DETROIT -- The Democrats make me sick. They weasel and twist, ignoring the truth and political wisdom as their feeble leadership dodges and ducks critical issues. They typically fail to define what they are or stand for anything that includes political risks.
The congressional leaders and the presidential candidates in general cling to safe positions, relying on expensive consultants and media advisers to hinge their support to a nebulous centrist coalition and fuzzy platitudes. Their aversion to principle and clear purpose defines a party so intent on regaining power by avoiding risk that they are risking failure.
When in doubt, they choose to be cautious, often timid, and afraid to attack President George W. Bush as the criminal he is, the worst president in history, richly deserving impeachment and prosecution. They are so gutless that former attorney general Alberto Gonzales is getting away with serial perjury for lying about torture and illegal surveillance in testimony before congressional committees.
Instead of calling the crimes what they are and standing up for the Constitution, Democratic congressional leaders are working with the administration to craft legislation aimed at destroying the Fourth Amendment and providing immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the government conduct electronic surveillance without court orders.
Fearful of being called "soft on terror," the Democrats are willing to extend warrantless eavesdropping powers to the National Security Agency and expand the ridiculously titled "Protect America Act of 2007" without including the reasonable restraints needed to protect privacy.
They are so desperate to avoid Bush's wild rhetoric and "soft on terror" slams that they are willing to give him all the authority he demands and then some. Even after promising to revisit the issue after the summer recess, the Democratic leaders now appear anxious to give the administration a blank check to spy on American citizens without any independent court reviews.
Even though polls find 73 percent of Americans oppose Bush's warrantless wiretapping, the Democrats in Congress are set to bless retroactively his trampling on sacred liberties that are the very reason we are a nation and don't sing "God Save the Queen."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi still refuses to allow the word "impeach" to be used in her chamber, let alone have the Judiciary Committee proceed with the process. Pelosi is too consumed with calculation and cynicism to take a stand.
She insists impeachment will be considered only if it becomes a bipartisan effort. Last week, Pelosi was on the Ed Schultz radio show and said she didn't know of any impeachable offenses that could be proved and advanced in the Congress.
Is she nuts? How about misleading a nation into war in an illegal act of aggression. How about secretly approving torture after Congress specifically outlawed it and ignoring the treaty obligations in the Geneva Conventions. Since Pelosi is an abettor of illegal spying, she certainly won't consider those dirty deeds impeachable.
Even as the former top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, says that "commander guy" Bush's handling of the war is "incompetent," resulting in a "nightmare with no end in sight," Pelosi refuses to block bills that continue to fund the occupation.
Sanchez -- belatedly forthright -- spoke to a meeting of military reporters and blamed Bush's military blunders for the "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan." He called the troop surge a "desperate" move that will not bring stability to Iraq.
While the Democratic leaders pussyfoot about the war, trying to avoid the slur that they are "not supporting the troops," Sanchez doesn't mince words. "After more than four years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve victory in that wartorn county or in the greater conflict over extremism," he said.
The strategy should be an orderly withdrawal of American forces with Congress using its powers to defund an indefinite occupation. But Pelosi will have no part in that. She says she's against the war but continues to pay for it. If you are opposed to the war, please stay out of my neighborhood, Pelosi is whining. She complained to reporters last week that antiwar protesters are disrupting her domestic tranquility
The Washington Post reported Pelosi prefers the homeless to the hostile: "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment." It's that damn Constitution again.
Dismissing those pressuring for a U.S. withdrawal, Pelosi said, "We have to make responsible decisions in Congress that are not driven by the dissatisfaction of anybody who wants the war to end tomorrow." What condescending crap! She's suggesting that those of us who don't concur with her approach are somehow irresponsible. Asked what she saw as her greatest mistake, Pelosi won't name one, laughing, "'Cause I think we're doing just great." Pelosi and Bush have a shared sense of infallibility.
Over in the Senate, the Democrats are just as bad, missing opportunities and caving in to the temptation to be so careful and delicate they lose all effectiveness, especially the presidential candidates, most notably Hillary Clinton.
The queen of triangulation couldn't resist the "tough gal" opportunity presented to her in a resolution calling on Bush to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist organization." The resolution's sponsor was Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Likud-Conn., which means it had the approval of the neoconservative nuts that brought us the war in Iraq and the most extreme elements in Israeli politics.
Clinton went for the measure, which gives Bush the authority to use military force against Iran. At a town hall meeting in Iowa, when an attendee, Randall Rolph, read a statement grilling Clinton on her vote, she bristled, claiming she's seeking diplomacy and accusing him of using material "that somebody obviously sent you." Rolph replied that it was his own research and that no one had sent any of the material. Clinton said, "Well, then I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places." A vast left-wing conspiracy, I suppose.
According to the Washington Post, Clinton explained that she stated in February "that Bush does not have the authority to use military action against Iran and she is working on legislation to put that into law."
So Hillary has been working for eight months and still has not proposed the legislation. She's trying to position herself as a play-it-safe candidate with neither the passion nor conviction to call for an end to Bush's military madness.
Leaders are expected to take positions that include risk. So far, Clinton seems to be more content to "build a centrist coalition" than to stand apart and boldly take a firm position against the violent foreign policy that has brought such harm to the world.
Al Gore got a well-deserved Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in warning the world of the horrible harm of global warming. He was honored along with the United Nations Panel on Climate Change. The Nobel Committee praised Gore and the organization "for their efforts to build and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change."
Gore showed guts in telling people the inconvenient truth about our excesses and the imperative to change our ways or risk the destruction of the earth. He sought the truth, not popularity. Lessers ridiculed him. Former president George H.W. Bush derisively called him "ozone man." Until recently, George W. Bush's anti-science thugs forbade the Environmental Protection Agency from using the phrase "global warning."
Gore will not seek the Democratic presidential nomination, but the party would be wise to adopt his policies as their own. But that means doing things like taking on the auto industry and coal miners, taxing energy consumption and asking Americans to end their obsession with reckless consumption. That's too risky for most Democratic leaders.
Another Nobel Laureate, Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, got his invitation to speak at a Catholic university withdrawn because his presence would be "hurtful" to the Jewish community.
That's what Rev. Dennis Dease, President of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, claimed, citing Tutu's criticism of Israeli policies. In "The Progressive" magazine, Matthew Rothschild revealed how Tutu was banned from the campus.
The Zionist Organization of America falsely claimed Tutu gave a speech in Boston in 2002 saying, "Israel is like Hitler and apartheid." Rothschild dug up the actual speech, which did not contain the sentence.
Ironically, Tutu did say in his remarks about the plight of the Palestinians, "You know as well as I do that somehow the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal where to criticize them is immediately to be dubbed anti-Semitic."
Adding the important distinction, Tutu said, "We don't criticize Jewish people. We criticize, we will criticize when they need to be criticized, the government of Israel." Don't expect Democratic leaders, particularity Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, to defend Archbishop Tutu. That's just too risky; too many campaign contributors might be offended. Let Al Gore defend him.
| Niagara Falls Reporter | www.niagarafallsreporter.com | Oct. 16 2007 |