-Hang out with a Democrat. Democrats have more fun and you can always cancel out their vote.
-If you ever go looking for a man again, look for one with a well-tended garden. A meaningful life is a growing experience that requires an appreciation for the art of cultivation.
-If you date a guy with a flashy car and wreck it, ditch the guy who asks about the car first.
-You can admire a man whose overcome great odds to make something of himself; but not everyone can live with a Hitler.
-People who have been on teams that overcame great obstacles recognize the value of teamwork.
-Money may not always equal power, but it’s a pretty darn good metaphor of it.
-There is no clearer sign of danger than the words: “Just sign this!”
-Past foolishness is a luxury most of us can afford. Future foolishness tends to be more costly.
-Having money is not the same as being materialistic. You can be materialistic and have no money. Conversely, you can have money and not be materialistic.
-Where a person has been isn’t half as interesting as where they’re going.
-Keep going to school. A sagging intellect can’t be cured with plastic surgery.
-If you stand before the mirror in your room and don’t like what you see, breaking the mirror is a good start.
-At the end of a long tiring day a therapist should never go home to a patient.
-Rose-colored glasses only make the world look rosy.
-There isn’t a problem in this world that can’t be cured with a nice warm bath and a bowl of chocolate ice cream…except yours!
-Your home is where your slippers are now located…and they feel fuzzier with you in it.
-Start planning for the rest of your life today.
-FYI, any e-mail account can be set up to block mail from any e-mail address. Some accounts can be set up to accept mail only from those addresses you list as acceptable sources. There’s no law that says you have to accept mail.
-Telling the Emperor he’s naked is all a matter of courage.
-A bad marriage is one that you walk away from having learned nothing about yourself.
-The people who stand with you in a crisis are the real treasures in your life.
-If you’re looking for an effective, non-violent way to vent any anger or frustration you have towards your estrange spouse, try writing his or her name on the toilet paper in your bathroom.
-Buy tissues in bulk…if you’re going to cry, make sure it’s not over wasted money.
-Listen to yourself. You’ve got a wealth of wisdom and healing capacity inside.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Musharraf Steals Bush Playbook
It must be particularly bothersome to the Bush Administration that Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, has apparently stolen the Bush playbook on usurping power. If Musharraf's move didn't hold such serious ramifications for the rest of us, it would almost be comical. The situation does, however, provide a valuable lesson on why abuse of power should never be tolerated, even when terrorism is used as its justification.
Musharraf has suspended the Pakistani Constitution and its protections in the name of fighting extremists and the ever-increasing wave of terrorism that is spreading in his country. He's already survived two fairly sophisticated assassination attempts, so one can understand why Musharaff would be fearful for his own safety.
Musharraf justified his suspension of constitutional protections, in part, by pointing out that our very own Abraham Lincoln found it necessary to suspend habeas corpus and other civil liberties during our Civil War. He didn't target the Bush Administration specifically, but the reference to past presidential action in similar circumstances was a veiled reminder that, today, the same thing is happening in America, with the seeming approval of the American people. If such action is acceptable in America in the name of fighting terrorism, why not Pakistan?
The man's got a point, but there are flaws in his thinking. Musharraf is wrong in misjudging the level of dissent in this country - there are millions of people opposed to the Bush-Cheney assault on civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. He's also wrong, just as Bush and Cheney and their followers are, that suspension of civil liberties and constitutional protections are the solution for effectively fighting terrorism. In fact, just the opposite is true.
Suppression of individual freedoms and liberty, added with unchecked government authority, actually encourages the abuse of power and leads to greater government oppression over its citizens. The more government restricts the lives of its citizens, the madder the citizenry will become. Frustration and bitterness foment, and then hate ensues. In short order, hate seeks an outlet, and terrorism is that outlet.
President Musharraf doesn't get the fact that suppressing the liberties of his people will not make he or them safer, but you can't blame him for reaching that conclusion since he's taken it straight from the playbook of the current Bush Administration.
Musharraf has suspended the Pakistani Constitution and its protections in the name of fighting extremists and the ever-increasing wave of terrorism that is spreading in his country. He's already survived two fairly sophisticated assassination attempts, so one can understand why Musharaff would be fearful for his own safety.
Musharraf justified his suspension of constitutional protections, in part, by pointing out that our very own Abraham Lincoln found it necessary to suspend habeas corpus and other civil liberties during our Civil War. He didn't target the Bush Administration specifically, but the reference to past presidential action in similar circumstances was a veiled reminder that, today, the same thing is happening in America, with the seeming approval of the American people. If such action is acceptable in America in the name of fighting terrorism, why not Pakistan?
The man's got a point, but there are flaws in his thinking. Musharraf is wrong in misjudging the level of dissent in this country - there are millions of people opposed to the Bush-Cheney assault on civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. He's also wrong, just as Bush and Cheney and their followers are, that suspension of civil liberties and constitutional protections are the solution for effectively fighting terrorism. In fact, just the opposite is true.
Suppression of individual freedoms and liberty, added with unchecked government authority, actually encourages the abuse of power and leads to greater government oppression over its citizens. The more government restricts the lives of its citizens, the madder the citizenry will become. Frustration and bitterness foment, and then hate ensues. In short order, hate seeks an outlet, and terrorism is that outlet.
President Musharraf doesn't get the fact that suppressing the liberties of his people will not make he or them safer, but you can't blame him for reaching that conclusion since he's taken it straight from the playbook of the current Bush Administration.
HATE IS A HEAVY THING
Hate is a heavy thing. It consumes people. It engulfs their souls. From the dawn of mankind hate has been responsible for countless horrors and atrocities and there is nobody living on this planet who hasn’t experienced, in some form, hatred’s destructive force.
I recently read an editorial letter where the writer expressed hatred of liberals. All week, I’ve been haunted by her words. I’ve wanted to ask her why. I’ve wanted to figure out what about me (a liberal) gives rise to such loathing. I’ve struggled to understand the reason behind the hateful venom. Unfortunately, all I have are questions.
I’ve heard it said, “Hate has no rational answer”.
It’s become commonplace for folks to use the word liberal in much the same fashion as racists hurl the “n-word” at African Americans. If you listen closely enough, you can hear the hate. Although few are as honest and forthright regarding their hatred of liberals as the editorial letter writer I mentioned, that same hatred for those espousing liberal beliefs has spread in our society faster than cancer. And like cancer, that hatred has consumed, divided and engulfed souls.
America was born of liberal men who eschewed hatred, yet two centuries later, segments of society appear hell-bent on crushing liberal principles in the name of our forefathers with hatred as their weapon. Politicians routinely invoke the values of our nation’s founders in the same breath as they sling the word liberal as a political epithet. Underlying it all is hatred and every one of us, conservative and liberal alike, suffers as a result.
Although I espouse liberal beliefs, I cherish my friends and neighbors who are more conservative in their opinions. I may not agree with their political and/or social beliefs, but they enrich my life with unique perspectives that would otherwise be lost if everyone followed the same mantra.
God bless liberals, God bless conservatives and God bless “haters” too! Hatred is simply too heavy a burden to bear.
I recently read an editorial letter where the writer expressed hatred of liberals. All week, I’ve been haunted by her words. I’ve wanted to ask her why. I’ve wanted to figure out what about me (a liberal) gives rise to such loathing. I’ve struggled to understand the reason behind the hateful venom. Unfortunately, all I have are questions.
I’ve heard it said, “Hate has no rational answer”.
It’s become commonplace for folks to use the word liberal in much the same fashion as racists hurl the “n-word” at African Americans. If you listen closely enough, you can hear the hate. Although few are as honest and forthright regarding their hatred of liberals as the editorial letter writer I mentioned, that same hatred for those espousing liberal beliefs has spread in our society faster than cancer. And like cancer, that hatred has consumed, divided and engulfed souls.
America was born of liberal men who eschewed hatred, yet two centuries later, segments of society appear hell-bent on crushing liberal principles in the name of our forefathers with hatred as their weapon. Politicians routinely invoke the values of our nation’s founders in the same breath as they sling the word liberal as a political epithet. Underlying it all is hatred and every one of us, conservative and liberal alike, suffers as a result.
Although I espouse liberal beliefs, I cherish my friends and neighbors who are more conservative in their opinions. I may not agree with their political and/or social beliefs, but they enrich my life with unique perspectives that would otherwise be lost if everyone followed the same mantra.
God bless liberals, God bless conservatives and God bless “haters” too! Hatred is simply too heavy a burden to bear.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Debt of Honor (revisiting the past)
(The following piece is a "reprint" of an unpublished editorial I wrote on May 21, 2002. It's worth remembering.)
On September 7, 1989 former President George Bush appeared at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland for the Star-Spangled Banner Ceremony with author Tom Clancy who the elder President called, “an esteemed author” and “his friend”. In 1994, that Bush friend released a blockbuster book, Debt of Honor, involving a Japanese terrorist who hijacks and flies a 747 airliner into the Capitol while the President is delivering the State of the Union message. The Executive Branch, the Congress and the Supreme Court are wiped out in one gigantic explosion. The book sold millions of copies here in the United States alone. Another Clancy novel, The Sum of All Fears, is slated for release on May 31st as a movie, starring Ben Affleck. If its anything like former Clancy books made into movies, it will reap millions at the box office.
National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice was quoted last week as saying that nobody in the current administration could have foreseen terrorists hijacking airplanes and flying them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Nonsense!
Let’s forget for a second about what the F.B.I. knew about the middle- eastern men training at the Arizona flight schools. Let’s also forget about F.B.I. concerns regarding flight student, Zacarious Moussaoui and his connections with terrorism. Let’s instead focus on people working in the White House.
If you walked into the situation room at the White House today and asked for a show of hands as to how many people read Debt of Honor prior to September 11th, at least 95% of the military people would raise their hands. If they were honest, at least half of the civilians in the Bush White House would say they have read it too. That’s because Tom Clancy is a widely respected and outspoken supporter of the United States military and a champion of military readiness given the proliferation of terror and aggression in the world. Clancy’s knowledge of the armed forces and their capabilities is widely respected and his books are universally read in military circles. It is said that even our enemies read Clancy. Equally respected is the research he has conducted on terrorist thinking, terrorist methods and the ideology they employ to spread terrorism worldwide. And Tom Clancy didn’t just become popular in the aftermath of September 11th. His first bestseller novel, The Hunt for Red October, was published in 1984. Since that sensational introduction onto the literary stage, he’s written many bestsellers, including Executive Decisions, Cardinal of the Kremlim and Patriot Games. In-depth military analysis, tactical planning and terrorist thinking are the stalwarts of every Clancy novel and are one of the main reasons they are popular with both the military and this nation’s populace. If you pick up a Clancy novel, you simply cannot put it down. They’re spellbinding, brilliantly written and unforgettable.
Clancy has spent years publicly criticizing the Clinton Administration’s military policy arguing vehemently that this country must improve its state of military readiness. He’s claimed repeatedly that any of the scenarios in his books were possible and the government should take every step to make sure none of them occurred. For those reasons he’s become an icon in military circles, a shining star and a staunch supporter of the Republican Party.
Furthermore, Tom Clancy has been a major supporter of the current President. If you visit http://www.americansforbushcheney.com, you will see that Tom Clancy was a named supporter of the BUSH/CHENEY steering committee. Remember too that he is a friend of the Bush family. The elder Bush has read all Clancy’s books. You can bet his son has too.
As I said before, Clancy’s books are unforgettable. Anyone who’s ever read Debt of Honor cannot watch a plane leaving Reagan Airport without wondering what would happen if the plane turned towards the Capitol. On September 11th, when I watched the pictures of the burning Pentagon and heard reports that a plane had circled the White House, Clancy’s book was the first thing that popped into my head. “Where were the patriot missiles that were supposed to be guarding these buildings?” I screamed.
I suppose you could blame Clinton for that lapse, but Bush had nine months to rectify the problem and didn’t take action either. That’s not the issue anyway. The issue is who should have connected the dots. For National Security Advisor Rice to suggest that in 2001 nobody in the White House, including the President could have imagined such an event is pure rubbish!
They all read Debt of Honor, and it’s coming to a theater near you!
On September 7, 1989 former President George Bush appeared at Fort McHenry in Baltimore, Maryland for the Star-Spangled Banner Ceremony with author Tom Clancy who the elder President called, “an esteemed author” and “his friend”. In 1994, that Bush friend released a blockbuster book, Debt of Honor, involving a Japanese terrorist who hijacks and flies a 747 airliner into the Capitol while the President is delivering the State of the Union message. The Executive Branch, the Congress and the Supreme Court are wiped out in one gigantic explosion. The book sold millions of copies here in the United States alone. Another Clancy novel, The Sum of All Fears, is slated for release on May 31st as a movie, starring Ben Affleck. If its anything like former Clancy books made into movies, it will reap millions at the box office.
National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice was quoted last week as saying that nobody in the current administration could have foreseen terrorists hijacking airplanes and flying them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Nonsense!
Let’s forget for a second about what the F.B.I. knew about the middle- eastern men training at the Arizona flight schools. Let’s also forget about F.B.I. concerns regarding flight student, Zacarious Moussaoui and his connections with terrorism. Let’s instead focus on people working in the White House.
If you walked into the situation room at the White House today and asked for a show of hands as to how many people read Debt of Honor prior to September 11th, at least 95% of the military people would raise their hands. If they were honest, at least half of the civilians in the Bush White House would say they have read it too. That’s because Tom Clancy is a widely respected and outspoken supporter of the United States military and a champion of military readiness given the proliferation of terror and aggression in the world. Clancy’s knowledge of the armed forces and their capabilities is widely respected and his books are universally read in military circles. It is said that even our enemies read Clancy. Equally respected is the research he has conducted on terrorist thinking, terrorist methods and the ideology they employ to spread terrorism worldwide. And Tom Clancy didn’t just become popular in the aftermath of September 11th. His first bestseller novel, The Hunt for Red October, was published in 1984. Since that sensational introduction onto the literary stage, he’s written many bestsellers, including Executive Decisions, Cardinal of the Kremlim and Patriot Games. In-depth military analysis, tactical planning and terrorist thinking are the stalwarts of every Clancy novel and are one of the main reasons they are popular with both the military and this nation’s populace. If you pick up a Clancy novel, you simply cannot put it down. They’re spellbinding, brilliantly written and unforgettable.
Clancy has spent years publicly criticizing the Clinton Administration’s military policy arguing vehemently that this country must improve its state of military readiness. He’s claimed repeatedly that any of the scenarios in his books were possible and the government should take every step to make sure none of them occurred. For those reasons he’s become an icon in military circles, a shining star and a staunch supporter of the Republican Party.
Furthermore, Tom Clancy has been a major supporter of the current President. If you visit http://www.americansforbushcheney.com, you will see that Tom Clancy was a named supporter of the BUSH/CHENEY steering committee. Remember too that he is a friend of the Bush family. The elder Bush has read all Clancy’s books. You can bet his son has too.
As I said before, Clancy’s books are unforgettable. Anyone who’s ever read Debt of Honor cannot watch a plane leaving Reagan Airport without wondering what would happen if the plane turned towards the Capitol. On September 11th, when I watched the pictures of the burning Pentagon and heard reports that a plane had circled the White House, Clancy’s book was the first thing that popped into my head. “Where were the patriot missiles that were supposed to be guarding these buildings?” I screamed.
I suppose you could blame Clinton for that lapse, but Bush had nine months to rectify the problem and didn’t take action either. That’s not the issue anyway. The issue is who should have connected the dots. For National Security Advisor Rice to suggest that in 2001 nobody in the White House, including the President could have imagined such an event is pure rubbish!
They all read Debt of Honor, and it’s coming to a theater near you!
Family Values
With all the political rhetoric flying around this election season concerning who does and who does not honor “family values” the last thing folks probably want to read is another piece on the subject, but before you move on ask yourself this question: “What is your definition of family values?”
I put the question to about twenty friends and acquaintances, my group pretty well spilt between Democrats and Republicans. Here’s the list I compiled, in no particular order:
--Honoring God,
--Keeping one’s word,
--Telling the truth,
--Respecting the rights and beliefs of others,
--Sharing what we have,
--Paying our debts,
--Protecting children and those who cannot fend for themselves,
--Being law abiding,
--Learning from mistakes,
--Saving for a rainy day,
--Being reliable and dependable
If these are the true “family values”, it appears as if neither political party holds a monopoly over them!
I put the question to about twenty friends and acquaintances, my group pretty well spilt between Democrats and Republicans. Here’s the list I compiled, in no particular order:
--Honoring God,
--Keeping one’s word,
--Telling the truth,
--Respecting the rights and beliefs of others,
--Sharing what we have,
--Paying our debts,
--Protecting children and those who cannot fend for themselves,
--Being law abiding,
--Learning from mistakes,
--Saving for a rainy day,
--Being reliable and dependable
If these are the true “family values”, it appears as if neither political party holds a monopoly over them!
Friday, November 2, 2007
A Just Reason for Diplomat's Concern
It’s a staple tactic of the Bush Administration to face opposition with personal attacks, name calling and questioning the patriotism of their opponents. Yesterday, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calf), the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee borrowed a page from the Administration’s playbook when he viciously attacked members of the State Department Diplomatic Corp who were up in arms about the State Department’s recent decision to force a sizeable number of diplomats to serve in Iraq or be fired. The diplomats have been protesting that decision, claiming that forced service in the civil war torn country under its current condition amounts to a death sentence.
Rep. Hunter issued a statement saying, “Let’s replace these reluctant Nellies with America’s finest citizens.” He then suggested that wounded soldiers be sent in their stead.
When Duncan Hunter travels to Iraq, he does so on highly protected military transports, as opposed to diplomats who are routinely required to use less protected commercial airlines. When Duncan Hunter is in Iraq, his itinerary includes activities mainly in the heavily fortified ‘Green Zone’, unlike diplomats whose job entails frequent meetings with lower-level Iraq government agencies all over the country without the level of military presence Hunter enjoys. It’s a bit hypocritical of Hunter to label concerned diplomats ‘Nellies’ when he himself doesn’t operate under similar conditions.
An ordinary diplomat’s trade is accomplished with words and reason. It cannot be successful if he or she is perceived to using overt force as a tool, and thus, such work often requires that a diplomat operate without a large military contingent in tow. Unfortunately, that reality also exposes a diplomat to extreme danger, especially in a country ravaged by civil war and the existence of groups who would like nothing better than to kidnap an American diplomat and bring about his or her violent death.
In the past, the State department has withdrawn diplomats in far safer areas of the world where turmoil erupted due to the lack of adequate safety to its employees. Now, the Administration has decided to eliminate that concern from their diplomatic placement decisions and seeks to require diplomats to operate in an untenably hostile and unsafe environment without regard for the diplomat’s safety.
Diplomats in Iraq have justifiable reason for concern. Over the past several years it’s been painfully documented that Administration officials and their supporters in Congress, like Rep Hunter, who was then head of the Armed Services Committee, sent servicemen and women into Iraq without the military equipment, planning and protection they needed to get their job done. Little wonder diplomats would fail to trust their own lives in those same hands.
Members of the United States diplomatic corp. have served this nation with valor and distinction in many hostile environments around the globe and do not deserve to be called ‘Nellies’ simply because they’ve questioned the current administration decision to ignore unacceptable risks in the placement of their employees. Nor do our diplomats deserve to have their patriotism or careers jeopardized by people who would not, for even one second, operate under the same condition diplomats do every day.
It’s no coincidence that Representative Hunter’s solution would be to send wounded veterans back to Iraq in the diplomat’s stead. This is the guy who failed in his congressional oversight role to insure wounded veterans had the proper tools for war in the first place. This is a politician who neglected to see wounded veterans received the finest medical care upon their return (recall the conditions of military flagship Walter Reed Hospital), or that they not have to fight a second battle in the quest for veteran’s disability benefits.
It should come as no surprise then, that Duncan Hunter would return the wounded to a war zone without the tools necessary to do a job, or that if the wounded balked at the idea, he’d call them a ‘Nellie’ too.
Duncan Hunter is no diplomat. He’s a congressman. Let’s not mix the two.
Rep. Hunter issued a statement saying, “Let’s replace these reluctant Nellies with America’s finest citizens.” He then suggested that wounded soldiers be sent in their stead.
When Duncan Hunter travels to Iraq, he does so on highly protected military transports, as opposed to diplomats who are routinely required to use less protected commercial airlines. When Duncan Hunter is in Iraq, his itinerary includes activities mainly in the heavily fortified ‘Green Zone’, unlike diplomats whose job entails frequent meetings with lower-level Iraq government agencies all over the country without the level of military presence Hunter enjoys. It’s a bit hypocritical of Hunter to label concerned diplomats ‘Nellies’ when he himself doesn’t operate under similar conditions.
An ordinary diplomat’s trade is accomplished with words and reason. It cannot be successful if he or she is perceived to using overt force as a tool, and thus, such work often requires that a diplomat operate without a large military contingent in tow. Unfortunately, that reality also exposes a diplomat to extreme danger, especially in a country ravaged by civil war and the existence of groups who would like nothing better than to kidnap an American diplomat and bring about his or her violent death.
In the past, the State department has withdrawn diplomats in far safer areas of the world where turmoil erupted due to the lack of adequate safety to its employees. Now, the Administration has decided to eliminate that concern from their diplomatic placement decisions and seeks to require diplomats to operate in an untenably hostile and unsafe environment without regard for the diplomat’s safety.
Diplomats in Iraq have justifiable reason for concern. Over the past several years it’s been painfully documented that Administration officials and their supporters in Congress, like Rep Hunter, who was then head of the Armed Services Committee, sent servicemen and women into Iraq without the military equipment, planning and protection they needed to get their job done. Little wonder diplomats would fail to trust their own lives in those same hands.
Members of the United States diplomatic corp. have served this nation with valor and distinction in many hostile environments around the globe and do not deserve to be called ‘Nellies’ simply because they’ve questioned the current administration decision to ignore unacceptable risks in the placement of their employees. Nor do our diplomats deserve to have their patriotism or careers jeopardized by people who would not, for even one second, operate under the same condition diplomats do every day.
It’s no coincidence that Representative Hunter’s solution would be to send wounded veterans back to Iraq in the diplomat’s stead. This is the guy who failed in his congressional oversight role to insure wounded veterans had the proper tools for war in the first place. This is a politician who neglected to see wounded veterans received the finest medical care upon their return (recall the conditions of military flagship Walter Reed Hospital), or that they not have to fight a second battle in the quest for veteran’s disability benefits.
It should come as no surprise then, that Duncan Hunter would return the wounded to a war zone without the tools necessary to do a job, or that if the wounded balked at the idea, he’d call them a ‘Nellie’ too.
Duncan Hunter is no diplomat. He’s a congressman. Let’s not mix the two.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Sex, Lies & Whatever Follows the Loss of Integrity
I remember quite vividly a discussion I had with a group of Republican friends during the Clinton Impeachment hearings and how they were quite eager for Clinton’s ouster. Nobody wanted to hear my argument that lying about sex, even under oath, wasn’t what the framers envisioned as a ‘high crime or misdemeanor’ – the constitutional prerequisite for removal from office. I sensed then, as I still believe today, that Clinton’s impeachment hearings had little to do with constitutional issues and everything to do with the Republican Congress’ dissatisfaction with him personally and his policy agenda.
One of my friends best summarized the position when she stated, “Look, the guy flat out lied. He’s got no integrity and if you’re going to be President of the United States, you’ve got to have integrity and tell the truth. Otherwise, nobody can trust what you say, you’ve got no moral authority and there’s no way you can lead.”
My friend’s position didn’t address the constitutional question I was trying to defend, but I couldn’t refute the claim she made, and as much as I admired Clinton for the work he did as President, it didn’t remove the sting of truth behind my friend’s comment.
Years later, the shoe is now on the other foot.
For going on seven years, President Bush has systematically lied to the American people, ranging from the justification for going to war in Iraq, to the use of torture against prisoners and the circumstances surrounding government surveillance on its own citizens.
Some of my Republican friends now find themselves similarly disturbed at the lack of integrity displayed by President Bush, but others have taken a more dismissive attitude towards his lies and deception, claiming such behavior was justified to preserve national security. The latter claim rings hollow!
The steady stream of lies emanating from President Bush and his Administration have deprived the President of genuine moral authority, not just in the eyes of a majority of Americans, but a majority of the world as well. The President has lost his integrity, and while that’s not a constitutional justification for removal from office, the man clearly can’t lead…and that’s everyone’s loss.
One of my friends best summarized the position when she stated, “Look, the guy flat out lied. He’s got no integrity and if you’re going to be President of the United States, you’ve got to have integrity and tell the truth. Otherwise, nobody can trust what you say, you’ve got no moral authority and there’s no way you can lead.”
My friend’s position didn’t address the constitutional question I was trying to defend, but I couldn’t refute the claim she made, and as much as I admired Clinton for the work he did as President, it didn’t remove the sting of truth behind my friend’s comment.
Years later, the shoe is now on the other foot.
For going on seven years, President Bush has systematically lied to the American people, ranging from the justification for going to war in Iraq, to the use of torture against prisoners and the circumstances surrounding government surveillance on its own citizens.
Some of my Republican friends now find themselves similarly disturbed at the lack of integrity displayed by President Bush, but others have taken a more dismissive attitude towards his lies and deception, claiming such behavior was justified to preserve national security. The latter claim rings hollow!
The steady stream of lies emanating from President Bush and his Administration have deprived the President of genuine moral authority, not just in the eyes of a majority of Americans, but a majority of the world as well. The President has lost his integrity, and while that’s not a constitutional justification for removal from office, the man clearly can’t lead…and that’s everyone’s loss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)