Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Credibility

Think back to the Kerry campaigns. We were told: “Bush is a moron” and that Kerry had released ALL his documents. Well, on June 7, 2005, nearly two years after the campaign ended and over a year after the election, Kerry finally releases more, but still not all, of his records. During the campaign, Gaddis Smith, professor of diplomatic history at Yale who taught Kerry, described him as “the one who stood out.” In June 2005, Smith was confronted with Kerry’s actual grades from Yale and he issued this correction: “I thought he was a good student. Those aren’t very good grades.” As a freshman, Kerry’s GPA was a skin-of-the-teeth C (a 71). That year the political genius who hoped to be President got four Ds: one in geology, two in history and the fourth in political science ~ so much for the political genius. As a sophomore, Kerry’s GPA was a D. His graduating average was a 76; surely not the “best and brightest” as advertised by his Democratic supporters and peers. George W. Bush, on the other hand, readily admitted being a poor student, was vilified as a “frat boy” by Kerry et al., but got only one D in all his four years. His graduating GPA was 77. Bush gets no points for good grades, but he does win this round for credibility.

The majority of the Democratic party has gone on the war path over Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Charges of prisoner abuse and torture abound. The position of the party is that these prisons have caused terrorist attacks around the world and drawn foreign terrorists into the Iraq theater. Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, the second highest ranking Democrat in the country, has stated in plain language that Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, and Bush’s war in Iraq caused the attacks in London. Rather than heap scorn on Pelosi and beat her from Washington with a switch, Democrats applaud her ludicrous and totally unsubstantiated assertions. Did the war in Iraq, Gitmo, or Abu Ghraib cause the 3/11, Khobar Towers, USS Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing or the 9/11 attacks? Obviously not. Has Nancy Pelosi read Osama bin Laden’s ‘declaration of war’ on the United States? Apparently not. Credibility again goes to the Republicans.

Durban, Pelosi, and the majority of Democrats lambaste the administration and the soldiers as torturers. They further claim that we must give “enemy combatants” rights and privileges under the Geneva Convention that they clearly are not due on the grounds that our soldiers will be at risk if they become POWs. Apart from being morally vacant, these charges are ludicrous on the merits. Long before Gitmo, the US Embassy in Iran was taken by force - an act of war - and American civilians, as well as military personnel, were held, interrogated and tortured for 444 days. That is how our POWs will be treated. In the Persian Gulf War, Major Rhonda Cornum was captured by Iraqi troops. She suffered severe injuries but that didn’t prevent her being sexually molested by an Iraqi soldier. That is how our POWs will be treated. In the current war in Iraq, Sargent Shoshana Johnson was shot in the ankle before being captured: “I was beaten. They slapped me and punched me in my stomach and back. I remember trying to block a blow from a rifle butt.” That is how our POWs ARE being treated. Also, in the current Iraq war, Jessica Lynch was captured and raped while unconscious from her wounds. That is how our POWs ARE being treated. Nick Berg, who was a civilian contractor in Iraq providing aid and support to the citizens of Iraq, was kidnapped and beheaded on video. This is how our POWs ARE being treated. Oops, no points for the Democrats again.

Rather than repeat Karl Rove again, I’ll quote the liberal actor Ron Silver: “There are pre-9/11 people and there are post-9/11 people.” The day before 9/11, Jennie Traschen, a professor at University of Massachusetts, gave a speech in which she described the American flag as “a symbol of terrorism and death and fear and destruction and oppression.” Shortly after the planes hit, another professor on the other side of the country, Ward Churchill, described the people working in the WTC as “the little Eichmanns” and noted they deserved what they got. Shirley McLaine’s response to the planes hitting the Twin Towers was to “melt their weapons, melt their hearts, melt their anger with love.” Richard Gere saw the hijackers as “a relative who’s dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion.” Norman Mailer admired the hijackers, observing that “Americans can’t admit that you need courage to do such a thing.” McLaine, Gere, and Mailer made their comments while the ruins still smoked and bodies were still being pulled from the wreckage. More recently, Michael Duffy, who co-wrote the discredited Time expose of Gitmo, had this gem: “So, you know...the hijackers – 19 of whom have died and we’ll never really get to know [them] – were children...convinced that this was a good way to spend their time...” When this genius was called on his bleeding-heart concern for murderous fanatics, he responded, “I don’t feel sorry for them. It’s the implication here that we somehow, you know, feel sorry for them. I don’t know where that comes from.” Go ahead, pull the other one. The reporters still have press-passes, the professors are still teaching, and the Hollywood elites are still well regarded. No calls for ‘sensitivity training,’ no hisses from the audiences; these people speak from the heart of their ideology. Give me a ‘mean-spirited Republican’ every time, thank you very much.

Speaking of ideology, exactly what is the Liberal Democrat ideology? The new rising star of the Democratic Party put it better than anyone I’ve ever heard. On July 9th, at a town-hall fundraiser at the Macedonia Missionary Baptist Church, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) said, “the Democrats at times have lost their way. We are trying to decide what our core values are.” It’s simply too perfect. He believes steadfastly in the ‘separation of church and state’ but holds fundraisers in a church, but that’s probably just a belief and not really a ‘core value.’ If you’re looking for someone with a finger on the pulse of the Democratic Party look no further than Doug Sosnik, who worked as a political director and strategist for Bill Clinton. Sosnik, way back in November 2004, said “the leadership of our party has a cultural disconnect. Our leaders – particularly Washington D.C.-based – don’t really have the same life, day to day, as all those people out there in those red states...We can’t figure out a better way to sell to those people.” John Edwards was quoted by the Washington Post on June 15, 2005, saying that the leaders of the Democratic party need "a core set of beliefs [that they are] willing to fight for, whether they're popular or not." Apparently, they were listening because the Boston Globe reported on June 30, 2005, that “House and Senate Democrats...have held a series of long, closed-door meetings over the past several weeks to find a common position and a sharpened political message on the Iraq War.” It’s not that difficult folks, if you had “core values,” your position would be clear. The article goes on to give a ‘Keystone Kops’ reprise of the various ideas the politicos have, from complete and instant withdrawal to increasing troop strength! Rising as the voice of reason, Hillary Clinton “warned that an intense, public debate over Iraq could bitterly divide the nation.” [Hint: the Washington Post reported on June 28, 2005, that nearly 88% of Americans believe the US must stay in Iraq “until civil order is restored - a goal most...acknowledge is, at best, several years away.”] Wesley Clark summed it up almost as well as Obama did: “It’s not realistic for Democrats to have a coherent voice.” Hey, I don’t make this stuff up. Republicans don’t need to have meetings to determine their core values, nor do they need meetings to corral the party and lock them into march-step. Republicans don’t sell to the voters, we just speak from the heart and be exactly who we are. It’s called credibility, or if you like, integrity.

Speaking of integrity, what is it with Democrats and ‘selective outrage?’ Democrats chant “Bush Lied” as if it’s some mantra, as if repeating it often enough will somehow make it true. Where are the Democrats chanting “Clinton Lied,” or “Chirac Lied,” or “Putin Lied,” or “Kofi Lied,” or any of the other over-a-hundred world leaders who said exactly what Bush said. It’s simply politically expedient to condemn Bush, not because he actually lied, but because he’s in the White House and they want him out. Clinton actually did lie and the Democrats told us that was OK - go figure. Tom DeLay is being pilloried for a variety of issues, most of which have already been essentially dismissed by the Ethics committee. The current flap involves a trip he took that was paid for by Jack Abramoff personally rather than by the National Center for Public Policy Research. It should be noted that DeLay reported this trip and the records show clearly that he had every reason to believe it was paid for by the non-profit. DeLay’s greatest critic is Nancy Pelosi who tried to hide her own disclosure of trips taken up to 7 years ago on Friday, July 1, 2005. The rule is that she should have filed within 30 days of the trip, but she didn’t - what was she trying to hide? How about a 1999 trip to Taiwan for a week for her and her husband costing over $4,640 paid for by the Chinese National Association of Industry and Commerce - anyone heard of Unocal? Then there’s Howard Dean. He’s a doctor right? On May 24, 2005, he told Tim Russert on national TV: “You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was President?” Of course, this was a flat out lie and worse because as a doctor he knew it was a lie. Kerry said the same thing before him, and Hillary before Kerry - say it often enough and it becomes true, right? How about Dean on war - - in a personal letter to Bill Clinton dated July 19, 1995, Dean “concluded that we must take unilateral action” in Bosnia on moral grounds. Of course, his morality changes in 2003 when it’s a Republican President going to war in Iraq. In 2005, Dean calls for immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq but doesn’t mind leaving them in Bosnia. Karl Rove recycles a rumor about the wife of Joe Wilson, who is NOT a covert agent, but an analyst, and IS widely known as working for the CIA and the Democrats are out with pitchforks and torches to destroy the monster. Where was this outrage when the Clintons had Paula Jones’ tax returns given to the press, or Linda Tripp’s personnel file from the Pentagon, or when the US District Court found that the Clintons criminally violated the Privacy Act to silence Kathleen Willey? A little closer to home, Democrats serially re-elect Patrick Leahy despite the fact that his exposure of top secret intelligence on national TV got an Egyptian agent killed. There’s a pattern here, can you see it?t6

Not all Democrats are without character, integrity, and credibility. There’s Zell Miller, for one. Given the track record of the party as a whole though, I seriously have to question the veracity of any self-declared Democrat. The leadership of the Party believes that to win elections they have to sell themselves and their message and when they lose they have to “figure out a better way to sell.” The rank-and-file brainlessly ignore the facts when they are clear for all to see and shamelessly repeat the talking points of the day. If this gets Democrats angry - GREAT! But before they drag out the pitchforks and torches, they should sit down with a pen and paper and answer the issues point for point; respond with reason and fact, instead of emotion and dogma. That would be the credible thing to do.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home