflect the consensus of the intelligence community. When it comes to Iran, at odds with the United States on many fronts beyond the nuclear question, hawks remain.
“Those who are suspicious of diplomacy are well dug in in this administration,” said Kurt M. Campbell, chief executive officer of the Center for a New American Security.
John R. Bolton, the former ambassador to the United Nations, who recently left the administration and began to criticize it, sounded very much like Mr. Hadley on Monday, saying the assessment underscored the need for American toughness. He said Iran’s intentions would always remain a concern as long as it continued to enrich uranium.
“The decision to weaponize and at what point is a judgment in the hands of the Iranians,” he said. He added that the finding that Iran halted a weapons program could just mean that it was better hidden now.[1]
The principles of empire and domination are not swayed by insignificant details like the truth. This administration and its Neo-Con cronies create their own truth and will use other people’s truth to justify their own. Remember, these were the people who would leak a story and then use the leaked story as independent corroboration. This report changes nothing in the minds of Bush and his chicken hawks and as the story unfolds they will actually use it to press the case for action against Iran all the more. It will be argued that Iran can restart the program at their leisure or that those portable weather monitoring stations are mobile nuclear facilities. Then there will be the top-secret nuclear program that Iran is harboring undetectable by the untrained eye.
Despite popular belief, this will create more pressure on Iran from the Neo-Con and Israeli hawks. Many of whom have already doubted the conclusions of the reports and are planting the seeds of skepticism. The following is a quote taken from a blog entitled, “The Great Intelligence Scam” from the Neo-Con website of Michael Breeden:
At this point, one really has to wonder why anyone takes these documents seriously. How can anyone in his (there was no female name on the document, nor was any woman from the IC present at the press briefing yesterday) right mind believe that the mullahs are rational? Has no one told the IC about the cult of the 12th Imam, on which this regime bases its domestic and foreign policies? Does not the constant chant of “Death to America” mean anything? I suppose not, at least not to the deep thinkers who wrote this policy document.[2]
Also, the Israeli hawks have chimed in with their own claims of secret Iranian nuclear plans that they have evidence of. This evidence they obviously didn’t feel obliged to share with their staunch ally and defender the US and its intelligence community. What amazes me is these are the same people who trumpeted the estimates and defector stories that stated unequivocally that Iraq had WMD’s and now all of a sudden the information is unreliable, no sh*t. The climate in this country continues to descend into this polarization of ideas and competing philosophies and I fear it will only get worse as the political parties gear up for the election cycle.
We have not heard the end of the Iranian debate nor has George Bush’s plan been sidetracked. The difference is this time there will be no phony excuses to justify the action and there will be no lies for the American politicians and people to hide behind. There will be clear choices ahead of us as a nation. Will we continue the “stay the course” philosophy that has produced two wars and no victories into a third one or will we choose to bring the “war on terror” to its long overdue conclusion? Either way Iran will continue to be the ace in the hole in someone’s sights and isn’t going away anytime soon.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washington/04assess.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
[2] http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/12/03/the_great_intelligence_scam.php
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Why Iran Cannot Have The Bomb
As the Iranian nuclear nightmare diplomacy continues to spin out of control and the Neo-Con attack dogs persists in fanning the flames of war, it is painfully obvious that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. The reason Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon has nothing to do with the Bush WMD argument or the Israeli Armageddon scenario. While the wing-nuts would have us to believe that Iran’s behavior precludes them from possessing nuclear technology. They parade out charts and graphs displaying Iran’s support for terrorists, its unstable leader, and its theocratic government as reasons to launch a pre-emptive strike. Remember, we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
The real reason Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon is not about Iranians at all, it is about the bankrupt Neo-Con agenda. The first question we must ask is why would Iran want nuclear weapons, if in fact they are pursuing the technology. The wing-nuts would have you to believe that number one they want it to take a preemptive shot at America or Israel. Let’s examine this on the surface, they would have you to believe that Iran would risk the complete annihilation of its people to shoot one nuclear bomb at the US or Israel. This is ludicrous to any sane individual, but to most Americans this will be the deal maker. After all, they hate us for our freedoms and would like nothing better than to destroy the “Great Satan”.
Another popular scenario is the Iranians giving the nuclear device to a terrorist organization to escape the retribution on its own people. The terrorist group would then detonate the device and diffuse any culpability from Iran. This of course ignores the available technology that would be used to track the detonation of the device as well as the designer and manufacturer. Thus, bringing us back to the original point of annihilation for Iran and any client group they used to deliver the device. Another and more plausible scenario is that the Iranians would use the device to extract concessions from the West and embolden it to become more aggressive in its foreign policy towards Israel and its neighbors. Does having a nuclear weapon change a nation? Not usually, what good is a gun in a room full of guns? It does not improve your bargaining position as if you were the only one with one.
The truth of the matter is that Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb because then it would be able to resist regime change. The real reason the Neo-Cons do not want Iran or any other nation in the Middle-East to have a bomb is to make it easier to institute regime change when the time comes. Think about what the nations have just witnessed in the last 5 years, there is a terrorist attack against the US on US soil. You have a retaliation invasion against Afghanistan and the Taliban that helped to harbor the perpetrators of the attack. Then out of nowhere you have an invasion of a sovereign country on the pretence that at some point they could have the weapons to threaten the US.
While Tehran didn’t lose any sleep over the deposing of Saddam, what they did lose sleep over was the fact that a line had been crossed in international relations. Deliberate and unconcealed regime change was now on the table with little or no evidence of threat or menace. Naked aggression against regimes that were considered hostile to “American Interests” was now if not condoned at least overlooked by the international community. When you include the fact that North Korea, one of the “axis of evil” members, who supposedly has nuclear capabilities, was never attacked, it’s not hard to understand Tehran’s desire for a deterrent against attack.
I realize with all the hype surrounding the Middle-East and Iran in particular this will be an unpopular position, but it is the only logical one. Of course there will be the Islamo-facist not being logical argument, but this is put forth only as a smoke screen to attack, just as the WMD’s were used for Iraq. If they are able to demonize and attach lunacy to the target, it gives it more legitimacy when taking it out. We have to get them before they get us. The thing that kills me is that with the results being in on Iraq, how anyone could seriously entertain the thought of attacking Iran and not be considered a lunatic themselves. But yet we have “experts” on the television daily offering up just such scenarios.
Despite the hype, there are still voices in the Middle-East that recognize the exaggeration being used to justify an attack on Iran. While no one wants to see nuclear proliferation in the region, they recognize that should Iran eventually get the bomb it will not automatically lead to WWIII as some have predicted.
"Would I like Iran to have a nuclear bomb? No," said Robert Jervis, a Columbia University professor of international politics who has written widely on nuclear deterrence. But, "the fears (voiced) by the administration and a fair number of sensible people as well, just are exaggerated. The idea that this will really make a big difference, I think is foolish."
Even some commentators in Israel, whose leaders see themselves in Iran's crosshairs, present a more nuanced view of the potential threat than the White House does.
An Iranian nuclear bomb could present Israel "with the real potential for an existential threat," Ephraim Kam of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv wrote in February.
Despite Iran's "messianic religious motivations," he wrote, "it is highly doubtful that Tehran would want to risk an Israeli nuclear response" by attempting a first strike.[1]
And this is why Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, or any other nation in the Middle-East other than Israel cannot have nuclear capabilities. It’s really rather simple when you think about it.
[1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/21341.html
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Cheney – George Bush’s Spine
If Karl Rove was Bush’s brain, then Dick Cheney must certainly be Bush’s spine. The rogue VP whose office is conducting its own foreign policy, domestic agenda, and war-mongering has been the architect of many of the debacles of this administration. The ever bellicose chicken-hawk continues to pump his chest with heroic prowess, yet when given the opportunity to display this warriors courage decided to dodge the war. He was needed in Wyoming to fight the local VC insurgents who were planning a behind the lines enemy offensive.
June 29, 2007 - Dick Cheney is like “Zelig,” the Woody Allen character with the uncanny ability to turn up everywhere. We always suspected his dark influence throughout the government, and now it’s been documented chapter and verse in an exhaustive series in The Washington Post. Cheney operates largely in secret, and because he is such a skilled bureaucratic infighter, he’s able to do end runs around everybody, including President Bush, who does nothing to rein in his evil twin.[1]
Dick Cheney articulates the Neo-Con wingnut philosophy in a manner that limits the choices George Bush is allowed to consider. A President is bombarded by information, opinions, and opposing views on every issue that crosses his desk. It would be a monumental task to keep abreast of all of this information for a very intelligent person, but for a C, legacy student it would be impossible. So like many of his predecessors that have lacked intellectual curiosity, Mr. Bush relies on close allies to direct his decisions. This is why loyalty is valued more than competency in his administration. It is more important to protect the President’s incompetence than to be qualified to make correct decisions. This is why Mr. Bush has never held anyone accountable in his administration for anything, no matter how calamitous the results.
Cheney, 66, grew up in Lincoln, Neb., and Casper, Wyo., acquiring a Westerner's passion for hunting and fishing but not for the Democratic politics of his parents. He wed his high school sweetheart, Lynne Vincent, beginning what friends describe as a lifelong love affair. Cheney flunked out of Yale but became a highly regarded PhD candidate in political science at the University of Wisconsin -- avoiding the Vietnam War draft with five deferments along the way -- before abandoning the doctoral program and heading to Washington as a junior congressional aide.[2]
Mr. Cheney personifies the tough western American image; he manages by fear and intimidation. He is what George Bush wishes he could be, someone feared and whose authority goes unchallenged. Cheney has shown a total disregard for any authority outside his own, as evidenced by his statement of being a separate branch of the government. It has been asserted that Cheney is the engine that makes the train goes, but I disagree. Cheney asserts a certain level of power over Bush, but not by overt means. He asserts this power through the limited choices he provides Bush and through his evisceration of any competitive opinions. By providing Bush with limited choices that Cheney has condensed through his input at the staff level, he focuses the President’s agenda to only the options he provides.
We should not be fooled; Cheney is providing the options to policies the President has signed off on in broader terms long ago. Cheney gives direction and targets for Bush’s overall agenda. An agenda that Bush brought with him to Washington, one that Cheney provides methods for implementation. It is in these methods that Cheney exerts influence over Bush. When a situation may offer two options; one using diplomacy and the other projecting American military power, these are the arguments Cheney has prevailed in. This is why I call him Bush’s spine; he emboldens Bush to become the “warrior President”. I just find it strange that when both men had the opportunity to display their warrior prowess, both chose to decline. It’s easy to be tough with someone else’s life.
The vice president's reputation and, some say, his influence, have suffered in the past year and a half. Cheney lost his closest aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, to a perjury conviction, and his onetime mentor, Donald H. Rumsfeld, in a Cabinet purge. A shooting accident in Texas, and increasing gaps between his rhetoric and events in Iraq, have exposed him to ridicule and approval ratings in the teens. Cheney expresses indifference, in public and private, to any verdict but history's, and those close to him say he means it.[3]
Many believe that Cheney’s influence is waning based on a number of calamities in the past year or so concerning his office and his lost of key personnel, I am not so sure. I think his influence is decreasing, but not because of any change in the relationship between Bush and Cheney, but because as Bush surveys his time in office and its place in history he is discovering he has little if any positives. Hence his willingness to sign off on the North Korea deal, even though Cheney and his wingnuts were totally against it. It’s strange how when a President finally acknowledges the finality of his presidency he wants to become the statesman he never was before. That whole legacy syndrome thing being played out on the world’s stage. Bush will need less spine and more brain to try to recoup any semblance of a successful presidency.
[1]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19507575/site/newsweek/
[2] http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/
[3] http://blog.washingtonpost.com/cheney/chapters/chapter_1/
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Terrorists Have Won
Since 9/11, America has lost not only the war on terror, but America itself. Before a shot was fired in Afghanistan or Iraq, the terrorists had won. The terrorists won when we allowed this administration and the Neo-Cons to hijack America and turn us into a tyrannical monster. I don’t know if it was by design or by happenstance, but when those planes hit with GW Bush in office it set forth a chain of events that caused our defeat. I know that we have the greatest military power in the world and in conventional tactics we could crush anyone, but we are a defeated nation when this happens.
The debate over how terrorism suspects should be held and questioned began shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, when the Bush administration adopted secret detention and coercive interrogation, both practices the United States had previously denounced when used by other countries. It adopted the new measures without public debate or Congressional vote, choosing to rely instead on the confidential legal advice of a handful of appointees.
The Bush administration had entered uncharted legal territory beginning in 2002, holding prisoners outside the scrutiny of the International Red Cross and subjecting them to harrowing pressure tactics. They included slaps to the head; hours held naked in a frigid cell; days and nights without sleep while battered by thundering rock music; long periods manacled in stress positions; or the ultimate, waterboarding.[1]
There will be those hawks, wing-nuts, and pundits that will claim the opposite that we are winning the war but once we crossed this line we lost. When we began spying on each other, disallowing habeas corpus, and torturing we lost. Many like Mr. Bush will claim that the ends justify the means; there have been no new attacks so it must be working. This is a false conclusion based on a false premise, the reason we defeated communism was not because of our military power, it was because of what we provided to the world.
What we provided to the world was a dream, a dream that no matter what your circumstances, your religion, or your status you could have a say in your life. Granted that dream was never fully realized and was tarnished for many, but it still existed as a light to walk towards. That light has been darkened by the Bush Administration. There are many things that this President has done that I have found personally reprehensible, but what he has done here is unforgivable. He has taken us across a line that no matter what the world was doing we would not cross, not because we couldn’t but because it was wrong. It was wrong in previous wars and it is wrong in this one.
The thing that troubles me the most is not that Mr. Bush did what he did; it was that we allowed him to. There were not enough principled and honorable people to stop this from happening, that good people went silent when we needed their voices the most. I have a hard time supporting any candidate for President, because they were all culpable in this transformation, to some degree. Worst yet are the Progressives, was there no one to articulate the dangerous waters we were swimming headlong into? Was there no sane voice of reason that could have turned the tsunami of 9/11 into an opportunity to demonstrate to the world what super power really means? I’m not sure it would have even mattered, but we owed it to our children to try.
Never in history had the United States authorized such tactics. While President Bush and C.I.A. officials would later insist that the harsh measures produced crucial intelligence, many veteran interrogators, psychologists and other experts say that less coercive methods are equally or more effective.
With virtually no experience in interrogations, the C.I.A. had constructed its program in a few harried months by consulting Egyptian and Saudi intelligence officials and copying Soviet interrogation methods long used in training American servicemen to withstand capture. The agency officers questioning prisoners constantly sought advice from lawyers thousands of miles away.[2]
The terrorists have won not because they were smarter, stronger, or even right in their beliefs; they won because we defeated ourselves. We used the tragedy to unleash our paranoia and righteous indignation against a world that was becoming less and less compliant to our demands. The world had to be taught a lesson, noses had to be bloodied as Mr. Friedman has said and it came at a cost not only that was prohibitive to the world but also to our freedom.
We are not safer today than we were on 9/10; we are only more closed up. Travel to the US is way down, the world does not like what we have allowed ourselves to become. We may think we’re safer, but so is the guy on a deserted island. If isolation is what it takes to be safer, is it worth it? If being cut-off from the world is the answer, then we are asking the wrong questions. The opinion of the US in the world has never been lower, not only in the Middle East but even amongst our allies. We have imprisoned ourselves and shut out the world, because of this the terrorists have won.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Even A Caveman…
The list of Osama bin Laden’s greatest video hits continues this week with a new release. The invisible one appears to be able to get access to the latest news and current events and latest Muslim fashions. It is no longer shocking that he is able to film and release these tapes, what is shocking is that he is able to release these tapes on cue. You ever notice that whenever we are at a point when the Neo-Con agenda is being questioned or a report is due, that we are graced with the presence of the bearded one.
His last appearance was right before the 2004 election, giving Mr. Bush and company the final push in a close election. There are those who believe that these are more than coincidences and that possibly these tapes are the products of some nefarious secret body of government designed to silence any dissension in the “war on terror”. While I am not in a position to gauge the validity of this theory there are some troublesome signs in the latest offering as pointed out by the Independent.
In a banner ad for the video, the al-Qai'da leader, now aged 50, looked fit, with a full beard of dark black hair, rather than his usual grey-streaked beard. Instead of the customary combat jacket, he was wearing Arabic robes.
"It does look oddly as if he is wearing a false beard," Richard Clarke, a former White House counter-terrorism official, said. "If we go back to the tape three years ago, he had a very white beard. This looks like a phoney beard that has been passed on."
The al-Qai'da leader has not appeared in a video message in almost three years and has not put out a new audio message for more than a year. His last video broadcast was days before the 2004 presidential vote.[1]
So not only does bin Laden seem to be suddenly interested in liberal causes in America, he is also getting younger and dressing better. Living in caves does seem to have its advantages, which is strange since he is suppose to be the most hunted man on the planet. The sad truth about the theory is that we will never know; the same people who may have created the video are the ones who are authenticating the video. Isn’t it sad that there has been so much disillusionment with the government that these theories even seem plausible?
I wonder what will be next for bin Laden hyping the Super Bowl or maybe doing a halftime video with Paris Hilton. The sad truth is that the majority of people in America have allowed their fears and prejudices to be played upon by a highly organized group of people who want to keep us in war mode for the foreseeable future. As long as we are in war mode nothing the government does is too extreme, they are after all protecting you from the terrorists. What these people have learned is that if you can create a war without end (the war on drugs) suspension of liberties and habeas corpus rights will not be challenged.
Bush has so much as said that he has unlimited power under the War Powers Act. Not only does the war mentality stifle internal debate, it also allows for war profiteering to go unchallenged as well. I found it interesting that bin Laden was associated with every cause that the Neo-Cons have railed against for years. What they have done with this video is linked the head of terrorism with anyone who would espouse the ideas of freedom, global warming, and corporate criminal behavior. So basically anyone who is progressive is now also a minion of Al Qaeda and bin Laden. Talk about silencing the opposition, who in their right mind would want to be connected to terrorism?
Where is the skeptical media? Where are the questions of why with the 9/11 anniversary coming up this video mysteriously arrives? As usual there is silence from the MSM and they wonder why their public standing is so low. I would be curious to know why no one has questioned the authenticity of the video when the intelligence community got it before the Al Qaeda website could even post it. This seems strange to me, coupled with the fact of bin Laden’s appearance being markedly different one could wonder about its origin.
One thing is for sure though; even a man supposedly living in a cave in the middle of nowhere can recognize that the state of America is deteriorating.
The al-Qaeda leader's first video message for three years featured a bizarre rant against America, with references to global warming, "insane taxes", the US mortgage market meltdown and rising interest rates.[2]
[1] http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2941864.ece
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/09/wladen109.xml
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Clowns To The Left, Jokers To The Right
There has been a subtle change going on in Iraq for the last couple of months. The change has been so subtle you may have missed it. In an effort to position itself in the event of a withdrawal from Iraq, this administration has been arming the Sunnis as they are also arming the Shiite government. Why would we be arming the Sunnis you might ask, aren’t they suppose to be the insurgents and Baathists? Yes, they are, but in the event that our current policy fails, it seems like the answer will be to arm all parties and keep Iraq destabilized for any foreseeable future.
How could this strategy benefit the Neo-Cons? The administration is convinced and with good reason that Iran is positioning itself to be a major power broker in Iraq whenever we leave. The thought of having another Shia led country in the region under Iranian influence has the Sunni led countries many of whom are our allies (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan) a bit nervous.
The strategy appears to work like this; we arm the Saudis and Israel to the teeth and under the guise of arming the loyal tribesmen of Iraq we are arming the local Sunnis. Then of course there are all those missing weapons (190,000), just what a civil war needs is 190,000 unaccounted for weapons. My guess is that the plan is to ensure the Sunnis will be a thorn in the side of any central government until the Neo-Cons can come up with a new strategy or figure out a way to blame the failure on you peace-loving anti-war communists. This is part of the scorched earth fall-back plan, if you can’t win destabilize. Basically you’ll have the Saudis on one side and the Iranians on the other, fighting a proxy war for Iraq on our behalf and with our arms.
How awful it must be when your best strategy is to stoke the fires of sectarianism and arm both sides in a bloody civil war. This of course would prevent al Qaeda from setting up a base of operations and at the same time prevent the Iranians from setting up a client state. Throw into this mix the Kurdish rebels in the north attacking the Turks and you have the recipe for a successful conclusion to the invasion of Iraq. We are going to once again find ourselves in the middle of two warring factions playing both sides against the middle and pretending to be an objective arbitrator.
Now, there is even talk of bringing the ex-Prime Minister Allawi back for a second tour. Mr. Allawi an ex-Baathist and a secular Shia would play the role of strongman to offset the sectarian influence of the current government. The administration is becoming frustrated with the lack of progress of the current government, with many believing that PM al Maliki is too weak and too sectarian to resolve the current stalemate. With the surge in full effect the talk of political breathing room for this current Iraqi government is losing steam. PM al Maliki has made it clear recently in the press that he does not feel bound by any American benchmarks and is attempting to exert some independence from what is perceived as American pressure. Just how long the PM can holdout is up for debate, with defections from his coalition government occurring almost weekly he will be hard pressed to produce enough of a majority to appoint dog catchers in Baghdad let alone attack the issues that are currently dividing the country and fueling the insurgency.
There has been a lot of talk recently about the success or lack of success of the surge and what the ramifications will be in September. One’s position on the surge will of course depend on what that person’s goal happens to be. From a military standpoint the surge has managed to curb some of the violence in Baghdad, but this has only caused the violence to move. It should come as no surprise that increasing the troops would increase the security. I remember at the beginning of this fiasco a certain General Shinseki who stated the following:
Shinseki, who commanded the NATO peacekeeping force in Bosnia, testified in Congress in February 2003 that peacekeeping operations in Iraq could require several hundred thousand troops, in part because it was a country with "the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems."[1]
So, it was known from the beginning that an increase in troop presence would increase security, but what was the reason for the surge? A military victory was not and is not the purpose of the surge. The surge was to provide cover for the current Iraqi regime to unite behind reconciliation for the entire country. Well, this has been a disaster to all no matter what side of the issue they are on. So how anybody can come in September and claim success will be a mystery to me.
At the current time all we are is a buffer for all sides. We are giving all the players a chance to train and arm themselves for the upcoming battle for Iraq. We are the arms dealer and training facilitator for the Sunnis, Kurds, and the Shiites. Currently, we are showing loyalty to no one beyond our own failed policy. It is no longer about accomplishing the possible; it is about supporting the foolish. We have no one we can trust on any side and we are stuck in the middle of a further escalating crisis.
Read more!Thursday, August 16, 2007
The Kiss Of Death
You know you’ve lost your groove when the “so-called” leading country of democracy supports a group in elections and that group consistently loses. These loses are not just in one country or region, but all over the world. There is no political group in the world today that wants its party or movement supported by the US. It seems that having the support of the US is the worse endorsement you can get. I remember a time when the world looked to America as the beacon of hope and worthy of emulation, I guess those days are long gone.
“It’s the kiss of death,” said Turki al-Rasheed, a Saudi reformer who watched last Sunday’s elections closely. “The minute you are counted on or backed by the Americans, kiss it goodbye, you will never win.”
The paradox of American policy in the Middle East — promoting democracy on the assumption it will bring countries closer to the West — is that almost everywhere there are free elections, the American-backed side tends to lose.
Lebanon’s voters in the Metn district, in other words, appeared to have joined the Palestinians, who voted for Hamas; the Iraqis, who voted for a government sympathetic to Iran; and the Egyptians, who have voted in growing numbers in recent elections for the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. “No politician can afford to identify with the West because poll after poll shows people don’t believe in the U.S. agenda,” said Mustafa Hamarneh, until recently the director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan. Mr. Hamarneh is running for a seat in Jordan’s Parliament in November, but he says he has made a point of keeping his campaign focused locally, and on bread-and-butter issues. “If somebody goes after you as pro-American he can hurt you,” he said.[1]
This should show the neo-cons that even if they try to promote democracy at the end of a gun it won’t work, whoever they support is going to lose in a free and fair election. It looks like we are back in the puppet regime, dictator mode again. You know that it is so much cleaner and just requires bribe money. Free elections are so messy and you can’t predict the outcomes. There is nothing worse than to expend all that money and all those lives only to get a government that will be hostile to you anyway. That ole dictator ain’t looking so bad right about now.
In part, regional analysts say, candidates are tainted by the baggage of American foreign policy — from its backing of Israel to the violence in Iraq. But more important, they say, American support is often applied to one faction instead of to institutions, causing further division rather than bringing stability.
The problem is not necessarily the support itself, Mr. Nassif said, but that it invariably skews conflicts, worsening rather than easing sectarian and ethnic tensions.
“When the U.S. interferes in favor of one party, their interference leads to an explosion,” he said. “The U.S. openly says it supports the Siniora government, but it should say we support the Lebanese government.”[2]
If I didn’t know better I would say he was advocating even handed treatment, but that couldn’t be right. Whether you support Barack Obama or not, the one thing I have to agree with him is that we have to begin to do things another way. The same old rhetoric and business as usual politics is not working, it is not working here or abroad. The world is tired of the same old crap coming out of Washington no matter who is espousing it. If whoever comes into office is not willing to change how we do foreign policy then it won’t matter who wins.
We must get to the place where we are once again viewed as the country that supports the rights of the people and not a divider of the people. Promoting division and factionalism in the long run only hurts our interests and our standing. I don’t really hear that from the current crop of candidates; it seems that they disagree more with how it was done, more than what was done. This would be a dangerous omen to the rest of the world.
Read more!Wednesday, August 8, 2007
They Call This Success?
WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 — On the eve of his Camp David meeting with President Bush, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan painted a bleak picture of life in his country, saying that security had worsened and that the United States and its allies were no closer to catching Osama bin Laden than they were a few years ago.
“The security situation in Afghanistan over the past two years has definitely deteriorated,” Mr. Karzai said on the CNN program “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer,” in an interview that was taped Saturday in Kabul. It was broadcast Sunday while Mr. Karzai was en route to Camp David for a two-day meeting with President Bush.
“The Afghan people have suffered,” Mr. Karzai said. “Terrorists have killed our schoolchildren. They have burned our schools. They have killed international helpers.”[1]
Since 9/11 this administration and its apologists have held up Afghanistan as a success in the “war on terror.” While I and others have considered there definition of success dubious at best, it seems that even the President of Afghanistan can no longer continue the charade. Afghanistan has not been a success. It may have had the potential to be successfully prosecuted, but as we all know there were bigger fish to fry.
You see while Afghanistan was the base of operations for the Taliban and Al Qaeda, it really didn’t provide any strategic value. The country is rural and mountainous and other than bumper opium crops really has no industry to speak of. The majority of people are poor, uneducated and have been in the throes of war since the Soviet invasion of 1979. Their white market economy is crap and so the rural farmers harvest opium to make money on the black market.
The President of Afghanistan is actually just the mayor of Kabul, this is about how far his influence extends. The countryside is still being ruled by chieftains and war lords as it has been since the days of Genghis Khan, who have an uneasy relationship with the central government. In what has become the norm for this administration the reconstruction efforts have been underfunded and misdirected. The central government does not have the means to expand poverty services to help the average Afghani; as a result the government of Mr. Karzai is having a difficult time engaging the people in building the nation. Mr. Karzai has made numerous trips to Washington to beg for more support for the rebuilding process and each time he has been given a pat on the head and placated with photo ops.
Add to this, the continual buildup of civilian casualties not by the Taliban, but by the US military and the situation in Afghanistan can hardly be termed a success. The Taliban and Bin Laden continue to play cat and mouse on the Afghan/Pakistani border with each side claiming that he is not on their side.
If this is how the neo-cons do nation building, what hope do we have for Iraq? It is time we either concentrate on the original job at hand or expect a resurgence of the people this whole war was suppose to be about. Despite their thinking to the contrary this administration must realize that the people of the world who are struggling have little use for rhetoric and photo-ops, they need and expect real solutions to the problems they are confronting. I believe that if this administration had completed the mission in Afghanistan not only would the Taliban be just a memory, but also Al Qaeda as we knew it at the time.
Once again, Mr. Karzai is forced to come to Washington with hat in hand to beg for more support for his war ravaged people and again he will be presented with little more than lip service and a chance for the President to get more photo-ops for his “war on terror” portfolio. As with all of their misadventures the architects of neo-conservatism have failed to know or understand the history of Afghanistan and how that history plays out today. The Afghani people are fiercely independent and do not have a history of a centralized form of government. They have been a confederation of tribal leaders and war lords who through the use of the loya jirgah[2]pledged loyalty to one ruler in an amalgamation of semi-autonomous kingdoms. Their loyalty to the central government is loose at best and is dependent on that leader being able to deliver what he promises; Mr. Karzai has been long on promises and short on delivery. This lose amalgamation could unravel at anytime, leaving Afghanistan once again open to the Taliban or some other group of similar ilk.
If this is success, what does failure look like? Do we really want to know?
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/world/asia/06karzai.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loya_jirga
Thursday, June 14, 2007
As The Empire Turns…
It appears that Mr. Bush is at it again. You have to love this guy; he is always looking for ways to expand the empire. Hannibal and Napoleon have nothing on this guy. It appears the new target of American imperialism is Kosovo, formerly a part of Yugoslavia. In another case of it isn’t what it looks like, Mr. Bush wants to “liberate” Kosovo. Again, on the surface appears like an admirable goal, everyone should be liberated. Just ask the Iraqis. But could there be more than meets the eye?
Bush is pressing for "independence" for Kosovo, and the word needs to be in inverted commas as the Kosovo the US has in mind will be no more "independent" than Iraq or Afghanistan - though not out of concern for Kosovan Albanians, or a passionate belief in self-determination. Contrast Washington's stance on Kosovo with its position on the pro-Russian breakaway provinces in Georgia and Moldova, whose claims for statehood they regularly dismiss. Rather, Bush is acting because this is the final stage in what has been called the west's "strategic concept" - the destruction of the genuinely independent and militarily strong state of Yugoslavia and its replacement with a series of weak and divided World Bank-Nato protectorates.
Even more important, it has enabled the construction of Camp Bondsteel, the US's biggest "from scratch" military base since the Vietnam war, which jealously guards the route of the trans-Balkan Ambo pipeline, and guarantees western control of Caspian Sea oil supplies. The camp, which includes a detention facility used to house those detained during Nato operations in Kosovo, was described by Alvaro Gil-Robles, the human rights envoy of the Council of Europe, as a "smaller version of Guantánamo" following a visit in November 2005. To guarantee US hegemony in the region, it is essential that Kosovo is severed permanently from Serbia - a country which, with its strong historical links to Russia, is never likely to be as obedient a servant as the empire demands.[1]
These people leave no stone unturned; they can squeeze blood from a turnip. On the one hand they tell Putin that he has nothing to worry about with the new missile defense system and at the same time they are surrounding Russia with bases. Not only with bases, but with client states to thwart any unification ideas anyone may have. So while Bush is talking about how Russia is slipping back into old habits, it appears so have we. Is this another opportunity to project American imperialism as part of the overall neo-con world view? I think this is one of the final opportunities for Mr. Bush to enact changes to the geo-political landscape with little or no resistance from the American public. With the war in Iraq grabbing most of the headlines who is going to notice new bases going up in Eastern Europe? It appears this is more of the sleight of hand politics of the corporate elite to impose their bidding on more unassuming consumers. You have to love this country.
If we continue carving up the world in the neo-con mold, we will continue to draw the wrath of other nations who question our motives and our designs. There was a time when “liberation” was a good term and no one questioned its application, but thanks to these guys liberation will never be viewed the same way again. Many groups will resist our efforts to help liberate them and it will take years to overcome the damage done by this group of imperialist clowns.
Should Kosovo be liberated? To be honest, I don’t know enough about the situation to say for sure. What I do know is that when these guys talk liberation, it is rarely in the best interest of the country or its citizens. History has taught that it is only when it is in the best interest of the corporate bosses that liberation is mentioned. There are and have been so many countries that have looked to us for support and because they did not provide any strategic or economic value we turned our backs on them. If liberation is our goal, then let’s apply it liberally and to all who want to partake. Haven’t we had enough of using liberty in the name of corporate profits? Haven’t we had enough of shedding innocent blood; not to water the tree of liberty, but to fill the pockets of the wealthy?
Read more!Thursday, May 24, 2007
Revisionist History
I’m sorry, I normally don’t speak ill of the dead, but that is based on the preposition that they stay dead. I don’t know how it happens, but it seems to happen a lot in America; people rise from the grave. There was Elvis, Tupac, Marilyn Monroe, and now Ronald Reagan.
The reincarnate Ronald Reagan is a lot different from the original, I guess being dead for 3 years will do that to you. The reincarnate Ronald Reagan was last spotted at the Republican candidate debate, but since that appearance he is being booked all over the media. I thought it was crazy that Tupac wrote more albums after he died than he did when he was living, but Mr. Reagan has written a diary. Of course the diary is not new, but as usual when things are going badly there are some who long for the “good ole days”. The reincarnation of Ronald Reagan would be humorous if not for its nefarious intentions.
I asked myself, why is it necessary for the conservatives to create this mythical “white knight” that is now Ronald Reagan? The answer is simple really and very ingenious, you see people can have flaws, but icons do not. If the conservatives are able to succeed in making Ronald Reagan bigger than life, then they can hitch their flawed policies to him and give these ideas credibility that they do not deserve. The beginning of this was readily on display with the republican candidates falling all over themselves to out-Reagan one another. With all the money and spin being utilized to remake Mr. Reagan maybe we should look at who he really was and what he represented free; from the hype.
To many Ronald Reagan represented a return to “good ole” American values. His handlers had crafted this image of John Wayne with a heart, the beginning of compassionate conservatism. The thing you have to hand it to these conservatives is that they will craft a strategy and continue to play it out over years. If they are nothing else they are patient. Think about it, there was a time in this country when conservatism was a mockery. After the Barry Goldwater melt down, few took conservatism seriously as a viable strategy to govern and considered it a fringe element even in the Republican Party. It was at this bleak time that they begin the long push to make conservatism mainstream. They began by attacking liberalism. By the time they were done, calling someone a liberal was tantamount to a personal affront.
Ronald Reagan despite his short comings was an opportunist and he appeared on the scene at just the right time. He was a natural for the greatest role he would ever play and had the credentials from his years as an informant for the McCarthy crew and as the Governor of California. It is interesting to note that for most of his presidency, Mr. Reagan was not popular. Despite today’s spin being spewed by former Reaganites, his only period of decent popularity was during his reelection period of 1984 to 1986. That was due almost entirely on the surging economy and not any proposal or ideas offered up by Reagan. So let’s go to the record.
Reagan brought down communism is one of the main talking points of Reagan promoters. Ok, just because you happen to be in office when an event occurred doesn’t mean you caused the event. There has never been any direct evidence that any of Reagan’s policies or rhetoric had any effect on the fall of the Communist block. Mr. Reagan take down that wall of lies that was built around you.
Ronald Reagan was a tax cutter. Actually no, he signed the biggest middle-class tax increase in history. The whole “Reagan Recovery” was a farce. In truth most Americans paid more taxes under Reagan than before Reagan.
Then of course there was that Iran-Contra thing, the union busting (PATCO), the racist policy of engaging South Africa, the illegal war in Central America, the ignoring of AIDS, there was the 138 administration officials convicted, there was the whole Alzheimer’s rumors, and the governing by astrology.
When you look at the true record of Ronald Reagan, you see that this reincarnation of Reagan is a right wing conservative trick to put forward its agenda under a new brand. Thanks to the right wing onslaught, there are many who think Reagan was a great President, but the truth is that he wasn’t. Divisive politics should be rejected no matter what brand they are being packaged under. Let’s let sleeping dogs lie. We don’t need another Reagan, we need another Lincoln…
Read more!
Stumble It!