Has anyone noticed that we’ve been governed by a two family dynasty for twenty years? Why haven’t politicians mentioned the dangers of this power given to so few? Exchanging King George for Queen Hillary makes me uncomfortable. What’s more disconcerting is people voting in the next general election for their first time have never known another national leader other than a Bush or Clinton.
Since we’ve been under the leadership of two politically maligned families our country experienced a narrowing of ideological views rather than the broad range of beliefs and understandings that better represent most people. About 80% of Americans are neither extreme left or right ideologically. They fall into an area called “the shades of grey”. The only people who benefit from the polarizing effect of monopolized government are Clinton’s and Bushes. Abraham Lincoln stated “a house divided against itself can not stand”. In politics simply divide and conquer. The polarizing affect of accusations surrounding presidencies the last twenty years earned the United States ridicule and discontent of many nations. Consequently we’ve suffered a “butterfly effect” from both families throughout. Looking at history of their (in)actions are a case in point.
We’re in a quagmire in Iraq. This conflict is interconnected through time back to the first Gulf War under our president’s father. If the senior Bush completed the take down of Saddam Hussein there’d be no cause for our being there now. The idea that “Little George” is fighting his dad’s war is true in that his father allowed Hussein’s regime to stand, after which the inept handling under Bill Clinton’s watch along with the denigration of our intelligence community directly led us to 9/11. This happened even though we were justified to invade Iraq under the cease fire agreement of the first Gulf War 17 different times. Our country was too concerned about Monica, Hillary’s FBI filegate, Whitewater, senate impeachment hearings, and failed health care reform to worry about preventing deaths of our soldiers in Saudi Arabia (1995), bombings of the WTC (1993), the Khobar Towers (1996), the U.S. Embassies in Africa (2000) or the USS Cole (2000). So when conspiracy theorists suggest blaming one president or another the failure of our national security lays on the last three. Our president made poor decisions in being forthright by justifying the Iraqi invasion with a false 9/11 connection while Senator Clinton was complicit through her voting record. Interpretation of whether civil liberties have been diluted with the domestic spying program will taint Bush’s presidency for many years.
Hillary Clinton poses a unique situation because of her inherent political flaws. Her softball interviews haven’t revealed any serious political blueprint. She’s surrounded by aides she’s yet to disclose and according to former Clinton advisor Dick Morris has always had political ambitions and would go to great lengths for power. I’m still waiting for her to impact the upstate NY rural community as promised. She voted for war based on the same intelligence as President Bush but has yet to be held nearly as accountable. She’s proposing a revamped version of her failed health care reform she’d proposed in the early ‘90’s. Clintons campaigns were laced with illegal campaign contributions resulting in convictions. The former Clinton administration still makes it extremely difficult to access information under the Freedom of Information Act. According to US News and World Report on discussing her presidential agenda she stated “I have a million ideas. The country can’t afford them” (10/22/07). We’ve heard her phony southern accent while addressing a southern group earlier this year. She was re-elected a year ago avoiding any direct mention of presidential ambitions and funneled $6 million from it into a future candidacy with no apparent regard to New Yorkers. So I ask you, how is it possible comedian Steven Colbert is at 6% in the polls and running in South Carolina as a joke? I suggest looking at the history of the last 20 years and thinking twice about the monopoly on power. In reality there’s little philosophical difference separating Democrats and Republicans when it comes to holding onto it. Only how public view is manipulated.
Michael Kuchta
Ashville, NY
