 |
|
|
|
| ||
 I guess it’s time to open up again. Keep in mind that if Iraq is a truly democratic and free society a decade from now, without a significant American presence, that I would credit Bush and his gang for being right and having done the right thing. However, my earnest belief is that the chances of that becoming a reality are about equal to hair growing on the palm of my hand.  That said, I do believe the elections held for the first time in Iraqi history are significant as a symbol of the dreams held by many throughout the world. Nevertheless, reality tells me that elections are only the initial step to creating a democracy and are a vehicle that has been used by many mad dictators throughout history. Basic freedoms are the true criteria of a democratic state and without freedom of speech, assembly, press, etc., etc., all we’re doing is masturbating, i.e., doing something that feels great but in the end doesn’t mean anything. I’ve stated many times, as to why I don’t believe true democracy can take in a country like Iraq. The combination of centuries of oppression or monarchial rule combined with fundamentalist fanatic religious belief makes it nearly impossible to exact a monumental change in their society. In addition, we’re not talking about a religious minority that wilts before the other side. We are talking about bloodthirsty maniacs who will attempt to slit the throats of every man, woman, and child who dares to defy them.  Still, this Administration believes they did the right thing by going into Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein. I don’t need to regurgitate all the problems with that decision. First, they told us that Saddam was behind 9/11. When that didn’t work it became the Weapons of Mass Destruction that were possessed by that lunatic that posed a clear and present danger to our security. After that was proven erroneous, it became the creation of democracy and the installation of new freedom that became our focal point. I believe all of that is baloney that they felt the American people would naively accept. My belief is that there was a short list of real reasons for this move into another country:  • Let’s begin by citing the most personal reason, which is the revenge, exacted by #43 for the failures of #41. That would be more palatable if it wasn’t that obvious that The Shrub was trying to do everything diametrically opposed to the way his father did. Remember that I’ve always argued that the real father of The Shrub was his ideological one, Ronald Reagan.  I mean, all you have to do is examine Reagan as President and notice some glaring similarities. As a politician and as President, Reagan portrayed himself as being: 1. anti-communist 2. in favor of tax cuts 3. in favor of smaller non-military government 4. in favor of removing regulations on corporations 5. supportive of business interests, both small and large 6. supportive of some individual liberties 7. tough on crime He is credited, justifiably or not, with: 1. building up the military 2. arming foreign allies like Saddam Hussein, Mujahideen, including Osama Bin Laden, the Contras as well as other people, groups and governments 3. lowering taxes 4. increasing the federal deficit 5. greatly escalating the "war on drugs" 6. ending the high inflation that damaged the economy under his predecessors, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. 7. firing air traffic controllers when they illegally struck  • Another reason for this folly can be attributed to the reality that it is “good business” to go into Iraq as all one has to cite is the obscene and gigantic profits made by Halliburton, for which they didn’t have to compete, which was directly inconsistent with the ways contracts have always been awarded in our country. Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, an oil-services company that also provides construction and military support services -- a triple-header of wartime spoils. The contracts were granted under a Bush administration waiver that, according to the Washington Post, allowed “government agencies to handpick companies for Iraqi reconstruction projects.” • Then again, the simplest reason for this move into Iraq may be the correct one: All we wanted to do is create a client state that would do our bidding, a state overflowing with oil and strategically placed in an area we needed to penetrate. But, who cares what I think? It’s obvious that the reasons for our entry are, to an extent, debatable. The key question to be asked is whether we should have sacrificed so many precious young lives in such a quagmire. My heart goes out to our young men and women who are over there and sem to be stuck there for longer than is usual or normal. Speaking of quagmires, this conflict is beginning to resemble the previous folly in Vietnam, more and more each day. I cam across this Doonesbury cartoon which probably my inspiration to write this column.  One of the great problems of the war in Vietnam was the nonsense passed on to the public by the leaders of the conflict whether it was Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon. One thing seems to have not ever changed: The belief that the American people are gullible as well as vastly susceptible to statements or actions that regards their loyalty to their country. “Jingoism” replaces intellect and reasoning. Wrap yourself in the flag and hold a Bible in your hand and the people will follow you into fire as if they were nothing more than drones. I can still hear Tricky Dick’s speeches to the nation in which he repeatedly cited his “Peace With Honor” demand, while at the same time bombing the hell out of North Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. I also vividly remember watching us flee from Saigon, running like rabbits with their heads between their legs. Lots of honor there, I thought. I wonder why we don’t have a leadership that understands, even a little bit, that the world would view us in more honorable fashion if we didn’t behave in the manner we have. Then again, I must be dreaming. Still, it’s becoming obvious that even if you supported this foolishness, you have to wonder about the future in the rest of the world. Our new Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice just warned Iran about their nuclear program, tough talk that will certainly fall on deaf ears. What can we threaten them with? We’ve exhausted enough of our resources in Iraq and don’t have enough to go after Iran. In addition, due to our behavior in going to Iraq, we can’t get anyone to help us in Iran either.  What really gets me is the absolute moronic view we are taking towards that country. All intelligence says that there is a growing democratic movement building in that country. That’s not because of anything this Administration has done although its backers would claim credit for it, credit, I might add, that would be unwarranted. The real reason is because of what Iran was like before the lunatics took over the asylum. The Shah of Iran may have been a dictator in the minds of some but he can certainly be credited with bringing that country into the 20th century. He built a secular society where freedom of religion was always exercised. Even Jewish people lived good lives where they could earn whatever they deserved and continue to practice their own religion. The followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini wanted to have the strict religious society that exists today and were the ones who affected the revolution overthrowing the Shah. The problem is that I learned a very long time ago that one thing you can never shove down someone’s throat is religion. Unfortunately, the people who don’t realize this at all are the fanatics of just about every religion out there. However, the word I’m hearing is that the women in Iran are walking around outside wearing their “bee hive” outfits, which they immediately take off as soon as they come into the house. It’s the old “religious on the outside, do whatever you want inside,” mentality that is part of most religions.  Today, the religious, and their Ayatollah Ali Kahmeni, who isn’t related to the late and evil Ayatollah Khomeini, rule Iran. Attacking him, or even confronting him, will strengthen him, as anti-American sentiment exists for the most part throughout the world. I remember Bush being asked about the negative feelings obvious to everyone and him responding with, “The people I always speak to always say they want to work with us.” I wonder if he’s referring to Rice, Cheney Donald Rumsfeld, and Karl Rove, as many believe they’re the only ones he ever speaks to. One thing I will never forget was the look on The Shrub’s face when he responded. I’m certain you remember the look from one of the debates where he exhibited an attitude of “How dare you question me?” Thus, Condoleeza performs her first act as Secretary of State with an empty threat that can only do harm if it really came through. Am I saying that we shouldn’t be concerned with the lunatics in Iran building a nuclear arsenal? No, for that would be like committing a national suicide. However, working with the United Nations, galvanizing support for an effort, while at the same time, utilizing covert operations implemented by the English and Israelis as well, seems to be the right path to follow. But, who’s kidding whom? The most pressing threat in today’s world is the fellow Bill Maher once dubbed as “Lil Kim,” North Korean dictator Kim Jung II.  The best way to describe this person is to say he follows in the great tradition of Josef Stalin, the brutal dictator of the Soviet Union, credited (?) with having approximately 50 million people killed. Kim is known for his weird tastes and ironclad rule. The major question is how much of a believer he is. Political dogma and religion don’t veer far away from each other. The more fanatic one is, in either vein, the more likely the belief that one could prevail in the ultimate human battle. This is the spot where the Administration should be focused, especially since it certain that they have built a nuclear arsenal.  Americans have already made much sacrifice and have the right to ask the above question. I came across this on Yahoo on Valentine’s Day. The White House was to send the supplemental budget request to Capitol Hill late Monday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters. Last Monday, Bush submitted an overall $2.5 trillion budget for Fiscal 2006. That document called for restraining spending across a wide swath of government programs from popular farm subsidies to poor people's health programs. Spending on the military, the biggest part of discretionary spending, would rise by 4.8 percent in 2006 to $419.3 billion. But this figure does not include the estimated $82 billion that the administration wants to pay for the ongoing military expenses in Iraq and the Middle East. Administration officials, who discussed this special request late last month on grounds of anonymity, had said that $75 billion of it would be for U.S. military costs, with the rest including funds to train and equip Iraqi and Afghan forces, aid the new Palestinian leadership, build an embassy in Baghdad and help victims of warfare in Sudan's Darfur province. Congress approved $25 billion for the wars last summer. Using figures compiled by the Congressional Research Service, which prepares reports for lawmakers, the newest request would push the totals provided for the conflicts and worldwide efforts against terrorism past $300 billion. That includes $25 billion already provided for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. In a written statement on this issue earlier, President Bush had said the special appropriation would support U.S. troops and help the United States "stand with the Iraqi people and against the terrorists trying desperately to block democracy and the advance of human rights." It smells like allocating money to be funneled to Halliburton at the expense of our own people’s domestic needs. Many would argue that it’s always been that way. All that would amount to be, is an evil that has been perpetrated throughout the ages. Sorry, to all those people who believe so because my attitude hasn’t ever changed and is more in tune with a song Bob Dylan had on his early album, “The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan,” in 1963. The song was called “Masters of War” and describes what many feel even today.  Come you masters of war You that build all the guns You that build the death planes You that build the big bombs You that hide behind walls You that hide behind desks I just want you to know I can see through your masks You that never done nothin' But build to destroy You play with my world Like it's your little toy You put a gun in my hand And you hide from my eyes And you turn and run farther When the fast bullets fly Like Judas of old You lie and deceive A world war can be won You want me to believe But I see through your eyes And I see through your brain Like I see through the water That runs down my drain You fasten the triggers For the others to fire Then you set back and watch When the death count gets higher You hide in your mansion As young people's blood Flows out of their bodies And is buried in the mud You've thrown the worst fear That can ever be hurled Fear to bring children Into the world For threatening my baby Unborn and unnamed You ain't worth the blood That runs in your veins How much do I know To talk out of turn You might say that I'm young You might say I'm unlearned But there's one thing I know Though I'm younger than you Even Jesus would never Forgive what you do Let me ask you one question Is your money that good Will it buy you forgiveness Do you think that it could I think you will find When your death takes its toll All the money you made Will never buy back your soul And I hope that you die And your death'll come soon I will follow your casket In the pale afternoon And I'll watch while you're lowered Down to your deathbed And I'll stand o'er your grave 'Til I'm sure that you're dead  I’m too realistic to attempt to conjure up illusionary wishes about the current people in power. However, I feel like there are things happening that I find funny but peculiar. It looks like many of those who supported The Shrub in the last election are realizing they’re not happy with specific things he does. For example, the farmers’ bloc has expressed their dissatisfaction with The Shrub’s proposed budget and feel he’s turned his back on them. In addition, many true conservatives are clearly distressed by his inability to slow up an ever-increasing deficit. Then you have the working middle class that voted for him because they fell for the values crap that Karl Rove brilliantly worked on them. Now these same working people are angry when they realize what Bush wants to do to Social Security. Of course, everyone is mindful of how the tax cuts, which clearly benefited the wealthy the most, hasn’t been touched at all. It would be easy for someone like me to say, “You got what you deserved.” However, I care way too much for the average American to ever have that attitude towards them. Still, I found what’s below to be exceptionally satisfying. By Alan Cooperman and Jim VandeHei Washington Post Staff Writers Tuesday, February 15, 2005; Page A01 A former White House official said yesterday that President Bush has failed to deliver on his promise to help religious groups serve the poor, the homeless and drug addicts because the administration lacks a genuine commitment to its "compassionate conservative" agenda. David Kuo, who was deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for much of Bush's first term, said in published remarks that the White House reaped political benefits from the president's promise to help religious organizations win taxpayer funding to care for "the least, the last and the lost" in the United States. But he wrote: "There was minimal senior White House commitment to the faith-based agenda." Analyzing Bush's failure to secure $8 billion in promised funding for the faith-based initiative during his first term, Kuo said there was "snoring indifference" among Republicans and "knee-jerk opposition" among Democrats in Congress. "Capitol Hill gridlock could have been smashed by minimal West Wing effort," Kuo wrote on Beliefnet.com, a Web site on religion. "No administration since [Lyndon B. Johnson's] has had a more successful legislative record than this one. From tax cuts to Medicare, the White House gets what the White House really wants. It never really wanted the 'poor people stuff.' " Kuo's remarks were a rare breach of discipline for an administration that places a high premium on unity among current and former officials, and they mark the second time a former high-ranking official has criticized Bush's approach to the faith-based issue. In August 2001, John J. DiIulio Jr., then-director of the faith-based office, became the first top Bush adviser to quit, after seven months on the job. In an interview with Esquire magazine a year later, DiIulio said the Bush White House was obsessed with the politics of the faith-based initiative but dismissive of the policy itself, and he slammed White House advisers as "Mayberry Machiavellis." White House spokesman Trent Duffy said yesterday that Kuo is wrong about the president's commitment. "The faith-based and community initiative has been a top priority for President Bush since the beginning of his first term and continues to be a top priority," Duffy said. "The president has mentioned the initiative in every State of the Union and fought for full funding." In his first major policy speech as a presidential candidate in 2000, Bush proposed an $8 billion program to promote religious charities and other community groups. The idea quickly became the centerpiece of his call for compassionate conservatism. But it met stiff resistance in Congress, where Democrats said it threatened the separation of church and state, while Republicans showed little enthusiasm for new welfare-related spending. After Congress balked at allowing religious groups to receive government funding and still hire, fire and promote employees on the basis of their faith, Bush issued executive orders to make it easier for religious groups to compete for government grants to run homeless shelters, counseling centers for teenagers and a wide range of other social programs. "I think some good progress has been made, especially administratively," said John Bridgeland, White House director of domestic policy during Bush's first term. He added that Bush's decision to give chief speechwriter Michael J. Gerson responsibility for expanding the initiative should give the effort a lift in the second term. In his Beliefnet column, Kuo said it was "a dream come true for me" when Bush promised in 2000 that in his first year in office he would provide $6 billion in tax incentives for private charitable giving, $1.7 billion for groups that care for the poor and $200 million for a Compassion Capital Fund to assist local faith-based organizations. "Sadly, four years later these promises remain unfulfilled in spirit and in fact," he wrote. In June 2001, the promised tax incentives were stripped at the last minute from the $1.6 trillion tax cut legislation "to make room for the estate-tax repeal that overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy," Kuo said. The Compassion Capital Fund has received a cumulative total of $100 million in the past four years, and new programs for children of prisoners, at-risk youth and prisoners reentering society have received a little more than $500 million over four years, he said. "Unfortunately, sometimes even the grandly-announced 'new' programs aren't what they appear," Kuo wrote, citing as an example the three-year $150 million "gang prevention" effort Bush announced in this year's State of the Union address. In reality, Kuo said, that money is being taken out of the "already meager" $100 million request for the Compassion Capital Fund. Kuo, 36, served as a special assistant to the president for 2 1/2 years and was deputy head of the faith-based office from February 2002 to December 2003. Before joining the White House, he worked for several prominent conservatives, including John D. Ashcroft and William J. Bennett. But before that, he had been a campaign volunteer for former representative Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.) and an intern for Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). "I have always sought to try and figure out what's the best way for government to care for the poor. I went to the left and to the right, and I've ended up pretty much in the center," he said in a telephone interview yesterday. In the Beliefnet column, Kuo said that he continues to have "deep respect, appreciation and affection for the president." Kuo added: "No one who knows him even a tiny bit doubts the sincerity and compassion of his heart." Asked whether that meant he believes that Bush was sincere about the faith-based initiative but other White House officials were not, Kuo said he would "let the column speak for itself." "The point of the column is that the poor need to be dealt with by everybody. There was phenomenal promise in the original vision for compassionate conservatism . . . and to try to pin blame on any one institution, one person, one body, one policy, is wrong," he said. "It's not about the White House, it's not about the Congress, it's not about interest groups. It's about everybody." Amen.   © Copyright BravesBeat Network, BravesBeat.com, and Michael M. Rapaport |
Site Categories |
We are NOT affiliated with the Atlanta Braves Baseball Organization or their minor league teams.