Thursday, August 17, 2006

Follow the Trail of Incompetence

Somebody call Oprah, I've just had an "aha" moment.

Looking back on yesterday's post, and the timeline of terror that I put together, I realize that Reagan, Bush Sr. and Jr., and Clinton have failed miserably at safeguarding the American people.

For embracing the regime of Sadaam Hussein in the 80s, for buddying up with Osama during the war in Afghanistan against Russia, for waging an unnecessary war against Panama while trying to overthrow Sadaam in 1990, for looking at the first World Trade Center attack as an isolated incident and doing the same with the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and later the USS Cole, all four of these Presidents must be held accountable for their incompetence when it comes to fighting the war on terror.

I don't expect much from Republican presidents, so I will save today's dose of vitriol for Bill Clinton. That so many attacks happened on his watch, and that his administration failed to connect the dots and get serious with the Taliban and Al Qaeda is unforgivable. A President who enjoyed phenomenal approval ratings from both his countrymen and the world community had every opportunity to pre-empt the war we're fighting now.

How can we railroad Bush, whom I think is all sorts of criminally self-righteous, for ignoring Darfur when Bill Clinton looked the other way while Rwandans hacked each other to bits? Bill Clinton had eight years to squash Al Qaeda, to redefine our relationship with Israel, but instead he waged war on Serbia. And yes, Milosovik needed to be done away with, but how can an administration with money up the wazoo and the most sophisticated army in the world not be able to prioritize its military prowess? Was it really impossible to do both?

For Bill Clinton to travel the world now trying to raise money for AIDS in Africa is beyond hypocritical. For him to be BFF with Bush Sr. just goes to show that partisanship is a game for plebes. There is no such thing as party lines at the very top of our nation's power food chain. The megalomania and dirty-dealings of truly despicable people have meant death for millions and will continue to do so.

The next candidate who proposes the following three-point agenda gets my vote in 2008:

1) A clean break from Israel. The U.S. is (for better or worse) a Christian state. Zionism is Israel's problem, not ours. If their little patch of land on the Red Sea is worth dying for then let Israel continue to sacrifice its own young. Enough is enough. The U.S. has gained nothing from its ties with Israel and it's time to bow out of this reckless relationship.

2) Exploration and development of alternative energy sources. No Texas cowboy who has made his fortune in the oil industry should be allowed within 200 miles of the White House. It's time to declare our energy independence and show the Arabs that the dollar trumps Allah anyday.

3) An overhaul of our education system. We are digging our economic grave if we don't prepare our children to compete with China and India.

Does the buck stop here?


TonkaManOR said...

Today (Aug 17th) in 1998 Clinton admitted to the Amer. Public that he had an affair with Monica Lewinsky after having lied about it earlier..... I find it ironic that your post today is blasting him.........

GRT said...

#1 needs a little more thought.
#2 and #3 absolutely!

Berdo said...


I know you don't have time to respond to each individual post - though I'd love to see some direct response to some of my recent posts.

In any case - I agree with what you are saying. I think you are far more moderate, even slightly to the right, than you may realize.

Here's something to consider - how come the UN hadn't done anything about Darfur and other crises like it? How come the European countries - so quick to criticize America for everything we do - are so comfortable sitting on their asses EXPECTING AND HOPING America does something and then sits on their lifeguard post arrogantly blowing the whistle for every action we take? How come when the French, Russians, Germans et al were against the War On Terror - and it was revealed that the reason why they didn't want us there was because of their huge, illegal, oil for food kickbacks, the American left still ascribes noble purpose to their positions - but not to ours?

As far as Israel - you can probably guess how I feel. Forget Zionism. Israel is a liberal democracy (Jerusalem, for the record, held the Gay Pride Parade and is a respite for oppressed homosexuals all over the Middle East - those who are still alive) - the only one in a sea of theocratic fascists. Not worth defending? I find it difficult to be myopic enough to believe that the problems Israel faces won't be ours - and Europe's (though they won't do shit about it) very soon. Israel is the canary in the coal mine.

GayConservativeLiberal said...

Berdo, thanks so much for visiting and posting on my site.

In response to your observations about Europe and the U.N.'s failure to act on Darfur, all I can say is "keep your side of the street clean."

Regardless of what Europe and the U.N. may or may not do, it is clear that our country often has to initiate peace keeping overseas. WWII anyone?

As it pertains to Israel, though, we have to remember that it's not a target for being kind to gays. That Israel exists on the premise that Arabs have no right to be in Palestine is an archaic mindset that has fueled the crusades of the new millenium.

Granted, Hitler tried to wipe out the Jews and he was eventually stopped. But the terrorists seem to be a more determined lot. For one thing, they are spread out all over the world, so as soon as we wipe out a cell in one part of the world, another cell is planning an attack on us from behind in another part of the world.

Terrorism will cease to exist when we step out of the Israel-Palestine quagmire and when we tell the Saudis, and Venezuela for that matter, that we can do just fine without their oil.

Berdo said...


I don't disagree that the responsiblity falls square in the American lap to overtake peacekeeping. I do disagree that this is "clear" inasmuch as the world seems to want to refer everytning everything to morally inverse, importent UN. That suggests that the US may be taking global stances - but the global community does not accept it nor are they happy about it.

The US has a better record in these matter than any other country on Earth. They're street doesn't have to be perfectly clean to mention the inexcusable issues with the UN and the EU. They have massive responsbilities and massive resources to approach them. By your reckoning, the US should be simultaneously the only body politic taking action on any overseas issues, but should stop doing them, and should be the only target for criticism. It doesn't make any sense.

Israel does not exist on the premise that there should be no Arabs in Palestine. Let me untangle that right from the very beginning. For one thing, most of historical Palestine - the vast majority of it - is in Arab hands. Israel is a tiny portion of it. Another caveat: Palestinians - as the Muslim inhabitants of that area are now routinely called - are a modern PR invention. Palestinians are a biblical people that encompassed those who lived in that area of the world. Most of them were Jews. Up until the early 1900s, when someone referred to "Palestinians" they were usually referring to the Jewish people there (Hat Tip: Jeff Jacoby).

The idea that Israel exists on the premise that Arabs don't belong there is ludicrous - and inverse. For one thing, there are 1.2 million Arab CITIZENS of Israel - with proportionally large representation in Israeli government. Want to guess how many Jews hold government positions, in, say, the PA? OR Syria? Or Iran? THOSE are the countries that are effectively Judenrein. Israel is an open, free society and is very welcoming to any Arab or Muslim who wishes to become part f it. Not to radical terrorist who wish to eradicate it. That seems fair enough to me.

On alternative energy sources, I agree. Now try to do it. Try drilling. Try nuclear power. And you'll find yourself squarely in a fight, again, against the Sierra Club and other leftwing organizations who want to decrease our dependency on foreign oil in theory but in reality block any opportunity at all to do so.

And as far as terorism ending by stepping out of the Israel/Palestine quagmire...I'm sorry, what is that? You think hatred of America begins and ends with Israel and the Jews? It begins and ends on the beach where women wear bikinis. It begins and ends on MTV. It begins and ends on a pluralistic society not under Sharia law.

There is a great, that translates middle eastern "newspapers" (aka: state-controlled press) and you can see what reporters there say about Americans and Jews and everyone else but themselves. If you think the best way to fight that is to leave - to back down - to let them have their way - well, I simply don't believe that's your position anyway.

bluegrassboy said...

I think you're a bit harsh on Clinton. Let's not forget that his JD caught the mastermind of the first WTC attack and the man is currently rotting in prison. Also remember that Bin Laden was at the top of his terrorism agenda and he came close several times to getting him. Did he do enough? Hindsight is always 20/20, so, clearly not.
Don't forget that Madeline Albright warned that OBL/Terrorism was the highest priority the new Bush admin would face. They thanked her politely and showed her the door and did NOTHING for nine months.

Clinton certainly had his faults but being asleep at the terrorism switch was not one of them.