LINCOLN REVISITED

(The following unpublished op-ed piece was initially written on Feb. 5, 2005, just after the 2nd inauguration of President George W. Bush.)

In 1863 more than half of all age appropriate Americans were ineligible to vote. In the two years leading up to that, more than 200,000 Americans had been killed, there was no end to the Civil War in sight, yet Abraham Lincoln knowingly inflamed the southern resistance and signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Two years and a quarter of a million more deaths later, more than half of all age appropriate Americans were still not eligible to vote.

In this land of the great democratic experiment, women were not allowed to vote until tens of thousands more died in World War I, 144 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. And still, after tens of thousands more American deaths from World War II, many blacks in many states were still not eligible to vote more than 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation - though many died trying. They died at the end of police batons, police dogs, and fire hoses and at the hands of hooded insurgent night riders and church bombers.

And as late as the mid 1970s, 20 years after Brown v. Board of Education, black children and their parents were stoned and beaten in Boston, Massachusetts for seeking an education in the same schools as white children. Our very own history, checkered with violence, sexism, racism, wisdom and vision is testimony to the inherent desire to be free. History is littered with people from Mosul to Mississippi and from Kabul to Kentucky, having never known freedom, willing to risk their lives to mark a piece of paper as a sign of their thirst for liberty. Iraq is merely the latest in a centurys long history of opposition to slavery, tyranny and oppression.

The present challenges to President Bush's military intervention in Iraq and his overall War on Terror belie the obligation of our elected representatives to live up to their oath to defend us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Yet between the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and a series of attacks aimed at Americans leading up to that 21st Century Day of Infamy, the enemy was known but no defense was sought. As soldiers, sailors and civilians were repeatedly targeted for destruction, those congressional members of the Foreign Relations, Armed Forces, and Intelligence Committees mourned and wept but they did not protect and defend. Along with our protectors of freedom and liberty in the Fourth Estate, they were content to tell the American people how lucky we were to have President Clinton - how President Clinton was at his very best when he was calming our fears and soothing our pain - and how President Clinton gave us hope and confidence when he vowed that "We will hunt them down and make them pay!" However, after each successive terrorist attack no one in the Congress and no one in the Fourth Estate demanded a progress report on our mission to hunt them down and make them pay.

Suddenly, they have all become smart about fighting terror. Suddenly they know how we could have captured bin Laden. And suddenly they know how we could have disarmed Saddam Hussein without a shot being fired or an American life being lost. The hue and cry that the sacrifices in lives and resources have been too great flies in the face of history. Through the sorrow and tears of their sacrifice we saw it when Solidarity rose up in Poland. Through their sorrow, tears and inestimable poverty we saw it when the Haitians drove out the Duvaliers. We saw it at American lunch counters, at the doors of our schools, in the open casket of Emmett Till, and the mass grave of Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman. And we saw it again on the ink-stained fingers of the Iraqi people.

Freedom is not an Anglo-American, Anglo European or burgeoning Third World concept. It is a genetic characteristic intrinsic to the human DNA. However, freedom is rarely born without great vision. Just and noble causes require great visionaries. September 11th was the clarion call to search farther and deeper. In the tradition of Lincoln and FDR, President George W. Bush has the courage to look farther forward. And it is an abomination when the representatives and beneficiaries of the world's greatest democracy insult the bravery and sacrifice of those who march toward freedom and those who lead the way.

BREATHING LIFE INTO TERROR: The Death of Benazir Bhutto

We have seen this all before. Throngs of grieving and angry mourners amidst the bodies of their heroines, presidents, religious leaders and innocent children. The Palestinians, Israelis - in Lebanon, Iran, Iraq and now Pakistan - where the brutal and senseless attacks breed fear, doubt and the troubling concern that an unstable lack of mutual respect and understanding in a small corner of the world threatens the world itself. It has all come before.

We clutch our loved ones and are falsely thankful that our little corner of the world does not breed such an alarming magnitude of disrespect for human life. We have already forgotten that when the pictures and video of those mourning throngs came from Kenya and Tanzania, dead American ambassadors were being shipped home from that carnage. We forget that when those pictures came from Saudi Arabia, dead American soldiers were being shipped back home. And we forget the murdered American sailors and civilians who felt safe and secure in their workplace, their normal daily routines forever interrupted and their families forever haunted.

The assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto points out the glaring omissions in the more than year long presidential campaign and so-called debates as the candidates argued life experience versus pseudo experience, whose beliefs in God were more valid, and who changes their mind more often. As the name Osama bin Laden might occasionally cross a candidate's lips, their stand on the threat of worldwide terrorism and how best to combat it did not. Even more unfortunate, the press has not bothered to ask. The multitude of criticism of present American policy failed to yield any coherent plan to go after Al Qaeda. Cries that "We should have finished the job in Afghanistan," failed to recognize that Al Qaeda has continued to wreak havoc on continents around the globe even since we invaded Afghanistan. The aggressive American response since Sept. 11th belies Osama bin Laden's past wartime proclamation that America is "a paper tiger." Our collective suffering during the 1990s, and beyond, at the hands of his maniacal disciples was the result of being saddled with a "paper president." And praising that president's flowery eulogies at the arrival of flag-draped coffins is not a sufficient response to terrorism. Nor is "threatening" to respond an adequate response to terrorism.

As the Iraqi citizenry began to turn against the barbaric insanity of Al Qaeda, its terrorist founder publicly declared that his minions should be actively engaged in planning attacks inside the United States. And as the alleged "experienced" presidential candidates, their supporters and the news media treated that announcement like a short story, the assassination of Ms. Bhutto has revealed that the real presidential campaign may have finally begun. Now if we could only get a few real journalists to ask a few really important questions.

Democratic Media Bias - Take #7

Try as she may to appear to remain an unbiased and objective member of the Fourth Estate, a pajama clad Mika Brzezinski allowed her Hillary Clinton bumper sticker to show on the Dec. 26th episode of MORNING JOE on MSNBC. In reference to a New York Times article questioning Mrs. Clinton's claim to being experienced as a result of being in the White House (as first lady) for 8 years, Ms. Brzezinski repeatedly used the term "You know she was involved...," etc. No proof was offered to substantiate these continuing claims, yet the "You know" assertions kept coming. This is akin to Mrs. Clinton's promotional declarations of her "35 years of experience" working on the issues she cares about. Like what? What exactly does that mean - getting sweetheart cattle futures deals - getting in on Jim McDougal's Madison Guaranty S & L legal team - watching the aforesaid Madison S & L go under - greeting the grieving families of Americans killed overseas courtesy of Osama bin Laden - burning down the compound at Waco - or calling the White House more than a dozen times to see if Vince Foster was really dead? Was her husband illegally giving her access to classified information to seek her council in between his conjugal visits from the former intern?

Give us something, anything to even remotely believe Hillary Clinton possesses, as she insists, the best qualifications and the most experience of all her rivals to be President. At least something more substantial than the fact that she sat there watching.

Democratic Media Bias - Take #6

Bill Clinton's recent attack on Senator Barack Obama on the Charlie Rose program continues to point out the weakness and desperation of Hillary Clinton in her quest to be the Democratic nominee and eventual President of the United States.

His attack, and her past attacks, on Sen. Obama's alleged lack of experience would be totally laughable if the major national news media would bother to point out that Bill Clinton's experience led the state of Arkansas to become one of the worst four of the fifty states in virtually every category that is used to determine quality of life when he was Arkansas governor. The media also neglects to point out that most of the positive results that occurred during the Clinton Administration came after the Republican takeover of the Congress in 1994 and not as a result of his wife's joint collaboration.

Letter to the New York Post - 12/21/2007

Dear Editor:

The NY Post editorial (Bill and Hill's Latest Intrigue - Dec. 21) should not surprise anyone except their interviewers and debate moderators. From the extremely smelly cattle futures bonanza to the present - with Charlie Trie, Buddhist monks, Mark Rich, and the rental of Lincoln Bedroom in between, the Clinton's lack of ethics and violations of the law have been duly noted but poorly scrutinized. "There's too much money in politics," was Bill Clinton's response when Vice President Al Gore was caught having an illegal fund raiser at a Buddhist Temple. The Clintons seem to always have an unjustifiable justification for violating both ethics and law.

And the Post's expectation that the Clintons "provide some genuine transparency" about anything must supply both Bill and Hillary with waves of uncontrollable laughter.

Democratic Media Bias - Take #5

For what reasons are the major news media reluctant, or refusing, to recall that after leaving office, Bill Clinton met with Special Prosecutor Robert Ray and copped to commiting crimes while President - behavior which his wife considered to be "private, personal matters" when she was out promoting her book?

In light of his admission, are Senators Biden and Dodd regretful or remorseful at having voted to keep Mr. Clinton in office during his impeachment? Which of the Democratic candidates would pardon Bill Clinton if they become President? Why should American voters feel comfortable at having Hillary Clinton as president if she believes that commiting crimes while president is a"private, personal matter?"

After all of the inane, irrelevant questions posed to the Republican candidates during their debates, one would think that at some point the above topics might be broached if a responsible journalist or two just decided to ask the Democratic candidates about ethics in their debates or interviews.

Democratic Media Bias - Take #4

Considering the Clinton's history of offense in "the politics of personal destruction," it defies belief that Mr. Shaheen's statements regarding Sen. Obama's past drug use was not orchestrated at the highest level (Mrs. Clinton). In the past James Carville has publicly referred to Bill's alleged affairs as "trailer trash" - Monica Lewinsky was labeled a stalker at the height of Perjurygate - and Kathleen Willey was likewise disparaged, just to name a few. No opponent, political or personal, challenges them and goes unscathed. These little tidbits should, but are not being served as reminders to the voting public.

The possibility that Mrs. Clinton may have suborned perjury during the so-called bimbo eruptions episodes also seems to be part of the media's deaf, dumb and blind act. Past reports have alleged that Mrs. Clinton actually sat in the room while the so-called bimbo(s), with another attorney, knowingly falsified an affidavit that she did not have a sexual relationship with Bill Clinton.

A lot more serious breach of journalistic ethics regarding the Clintons that neither the public is being reminded of nor has Mrs. Clinton's campaign been asked about, are ugly and possibly illegal statements made on Election Day 2000. With reporters in attendance at Hillary's campaign night headquarters during her first Senatorial campaign, while watching the election returns Bill Clinton was calling out all the states where Ralph Nader was hurting Al Gore. One of Mrs. Clinton's people said, aloud, "Somebody ought to kill Ralph Nader." To which Hillary Clinton responded, "That's not a bad idea." Her crew quickly rushed to holler, "That's off the record, that's off the record!" - a little too late. Unfortunately most of the major media does not consider this newsworthy enough to point out about a presidential candidate.