Tolday’s Topic: Rudi And His Stupidity
Don’t get me wrong, I have no problems with Rudi Guiliani as a presidential hopeful, I just think he’s about as well qualified as John McCain, of whom I’ve written a previous blog about.
Rudi’s only problem is that he’s started lying from the get go. Some greater than 1/3 number of tax cuts he says he initiated are state initiatives and thus aren’t his for which to garner the glory.
Both the New York City Police and the Fire Departement New York unions categorically charge Mayor Guiliani as a liar, and the man had the intelligence to demand that the New York City Emergency Response Center be placed in Building 7 of the World Trade Center AFTER the 1993 attempt to take down the World Trade Center buildings.
Not only is this specious in itself, but one has to wonder why over 8 hours later a steel based building would collapse when there was no major damage to the building due to the events of 9/11/01.
Ah, but now I’m going to get into more specific territory and I’ll likely offend at least a few people.
By Rudi’s actions at a fundraising function in New York City he dispelled Yassir Arafat from a performance to which Yassir was invited. The long chain of events since then to now have prompted Guiliani to say that "America is not a terrorist state" and it is to this specific statement I challenge Rudi to respond.
Let’s see. How can I explain this to the average person? Should I start with the fact that Guiliani is a Catholic with three wives? No, I don’t believe that is pertinent.
Should I start with his failures in providing for a demonstrably needed multi-force communications system? Nah, I’ll let the NY police and fire fighters do that.
Can I point out that his encompassing of Israel as an ally is the reason to support Israel in its efforts against the Palestinians? Perhaps, but then I’d be required to say that the Israeli have never found it to their advantage to sign any treaty with the United States. In other words, Israel doesn’t want America’s help, and America isn’t required to help Israel in any of their military endeavors.
Yet Rudi would appear to continue the abrasive actions of America against all of Israel’s enemies, without regard towards what the American people obviously want, and what would be the best for America.
I find it interesting that most Democratic candidate frontrunners have offered up an assessment of the need for American troops in Iraq for the next 6 years. I also find it amazing that none of the Republican candidates have espoused any change in the level of troops or commitment of American tax dollars to a failed policy.
Only one Republican has espoused the true republican ideal about how to handle Iraq deployment, and not one Democrat has actually come up with a solution that isn’t somewhat the same as the Republicans offer.
So, as I’ve said before, there are no Republicans worth electing and of the Democrats Ron Paul is the best candidate.
Now let me try to explain this before you get your panties in a bunch. Of the Republicans we have a plethora of "more of the same" with only slightly different ideologies, thus it would come down to the most charismatic.
But of the Democrats, one has to realize that this administration has moved the political spectrum so far to the right that a moderate Republican becomes a Democrat. This pretty much puts Mike Gravel and Ron Paul on the same stage together, and the rest of the Democrats and Republicans can simply be ignored.
The religious right has been exposed, the Republicans have shown they can’t be trusted, the Democrats have shown they have no backbone, and the only two realistically available candidates are Ron Paul and Mike Gravel.
Unfortunately these are the BEST choices one has today. Both will do what they say. Both will stand for a large percentage of the people, and both will end the concept of pre-emptive war.
Where is it in the Constitution that any President is required to protect the American people? How is it that the Commander-in-Chief has greater power than the President? Where is it stated in the Constitution that any branch of government holds sway over the others in some undefined dire circumstances?
Let’s revisit this one more time. The President is elected by a consensus of the electorate of the "several states" which provides for a supposedly accurate representation of the popular vote of those same states (this was never a situation tested by law, but the idea was that each individual state would have others who would correct the record). However, no one votes for the Commander-in-Chief, which means that the title of Commander-in-Chief is exactly as described within Article 2 of the Constitution. There are no greater inherent powers of the Commander-in-Chief than those apportioned to the elected President, therefore there can be no greater leeway allowed to the President as Commander-in-Chief. He simply has the control of the military in times of war. This concept was designed to dissallow the possibility of a military coup, plain and simple.
And there is some serious thought needed to be given to when "times of war" equate to the Commander-in-Chief moniker come into play. Certainly they came into play when Al Qaeda crashed passenger jets into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon, but I have to question as to whether any Congressional authorization was actually allowed to move the front line of defense against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan to the innocent people of Iraq. When the "Commander-in-Chief" decides to move the war then he outstrips his authority as the President of the United States. But Bush simply lost the true war in order to create a war of choice with Iraq.
This president lost me somewhere along that line of logic. America had been within one month’s time of defeating Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and then we’d only had one country to rebuild. The true test of real Democracy lay in Afghanistan, not Iraq.
Ah, you say, but Afghanistan didn’t have any oil so why fight over a country without resources to which we could lay claim.
Well, actually there are billions of dollars of resources in Afghanistan that we have no clue as to whether are being exploited by American companies. The resource is opium.
Let me lay it out to you. In Viet Nam somewhere between 70 to 85% of all of our covert operations were provided for by Golden Triangle opium. Air America supplied the transports, the generals of South Viet Nam made tons of money, and the CIA shared in the income, thus allowing them to continue to provide their clandestine services without oversight from Congress because there were no requested funds.
George H. W. Bush learned his lessons well during his CIA directorship, and turned these same lessons toward developing the Reagan administration’s support of dictators in South and Central America, resulting in tens of thousands of innocent people’s deaths, all for political ideology. We also used the lessons of illegal drug trade for covert operations from Viet Nam, thus importing tons of US authorized Cocaine into the ghettos of America whilst having Congress apply laws that suggested blacks with "crack" cocaine should receive sentences that required ten times the amount of powdered cocaine for whites.
So when Rudi Guilaini suggests that America is not a terrorist state, I have to wonder just how much history he has studied. Apparently America is complicit, at the least, in tens of thousands of deaths just in the drug wars, much less when we factor in the demands of the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, USAID, and the International Monetary Fund. When you add on the Reagan Central American Wars of the ‘80s, we have to wonder again whether anyone is actually presenting the American ideal to the world. One would think, with all the information that has come out prior to Georgie boy deciding to re-classify decades of information, that somehow we must be complicit in some levels of terrorism. The available information doesn’t allow for any other interpretation.
And the information begs the question, just who are the terrorists here? The answer should be clear.
3:27:01 PM 
|
