Posted on 07/27/2003 7:07:26 PM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
While the centrist voice of America is silent, a slow erosion of national greatness is happening. An elitist administration, whose strategies do not envision the future and whose public policies disregard the average citizen, governs while criticism and dialogue, the backbones of democracy, remain mute.
Perhaps that is because we have been left uninspired or are afraid to speak out, as if being critical is equal to being unpatriotic or disloyal.
A threatening drumbeat, heard at home and abroad, suggests that criticism dishonors our soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq in the past several months, or the victims of Sept. 11.
The Bush administration would have us forget that Thomas Jefferson, icon of American democracy, said that the highest form of patriotism is dissent.
In this light, it is sometimes downright un-American not to criticize President Bush’s governance of America and the ways he is fracturing the continuity of many of our time-honored ideals.
We have allowed him to use the suffering of Sept. 11 to justify his foreign policy, much of which is a patchwork of responses to some threats and the avoidance of others.
His hostility toward old friends in Europe who disagree with him is expressed in a new and strange diplomatic voice, an articulated alienation that, in the long run, will not serve us well in the battle for national security and economic well-being.
We are paying a big price now, for example, for our separatist approach, in lives lost, money spent, and time on task in Iraq.
Sadly, too, the president does not seem secure enough or realistic enough to discuss ideas in an open forum. And sometimes not even in private, as was the case before his recent trip to Africa when he decided not to meet beforehand with leaders of the African-American community.
He is the most sealed-off chief of state in our modern history. Even his infrequent press conferences are scripted. Names are called from a pre-set list of friendly reporters and, in response to difficult questions, the president reiterates fixed phrases that often do not answer the questions.
His now infamous reference in the State of the Union address about Iraq’s bid to buy uranium in Africa has been re-explained in so many ways by his underlings that the Bush voice is beginning to sound like President Clinton’s.
This is a sad reality for a country whose foundation is sustained by an open and healthy exchange of ideas. The slow erosion of give and take is made worse by the indifference of the administration to its critics.
It does not, for example, offer any compelling reasons for giving a large, no-bid contract to extinguish fires, operate facilities and distribute products in Iraq to Halliburton, a company formerly run by the almost invisible vice-president, Dick Cheney.
Minimally, the award has the appearance and probability of favoritism. And in an irony laughable if it were not so careless, a huge contract to restructure Iraq has been given to Bechtel, which owns a private equity firm in which the bin Laden family is a substantial investor.
The mythic Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have not been found, and the stated connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida has never been established.
Yet, the administration continues to sing a song with a constant refrain that they will be found, and the connection made, as if saying it over and over will make it happen.
It is not a defense of the tyrannical ways of Saddam Hussein to say that the president may have misled us into war, nor is it a denial that state dissembling sometimes seems necessary.
George W. Bush, though, is the first president of the United States to pre-emptively attack another nation, and in so doing has completely undone the history of our nation’s policy regarding war.
Although the present national climate precludes a serious investigation into the possibility that we might have been misled deliberately, such a finding would constitute a high crime under the impeachment clause of the Constitution.
More important, though, is that the world’s most powerful nation has initiated a new way to establish the order it wants, a Pearl Harbor sort of approach that has enormous implications.
The simplicity of fighting phrases, such as “Bring ’em on,” “We’re gonna get ’em,” and “Dead or alive” seems to embolden the president. This quality, though, has not informed effective and continuous domestic agendas for the American people.
With little understanding of the value of open spaces and wilderness, for example, our president is soiling magnificent parts of the West so elitist associates in the oil and gas cartels can reap financial rewards.
Under his presidency, the unemployment rate is the highest in 49 years. This while he cuts benefits for the unemployed.
His recent tax relief bill is tailored to the interests of the rich at the same time as health care, housing and children’s benefits are being cut from the military, part of the great core of America.
As Bush gives billions to establish health care in Iraq and Africa, 41 million Americans, mostly the poor, do not have health insurance.
The collateral damage of Bush’s presidency involves more than the dead in Iraq. It also includes the heritage, welfare and ideals of the American people. Perhaps, too, the Constitution.
I take it this newspaper pays its columnists in copies.
Surely they don't give up actual cash for this semi-literate crap.
I make that "mistake" all the time, too. ;D
Stuff like this is the reason they're imploding.
The fact of the matter is, Americans just don't want to hear it.. While the democrats mistakenly believe they just haven't found the proper way to say it yet.
So they keep trying, over and over and over.. digging deeper and deeper and deeper.
The only thing being soiled by this screed is the author's face.
The unemployment rate was higher under Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, both considerably less than 49 years ago. I guess this is a reprise of Bill Clinton's "worst economy in 50 years" campaign slogan. Furthermore, unemployment benefits have grown substantially under GWB.
Misinformation, flat-out lies, and blatant bias is what this piece of "journalism" amounts to.
You mean, so we can have oil and natural gas that doesn't come from the Middle East or commie countries like Venezuela? I only wish this were true...
Under his presidency, the unemployment rate is the highest in 49 years. This while he cuts benefits for the unemployed
BS. Unemployment has been much higher. Under Carter, for instance.
And didn't Bush extend unemployment benefits two or three times? Sheesh.
What about the dozens of countries that backed US/UK action in Iraq?
when he decided not to meet beforehand with leaders of the African-American community.
The NAACP? The NAACP is an anti-American institution that does virtually nothing for the black community. Why should he meet with them? Also, what makes them experts on African diplomacy? Their skin color? Can the NAACP name the capitals of half the countries in Africa?
His now infamous reference in the State of the Union address about Iraq’s bid to buy uranium in Africa has been re-explained...
...Which has been proven correct, according to British intelligence.
The mythic Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have not been found
And what exactly are centrifuges used for? Growing food? The FACTS are that Saddam used WMD vs Kurds and Iranians.
we might have been misled deliberately, such a finding would constitute a high crime under the impeachment clause of the Constitution.
As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, his #1 task is PROTECTING the freedom and liberty of American citizens. If this means relying on (now proven TRUTHFUL) intelligence from an ally of over 100 years and not speaking truthfully ALL OF THE TIME (shades of Clinton here) then so be it. The President is not in office to be honest all the time, he is in office to PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ALL THE TIME.
Under his presidency, the unemployment rate is the highest in 49 years. This while he cuts benefits for the unemployed.
All lies. Unemployment was higher in the beginning of Clinton's 1st term, in the beginning of Reagan's 1st term, during Carter's term and so on. These presidents didn't serve over 49 years ago (which ironically harkens back to another Republican administration time period [Eisenhower]. Nice bias.). Also, there is no provision in the US Constitution saying the government must provide unemployment benefits.
His recent tax relief bill is tailored to the interests of the rich at the same time as health care, housing and children’s benefits are being cut from the military, part of the great core of America.
If that is true, it is probably because Bush has pushed through significant pay raises for the Armed Forces. Incidentally, don't families of servicemen/women get FREE healthcare and housing [on base] anyway?
As Bush gives billions to establish health care in Iraq and Africa, 41 million Americans, mostly the poor, do not have health insurance.
It isn't the government's job to provide health care for its citizenry. Also, find me ONE person who has gone to a hospital and been refused treatment. NO ONE is refused treatment. The inability of the poor to pay simply raises costs for the middle/higher class who do pay their medical expenses.
This is a childish attempt of this radical, uber leftist to claim the "moderate", "thoughtful", "objective", and "informed" American center. It sounds like an argument made by a stupid college sophomore.
Wonder what all that's about?
The NYT saying criticism of the Bush administration is mute?
They really are suffering from both short term and long term memory loss.
What are we concerned about in Liberia and the AID's problem in Africa? Why are the Dims so concerned about global warming and yet in favor of letting forests burn to satisfy their enviro constituents and warm the earth some more? Our government is nuts and the opposition that wishes to replace it are also dingy. I don't know what kind of a shock it will take to arouse them from their stupor, but our country cannot continue on its present course and remain the country that we wish to leave to our children.
That would be "strategeries", Mr. Brooker...
Pphhhtt! Yeah, like the neo-left hasn't spent the last four decades trying to undermine the Constitution.
American presence in Iraq, in the very midst of the Muslim world, is and was the absolutely right thing to do, in response to twenty plus years of escalating terrorism directed at America. All the transparent leftist conspiracy theories and desperate bids to undermine the Bush Administration aside, if chance or providence had put Gore in the White House, we would not be engaged in an aggressive overseas campaign against Islamic terrorism (where the frontlines belong against any avowed enemy), and we would have suicide bombers on the streets of America.
Commentary like this constantly printed on the Op-Ed page of our local paper is why I finally cancelled it.
"mythic"?
That would make liars out of the UN, photos of entire towns wiped out by Saddam's WMDs would have to be faked, his WMD attack on Iran a farce, Bill Clinton and Al Gore and numerous Democrats warning of the threat of Saddam's WMDs, the CIA and virtually every intelligence agency from every country including those who opposed the war...would all be liars.
It just amazes me how Dems and the liberal media have lost their collective memories in their desperate attempt to do to Bush what European liberals have done to Tony Blair.
...and the stated connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida has never been established.
Another liberal lie.
Bush never made a case for a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida leading up to this war.
However, since the war connections have been made.
Etc. Etc.
Fear, that's what's coming, from Hillary's camp, spoon fed things to worry about, where in the h___ George is taking us.
Hillary's never going to say it, but President Bush is going to be made out as a loose cannon, a man out of control with too many irons in the fire.
Above all, a man giving away the farm to foreign countries, instead of taking care of business back home.
Does not matter what truth may or may not be in her statements; she's running, and she's selling now, what may or may not be bought, yet over the next year, she's going to tell from what's been bought, where she must specialize.
Right now, it's market differentiation, testing. Her topmost priority, is learning what she needs to sweep "big labor." Liking or not liking her, is not an issue for them. The deal, is.
She's focused on labor and what labor wants, which is membership and security.
"In our depressed economy, working families need help, and we cannot let them down, because America is built upon their sacrifices."
Etc. Etc.
(Not to mention that Ted Kennedy is going to pitch this one: "If we can ban guns in terrorist lands, why can't we ban such terrorism here!?")
George W. Bush, though, is the first president of the United States to pre-emptively attack another nation
Negative on that one. LBJ and arguably Polk and McKinley. At least Dubya was honest about it, instead of manufacturing some incident i.e. Gulf of Tonkin or U.S.S. Maine.
And sometimes not even in private, as was the case before his recent trip to Africa when he decided not to meet beforehand with leaders of the African-American community
Relevance? What do these "leaders of the African-American community" have to do with Africa other than some euphemistic group name? Should Dubya consult with European-American leaders before his next trip to Europe?
Under his presidency, the unemployment rate is the highest in 49 years.
That's a baldfaced damned lie, in the New York Times no less. He ought to be ashamed of himself. From 1960-1995, the average unemployment in this country is 6%. It is currently at 6.2%. I'd like to see it go below 5% again myself, but that's the exception, not the rule.
the stated connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida has never been established.
Another out and out lie. It is well established that they had a relationship; what remains unclear, at least publically, is what the relationship involved.
Really I could go on all night on this column. There isn't a single thing in it that isn't either a lie or at best argumentative. But that's not what I find distressing. What's distressing is that it would be published in such a "reputable" and widely read paper as the NYT.
For the life of me, I do not understand what the term "working families" means and why they "need help." I understand it's commonly used by liberals as a part of their class warfare strategy, but it really makes no sense. If these "families" are "working" (and making a living) then why aren't they content? Is "working families" a code term for unions or something?
Millions of Americans, mostly those under 17, don't have a driver's license. And the point is...?
However, using the proper definition of "working" means that anyone who has a job and works that job 5 days a week qualifies. This goes for Bill Gates all the way down to home schooling parents.
I don't understand. Clinton has been out of office for two years; why is this guy still complaining?
A quick scan of the rest of the article reveals a laundry list of lies and ad hominem attacks against President Bush. Ho-hum. Yawn.
Why is this lie repeated and so seldom chalanged. First of all this war started when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991. There was a ceasefire that same year then inspections till 1998. There were continuing daily military missions, often with our planes being fired upon and returning fire, right throught 2002 when the ceasefire violations by Iraq were finally addressed. During this entire period Sadam was given chances to end the war but he never took them and was regularly bomed for his hostile actions.
Thus this was not pre-emptive just a final end to a long war. Democrats lied and called it pre-emptive but that was just a lie Bush continually reminded them the war had not ended and was still active. They just ignored the facts and lied.
Secondly even if you buy the pre-emptive lie it was hardly the first pre-emptive war. Hati never attacked us and we pre-emptivly struck them to stop the Hatiains from coming to America. Kosovo never attacked and we were lied to by Clinton that genocide was taking place there we thue pre-emptively struck to stop this Genocide. Sudan and Afganistan were also Struck by Clinton based on lies (OBL there - he wasn't and Clinton knew this, Asprin factory. Clinton knew this has three Democrats had just toured it and told him).
Yeah but their lies are getting through to middle-America, Check this out.
Now tell me true, is that not straight from the Demonuts talking points?
I see this same post almost verbatim all over the net now. There is a massive move to distort the situation and post it all over cyberspace!
Who is doing it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.