Discussion Forum

There is really no point in getting into this fray: both writers are right, and both writers are wrong. This natural polarization usually evolves from the need to create labels, such as “neoconservative” on the one hand, and “anti-Semitic” on the other. And it doesn’t help when a self-righteous, self-anointed busybody meddler, such as Rabbi Abe Foxman and his gun controlling, Mel Gibson-hating, anti-Defamation League get involved.

The Iraqi War threat to the Bush administration was predictable. Bush and those in his administration who jockeyed Middle Eastern military configuration favoring Israel, conceived a plot marketed via a wide array of lies, which, as evidenced by the latest White House/CIA security flap, continues to thicken, and is rapidly setting the stage not only for Bush’s defeat, but Hillary’s coronation. How does Queen Hillary I sound? How about, the Empress Hilly?

As I’ve indicated so many times in this space, Republicans have the uncanny knack of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The neoconservative PNAC cabal that was counseling Bush to destroy Saddam thereby bolstering Israel’s position in the Mid East didn’t eliminate a threat to the US, but to Israel. And as their reward, Bush and his cronies helped themselves to Iraqi oil and oil pipeline deals by awarding non-open bid billion dollar contracts to their connected inner circle corporate friends at Halliburton and Bechtel.

A resultant counterclaim of the labeling fray I referenced at the outset was the telling statement that “neocons are not that different from liberals.” Bingo! Of course, we could conduct a major inquiry into the origins of “neoconservatism,” and confirm its socialist, Trotsky-based, left-liberal origins. But I have always argued against the necessity of doing this. Who cares what “neoconservatism” is? Who cares what “paleoconservatism” is? Who cares what constitutes liberalism, moderate liberalism, Republican liberalism, or left-liberalism? Certainly not John Q. Public or Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack!

Most Americans have difficulty distinguishing between Democrats and Republicans. They’re all in the Limbaugh/Streisand mold that portrays their respective parties as the right party versus the other guy’s wrong party. American government uses the good of the party as its moral compass to determine what is acceptable for American society and what is not; what is constitutional never comes into play.

Of course, the progressiveness of American politics should be anything but confusing! Quick, which party is the party of big government and big government spending? Quick, which party is the party involving US in unnecessary wars? Quick, which party is the party of back room secrets? Quick, which party is driving the country further into debt? Quick, which party is printing Monopoly money to sink that debt? If you answered the Republican Party, go to the front of the class! If you answered the Democrat Party, again to the front. If you answered both parties, here’s your diploma!

So considering Bush’s popularity ratings, and Rush Limbaugh’s adjudication that Bush has turned in a “stellar performance,” what is happening right now? It’s the lies stupid! They’re coming home to roost! The Niger yellowcake is back, and it’s all over Bush’s tie. Also contributing are his last two bumbling speeches, especially the one at the UN. And also, the continuing body count of our military.

How do the horse’s ass comments of Republican Chair Ed Gillespie come across now? Strike one: conservative New Jersey gubernatorial candidate, Bret Schundler. Strike two: conservative California gubernatorial candidate, Bill Simon. Strike three: conservative senatorial candidate for New Jersey, Doug Forrester. Strike four: conservative California gubernatorial candidate, Tom McClintock.

<Theodore E. Lang>>

© 2003 THEODORE E. LANG All rights reserved

Ted Lang is a political analyst and a freelance writer.