There comes a time in one's life when things that pass for the mundane are challenged by the mind as it evolves into a new dimension that discloses things that escaped our original thought processes. We can liken this evolution to the birth of a butterfly that goes through a metamorphosis from the tiny egg to the caterpillar, to the chrysalis before reaching full maturity and fly away to dazzle our eyes and our imagination.
After spending years debating politics that govern all human group interactions: corporate board rooms, academic institutions and yes religious institutions and of course civil governments, I have concluded that government of the people, by the people and for the people may be an illusion that escapes the scrutiny of most of us. Imperfect as it may be, it still remains the best achievement for the perpetuation of mankind. We've read of empires ruled by a monarch or an oligarchy whose political structure is maintained by force and coercion and which spanned from the early empires in 15th century BC to classical antiquity with the Roman Empire, moving to the Middle Ages with the emergence of the Islamic Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the largest contiguous Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan. The Modern era saw the rise of the British Empire which became the largest and widest empire in history.
History taught us that all these empires have either self-destruct or were conquered by hostile forces only to succumb to yet better militarily equipped enemies. After WWII, Japan is considered the world’s sole remaining empire because of the continued presence of the Japanese Emperor in national politics. After 1945, the word "Empire" had lost its luster and substituted for "Colonial powers" that appear to have a softer tone in describing the tentacles gripping emerging third world countries. The indigenous people of these nations, from Africa to the Caribbean, nonetheless sought self-determination resulting in decolonization after the second world war. Decolonization by definition means "to be free from colonial status" however many nations chose to remain under the commonwealth of nations recognizing Queen Elizabeth II as their titular head. The Commonwealth comprises fifty-four of the world's countries (including one currently suspended member), across all six inhabited continents.
Fast forward to 1992 and William Jefferson Clinton is elected 42nd president of the United States. My interest in politics grew exponentially as I, with cousins and friends, engaged in daily email debates.
February 26 1993, barely a month after Clinton is sworn in, the first attack on the WTC occurs and the Republican attack dogs are already out to torpedo his presidency: the Whitewater investigation began in earnest following the election with the appointment of Robert Fiske in 1994. He was replaced by Kenneth Starr who for three years doggedly pursued every avenue to make charges stick against the Clintons. In the interim Juanita Broadderick's name surfaced accusing Clinton of rape while governor of Arkansas. This also went nowhere. In February 1997, Starr announced he would leave the investigation to pursue a position at Pepperdine University's law school. However, he "flip-flopped" in the face of "intense criticism", as new evidence of sexual misconduct popped up. In walked Monica Lewinski, "that woman" Bill said he never had sex with. "Well, it depends upon what the meaning of the word is... is." Bill hissed to his interrogator. His enemies were circling their wagons and spewing their venom. The most outrageous one I heard was Clinton fathering a 13 year old boy with a black addicted prostitute when he was Governor of Arkansas. For a time, the republicans believed they had found the smoking gun, the holy grail. A tabloid magazine claimed DNA tests were conducted but no match was found. But one interesting thing became quite evident. Every time new allegations were leveled, Clinton's approval ratings shot up. What the hell was going on? Those Repubs were frantic, mistakenly or deliberately referring to "Dick" Clinton.
Oh yes, the "Blue dress." We have a match. The republicans screamed with glee!!! "Impeachment" became the operative word to finally oust this miscreant. Henry Hyde, the Republican from Illinois would head the House Judiciary Committee sat in judgment of this adulterous President. But wait, those who were appointed to head the impeachment hearings were not themselves choir boys. Hyde was an adulterer in his own right. He carried a five-year sexual relationship with Cherie Snodgrass, spouse of Fred, parents of three small children. Cherie and Hyde ended their relationship only after Hyde's wife found out about it. When the press confronted Hyde with his past dalliance, his comments were greeted with guffaws when he said that he attributed his behavior to "youthful indiscretion." Sure! Hyde was 41 years old, was a lawyer and rising star in Republican state politics, very much married and father of four sons. Bob Barr, Newt Gingrich were others who fit the same mold: hypocrites. One must note that Clinton's sexual escapades within the White House were not a new phenomenon. FDR was known to have kept several mistresses occupied while Eleanor was off spreading good will to Americans here and abroad. JFK's exploits are legendary. LBJ is reported to have succumbed to his weaknesses while Lady Bird was occupied in an adjacent room of the White House. George H. W. Bush was whispered to have had a fling or two. Stone Phillips asked him about the adultery question for “Dateline NBC.” I recall witnessing the shock registered on Bush's face and his half-baked answer, suggesting to Phillips that the Oval Office was hardly the place to pose such a question. How dare he desecrate the office!!!
After Bush inherited the White House from Reagan's eight year reign, the Republicans had predicted they would continue to run this country with Bush for eight more years. Clinton was not supposed to have won the presidency. After all, Clinton was a poor boy from Arkansas, raised by a single mother of two sons who left her drunken husband. Clinton was from the wrong side of the track when you contrast him with Bush, scion to an immense fortune built by his father Prescott Bush, a US Senator from Connecticut. It was later disclosed that he bankrolled the Nazi war machine that helped Hitler's rise to power. George H. W. had the right pedigree. He projected a patrician look that distinguished him from the pedestrian Clinton. He was the preferred heir to Reagan and for four years, he advanced the Republican agenda that got derailed when the country anointed William Jefferson as our 42nd President.
It's no exaggeration to say that the Republicans were out for blood after losing to Clinton, a brilliant politician without peers. The ink had not yet dried on the document certifying his oath of office that the republican attack dogs were on the prowl. The Whitewater investigations that cost tax payers millions concluded with Clinton's lying about a consensual adult relationship albeit a violation of his marriage vows did not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors as his detractors wanted the country to believe. I ask again, what was Clinton's crime? Lying. Yes, he lied about sex. Ha! Bush lied us into a war of choice. But, that's for later.
The politician wunderkind, the Rhodes scholar had his work cut out for him. He was no longer the Governor of a small state, Arkansas, he was the Commander-in-Chief, the leader of the free world, the big cheese. That is enormous power at your finger tip or coming out of your mouth: Every speech, every phrase, every word is scrutinized for clarity or hidden message. First, Clinton challenged the status quo by passing a "don't ask, don't tell" order to the military in regards to gays serving in uniform. True, there's civilian oversight of the military, however, embarrassing the military or subverting a ban against homosexuals wearing the uniform is something that may trigger a blow back with consequences that defy the imagination.
As an aside, I will take you back to the Iran crisis under Jimmy Carter who was perceived by his enemies as a nice guy but totally out of touch with reality to remain commander-in-chief. I recall the attempt made by the military with Carter's accord to rescue the hostages. A helicopter flew to a designated area deep into enemy territory, in the Iran desert with a crew of highly trained soldiers. The engines from the helicopter sucked in so much sand that it crashed and burst into flames killing everyone on board. The critics were quick to lay blame at Carter's feet, further hardening their position that he is an ineffective leader who does not deserve a second term thereby forging victory for his successor, Ronald Reagan. We can speculate about the military's decision to sacrifice the helicopter crew to further discredit Carter.
Do we have a shadow government? Is it determining the course of this country and its people by a careful orchestration of events that seem to snatch Clinton from the jaws of political death to the consternation of friends and foes alike? It is remarkable to note that Clinton survived an impeachment, the embarrassment, the humiliation, the disclosure of the details with "that woman." The answer can be found in Clinton's ability to compartmentalize his emotions by reading a quote from F Scott Fitzgerald who summarizes it in those words: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."
Function, Clinton did. During the impeachment hearings, he told the press, "The American People want the truth, and they want to see justice done... I need to go back to work for the American People." What were Clinton's accomplishments in the face of overwhelming Republican opposition?
-Almost 6 million new jobs were created in the first two years...
-By 1994, the economy had the lowest combination of unemployment and inflation in 25 years.
-Under his 1993 Economic Plan, President Clinton cut taxes on 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses, while raising taxes on just 1.2 percent of the wealthiest taxpayers.
-The deficit went down for 3 years in a row for the first time since Harry Truman was president.
-Longest economic expansion in American history
- More than 22 million new jobs created in less than 8 years.
- Highest homeownership in American history
- Lowest unemployment in 30 years
- Lowest crime rate in 26 years
- Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
- Lowest teen birth rate in 60 years
- Most diverse cabinet in American history
The list goes on... By the year 2000 when Clinton left office, Bush inherited $230 billion Surplus. Despite his prevaricating, his sexual misadventures and his impeachment by Congress, a remarkable 65 percent of Americans approve of the way Clinton has done his job — the best end-of-career rating of any postwar president (one point ahead of Ronald Reagan).
The benchmark Dow Industrial average more than tripled from the end of George H.W. Bush's presidency on Jan. 20, 1993, to the end of Bill Clinton's administration on Jan. 20, 2001 – rising from 3241.95 to 10587.59. Other major indexes, such as the broader S&P 500 and the tech-heavy Nasdaq, registered similar or bigger increases.
The Republicans lost and the American people won.
Alas, our victory was short-lived. Al Gore's victory was snatched from him amidst massive voter fraud in Florida and a puppet was selected by SCOTUS, some members of which were appointed by George H.W. Bush, the father. Is it coincidence or did the powers that be needed someone in the White House they could control?
I first read about the "Project for the New American Century" when Bush was sworn into office and began to talk down the economy. The DOW that had risen to 11,000 under Clinton took a nose dive losing around 4000 points, all within the first quarter. The PNAC stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."
"On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also state: "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf war to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
"What we require is a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership of the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership."
President Clinton rejected outright the perceived threat advocated by these neoconservatives bent on launching a war. Period. The die was cast to ensure Al Gore defeat by all means necessary. A Bush presidency was preordained by the shadow government. The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war was explicitly stated in the National Security Council text "National Security Strategy of the United States", published September 20, 2002. "We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed... even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack... The United States will, if necessary, act preemptively." Policy analysts noted that the Bush Doctrine as stated in the 2002 NSC document bore a strong resemblance to recommendations originally presented in a controversial Defense Planning Guidance draft written in 1992 by Paul Wolfowitz under the first Bush administration.
The 911 attack was the trigger point to implement the PNAC's agenda. A war that was launched with the strength of the world behind us against an aggressor based in Afghanistan was diverted to Iraq which presented no threat to our national interests except for the lies that filled the airwaves reminiscent of tactics employed by the Third Reich: "All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those toward whom it is directed will understand it... Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise." - Adolf Hitler
Questions asked in some quarters are, was this attack preventable? How did 19 men hijack four passenger planes and neutralize the most sophisticated security system protecting our skies? We need to go back and review the measures that were taken by the Clinton administration to prevent another devastating episode on our soil. Richard Clarke in his book "Against all enemies" details authoritatively the aggressive steps adopted by Clinton. Clarke had more than 30 years in federal service, beginning his career in the Reagan administration, became Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence in George W.H. Bush administration. He served for eight years as a special assistant to President Clinton and as National Coordination for Security and Counterterrorism for Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. One has to believe when he writes that a plan of action was in place to prevent the most catastrophic attack on American soil. The Bush people were told that Osama Bin Laden was on their radar screen and our intelligence indicated the attack would take place from the air. In other words, Clinton put the government on high alert before leaving office. According to senator Al Franken in his book, "The Truth" he writes Bush "...did not pay attention to the Presidential Daily Briefs...ignored the terrorist threat until it was too late."
Dick Cheney was by all accounts the power behind the throne. He predicted that the war in Iraq will not last more than six months and added, "I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who's a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he's written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that." (Pure unadulterated bovine excrement) "We will get rid of Saddam Hussein", the very monster who was our man when we needed him to neutralize Iran aggression in that part of the world. The Iran-Iraq war lasted better than 8 years came at a great cost in lives and economic damage — a half a million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers as well as civilians are believed to have died in the war with many more injured and wounded.
So it came to pass that we invaded Iraq under the pretext that Saddam Hussein had in his arsenal Weapons of Mass Destruction that he refused to surrender to our forces, making our invasion mandatory with the support of the United States Congress and the American people and our allies joined for a common cause built on a series of well orchestrated lies. Was Bush right? the answer is patently obvious. As early as 2003, Bush declared "Mission accomplished" with a banner that was displayed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln during a televised address. The controversy that followed prompted writer Stan Moore to write, "George W. Bush says Iraqi's want 'freedom', but he is too stupid to understand that Iraqi's want freedom from American hegemony, occupation, and control of their fiscal and economic affairs. Bush' behavior actually makes some Iraqis nostalgic for Saddam Hussein."
The Bush effect on the economy and the world was foreseeable but who cared? "Europe’s crumbling faith in U.S. political and financial institutions – starting with the installation of George W. Bush as president after Election 2000 through the latest corporate-accounting scandals – is sending shivers through a U.S. economy that has grown dependent on $1.2 billion a day in capital from overseas. This withdrawal of foreign investment now is threatening to choke off a U.S. economic recovery." writes Sam Barry in the Consortium in 2002. Instead of the Clinton-Gore emphasis on new technologies and the environment, Bush’s team was eager to access new sources of fossil fuels, including oil from Alaska and the Caspian Basin, along with more coal from Appalachia. It was back to the future of the 1950s. Bush also sent the world a message that there would be no more Clinton-style “nation-building” and multilateralism. Bush spurned the Kyoto Treaty on global warming and other international agreements. Europeans were aghast at Bush’s go-it-alone foreign policy and retrograde economic plans. Many Europeans regarded Bush as a swaggering buffoon, making ill-informed comments about complex international affairs. By the end of 2006, PNAC was "reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website". with "a single employee."
The year 2008 could not have come any sooner. Barack Hussein Obama became the nominee of his Party beating Hillary Clinton who by all accounts was the frontrunner to accede the throne her husband once occupied. She was an excellent prospect but who knew the winds of change would bring into the national consciousness a man who fit perfectly the definition of African-American, (African father and American mother, one Black and the other White)
On January 20, 2009, Barack Hussein Obama became the 44th President of the United States and the first African-American to hold this high office.
Obama's victory was well documented by the media in this country and extensively followed all over the world. After winning the nomination of his Party, Obama went on to win 365 electoral votes to McCain's 173. A clear victory with no hanging shads or disputed ballots. Undeterred, the opposition continued to question Obama's birth country in the face of inconvertible evidence that he is a native of Hawaii. The "Birthers" as they are euphemistically known continue to poison the well.
It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent, well-read people can be so driven by ultra conservative political ideology that they refuse to recognize a Barack Hussein Obama's presidency. A man who was duly elected by the electorates; not selected as a puppet of a military junta, but representing the very essence of democracy and principles this country was founded upon. His ascendancy to the leadership of the free world is a testament to the battles fought to eradicate Jim Crowism in our time and to bridge the racial divide more than 40 years after the Civil Rights Act was enacted.
Obama's inheritance:
John Ward Anderson of Politico writes: "The United States is fighting two wars half a world away in the midst of a global economic meltdown. Efforts to contain the nuclear programs of two long-time enemies, Iran and North Korea, are faltering. Relations with a belligerent and resurgent Russia are terrible and getting worse. Afghanistan is an emerging narco-state. And seven years after the Sept. 11 attacks, Osama bin Laden — a motivated enemy with a proven track record — continues to elude capture...For Obama, the pledge to quickly get American troops out of Iraq is particularly problematic. Despite recent security improvements tied to the troop surge, no one knows what will happen when U.S. forces draw down. An imminent withdrawal was supposed to produce political reconciliation in Iraq, but it's not happening. Suppose a drawdown of troops sparks renewed Sunni-Shiite violence, a resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq, or intensified attacks on troops?"
Many of Obama's detractors are claiming he has done nothing in his first year. To them I would like to say:
-he saved the financial system from collapse
-saved the US auto industry from liquidation
-brought the recession to an end
-caused the stock market to jump up by about 50% from its lowest point
-chaired the UN Security Council in an extraordinary unanimous resolution for arms control
-increased support for the war in Afghanistan
-started bringing the troops home from Iraq
-ended the US policies that allowed for torture of detainees
-made the United States the most admired country in the world once again, among other things.
As I'm putting my thoughts to paper, the debate over healthcare reforms continues to rage in the halls of Congress. The Republicans have used every tactic to delay and eventually kill passage of legislation that will guarantee health care delivery to millions of uninsured Americans. It is Saturday December 19 and the latest news filtering out of Washington indicates that the Democrats have potentially clinched 60 votes to effect a major overhaul of the nation's health care system, putting them within reach of approving legislation by Christmas.
We recall Jim DeMint of South Carolina comment that a defeat on health care could be a “Waterloo” moment for Obama. It means that the Republicans will be positioned to regain the Congress by 2010 and the White House in 2012. Damn the American public. It's no wonder no Republican administration have broached the question of health care reform. "Since Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform nearly a century ago, we have talked and we have tinkered. We have tried and fallen short, we've stalled for time, and again we have failed to act because of Washington politics or industry lobbying" Obama said, opening a health care conference in the East Room of the White House on March 5.
All signs point to victory this Saturday. Will passage of health reform under the Obama administration silence the opposition (a dream devoutly to be wished) or will the acrimony persists as the Tea baggers and Birthers regroup to launch yet another assault against this President? It's difficult to separate attacks from the opposition stemming from purely ideological differences and resentment that a biracial African-American can ascend to the highest office in the land, something that Robert F Kennedy predicted more than 40 years ago. Coincidence or not, Obama, a name foreign to the English speaking world hence an irritant to a racist segment of Americans. Some may say that the Republicans put Clinton through a torturous eight years as well. True, but there's a racial component which is hard to ignore. Racism is still part of the fabric of American life. The idea that an African-American made history due in large part to white support is extraordinary yet cannot negate a vestige of it which is manifest in demonstrations sponsored by Tea baggers and Birthers receiving their orders from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and their ilk. They make no secret of their desire to see Obama defeated.
No comments:
Post a Comment