| Well deserved blame isn't a game | 11:50 am |
|---|
Read Cal Thomas' amusing article 'Blame game won't win war'.
Cal suggests there is enough red meat to support conclusions that Presidents Bush and Clinton not only perpetrated massive disservices to this country but their behavior was criminally negligent. We are prompted by Cal to make a selection, Clinton or Bush, which one screwed the country. I realize that they both may have failed their most principle roles as Presidents, but as for which argument I find the most credible I think I'll have to pick the report by the U.S. Senate Committee on Intelligence {which was more damning to Bush} over the conspiracy depicted in an ABC docu-drama {which was more damning to Clinton}. I don't know about Cal, but I tend to put a little more confidence in official government reports than docu-dramas on primetime television. Of course I also don't believe in the Biblical creation story as fact, nor that an embryonic stem-cell is a human being so...
As for this FDR conspiracy theory. If what Robert Stinnett alleges and Cal seemingly endorses is actually true then that would make FDR responsible for the most treacherous act in American Presidential history. Second only perhaps to, if another conspiracy theory is correct, Bush having foreknowledge of 9/11 and deliberately not preventing it. I don't like how matter-of-fact this notion is being presented here but if it as so apparent as alleged, then it needs to be given major media coverage, we need to make this knowledge available to the general public, it needs to be taught in schools, and FDR should be officially labeled the worst traitor in American history.
The fact that none of this has happened, in fact I've never heard anyone debate or suggest this theory of treachery says to me that the evidence Mr. Stinnett has gathered and Cal has passed on as if it is just one of those inconvenient little truths about government, is not only weak but most accurately little more than a pile of anti-Democrat conspiracy theory bullshit.
Regardless how fictional this claim is, the important point here is that we shouldn't keep silent when our leaders are criminally negligent. War or no war. That holds true whether we're talking about a Democrat like FDR or Clinton, or a Republican like Bush.
In closing Cal tries, in vain, to get us to take the heat off his pal Bush suggesting that, "We can't afford to play the blame game now that we are in these wars."
I beg to differ. We most certainly can. See we didn't just stumble into these wars or have them thrust upon us. One of those wars, Iraq, was the brainchild of Bush & Co. There are many of us who vehemently opposed going into that war, and there is no doubt who is responsible for sending us into it so we can most certainly "play the blame game". And not only for going to war unjustly in Iraq, but for the disastrous way it has been waged since then.
I think Cal hurt the case for Bush far more than he helped it. Though he tends to hurt the Neoconservative/Christian Fundamentalist agenda every time he opens his mouth.
Feeling like:  good |
| A little integrity in politics for a change | 12:18 pm |
|---|
I really don't have a problem with Senator Lincoln Chafee winning the Republican primary in Rhode Island this week. Yes, yes, I know that Bush & the Republican party wanted him to win as he is the only that stood a chance against former State Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse. In spite of this and the fact that now the Democrats may not win that particular seat in the Senate, the way I see it if a Republican is going to win a seat then I want that Senator to be as far from Bush and the right-wing agenda as possible. Senator Chafee's voting record clearly shows that he is.
I have a lot of respect for what Senator Chaffey said during his victory celebration, "Polarization, partisanship and strict party discipline must not prevail over the spirit of compromise that is so essential to our American democracy." We need a lot more of that in American politics these days. That's what it's supposed to be about, working together, compromising, and representing the will of the people not party agendas and political ideologies. We have strayed so far off course and clearly the GOP aims to keep it that way.
Bush and his supporters don't like the guy, of course, because he hasn't held up their {neo}conservative agendas, but I happen to think the senator may actually have some integrity. Not only do I agree with his stand on many issues — voting against the unilateral Iraq war, against appointing conservative Supreme Court Justice Alito, against Bush's tax cuts for the rich, against the discriminatory constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and not voting for Bush Jr. in the 2004 Presidential election — but I think he should be applauded for having convictions and doing his job. Apparently it hasn't occurred to the goose-stepping Republicans who expect compliance from their party members, but it seems quite obvious that Chafee voted as he did not only because he's a moderate Republican, but because he, as a duly elected representative, was upholding the values of his constituents who happen to be mostly moderate or even left-leaning. Voting their will and disregarding the wants of the national party is precisely what he is supposed to do!
Ah, but then what do national Republicans know about integrity anyway?
|
|
|