Straight Talk Express

Leading up to the 2000 appointment, rather election, many GOPers complained about how President Clinton would not talk straight about issues. He “waffled” on issues and quibbled over the definition of “is.” These qualities, according to GOPers, made him someone not to trust or worthy of leadership. These same people claimed that George Bush would be the anti-Clinton in that he was too stupid to mince words. It was claimed that he was a straight talker and would not mince words in explaining federal issues. Nonetheless, this so called straight talker ineptly tries to mince words and qualifies his actions with his mediocre word play.

During an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press the following exchange was had

Russert: Mr. President, the Director of the CIA said that his briefings had qualifiers and caveats, but when you spoke to the country, you said "there is no doubt." When Vice President Cheney spoke to the country, he said "there is no doubt." Secretary Powell, "no doubt." Secretary Rumsfeld, "no doubt, we know where the weapons are." You said, quote, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.” “Saddam Hussein is a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible."

You gave the clear sense that this was an immediate threat that must be dealt with.

President Bush: I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests. But what I do want to share with you is my sentiment at the time. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America. No doubt. (Emphasis added)

More recently, in an “impromptu” question and answer session Bush was asked the following:

Q: Mr. President, at the beginning of your talk today you mentioned that you understand why Americans have had their confidence shaken by the events in Iraq. And I'd like to ask you about events that occurred three years ago that might also explain why confidence has been shaken. Before we went to war in Iraq we said there were three main reasons for going to war in Iraq: weapons of mass destruction, the claim that Iraq was sponsoring terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11, and that Iraq had purchased nuclear materials from Niger. All three of those turned out to be false. My question is, how do we restore confidence that Americans may have in their leaders and to be sure that the information they are getting now is correct?

THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. (Applause.) First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a state sponsor of terror -- by the way, not declared a state sponsor of terror by me, but declared by other administrations. We also did say that Zarqawi, the man who is now wreaking havoc and killing innocent life, was in Iraq. And so the state sponsor of terror was a declaration by a previous administration. But I don't want to be argumentative, but I was very careful never to say that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks on America. (Emphasis added).

These are just two examples of the numerous examples that exist of this President quibbling over definitions and exact phraseology regarding what was said and when. There is no difference between “grave and gathering” threats and Bush’s statements that there was “no doubt” that Iraq had WMDs. Nor is there any doubt that Bush and his administration made direct connections between Iraq and Al Quaeda. These representations were made in the State of the Union speeches, to the United Nation, in various speeches during the 2004 campaign and in numerous other speeches.

For people to continue to say that Bush talks straight are merely fooling themselves. He has consistently lied to the country about what he has said and it is time that his supporters and his opponents force him to talk straight about what he says and what he means on all issues.

Pre-Emptive Policy

I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

- President George Bush, January 29, 2002 State of the Union Address

These words created the United States policy of preemption - a policy that has been severely criticized. However, the criticism may be misplaced. It is not so much the policy that is flawed, it is George Bush’s implementation of the policy.

Every nation has the right to defend itself. When a nation can show that a real threat exists whereby military action may be taken against it by another, then the threatened nation should have the right to protect itself by taking the offensive against the threatening country. Israel was faced with just such a choice when it took military action on June 5, 1967 against Egypt and started the Six-Day War. There were pacts between Egypt and other Arab states providing that an attack on one would be deemed to be an attack on all. Israel attacked Egypt and eliminated nearly 400 Egyptian aircraft in an attempt to secure its own safety. Few if any criticize Israel’s decision to take preemptive steps to protect itself. Rather the criticism is what Israel has done with the land that it acquired as a result of the war.

Thirty-four years later, the same holds true. If a nation can show that there is a real threat against it, then that nation should be able to take military action to secure that nation’s security. If the United States is able to show that another nation or a group supported by that nation, is a military threat to it, then the United States has the right to preemptively prevent that nation for attacking the United States. The recent failure of the policy has been George Bush’s failure to show that such a threat actually existed.

Bush reluctantly went to the United Nations to make a case for the War in Iraq. Then when the case was made, there was not sufficient support to show that Iraq was a threat to the United States or other nations, nor was there a showing that military intervention was the only way for any threat Iraq may have posed to have been disposed of. The U.N. inspectors consistently reported that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was no showing that the “no fly zone” was ineffective. There was no showing that there was a connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda. Ultimately, there was a failure to show that there was a threat which justified preemptive action.

A distinction needs to be made between the idea of preemption and its legitimacy and George Bush’s irresponsible implementation of the policy. Future presidents should not be hamstrung from use of the preemptive policy because Bush lied to the nation regarding the threats which were presented to it. Rather, the nation and the world should be more diligent in holding any future administration accountable to show that there truly is a threat looming prior to allowing a preemptive war from being waged.

Political Evolution

"If you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."

- Winston Churchill.

Many Republicans concede that "We were all Democrats once." This appears to show that there is some truth to Churchill’s words. People start out idealistic and liberal seeking change, and as they grow older they become more conservative.

It likely does not matter where you start on the political spectrum when you are twenty, as you grow older you will be more suspect of change, and have less imagination as to what change will benefit your local area and the country . Life will make you more skeptical as to whether any change will actually make a significant difference, so a person likely takes a more conservative standpoint. In other words, over time life burns people enough to the point that they want to do nothing other than what is comfortable and known to them so they do not get burned again.

The equation seems to be changing. People in their 20s and 30s no longer hold liberal ideals. They are starting out life believing in conservative ideals established in the shadow of Reagan. There has been nothing but relative peace for approximately thirty-five years. They have grown-up in a time when they could ignore the government or blindly follow its lead with few consequences for their apathetic attitude.

Many of the liberal leaning that came from the Baby Boomers was in response to the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement. They realized that they were the ones being asked to sacrifice themselves in a War. Accordingly, they needed to assess the War and determine if it was a cause worth them literally dying for. The same was true for the Civil Rights Movement. The Baby Boomers understood that significant change was coming with regard to race relations, and that their involvement would determine what the changes entailed. In sum, they understood that their involvement was required and failure to change was unacceptable.

Generation X on the other hand has had no issues which required them to take a stand either with or against the government. Nothing has galvanized the Xers, nothing has forced them to question the conservative beliefs they were given from their parents who had evolved from protesters into conservatives. Xers have, without having to do anything, saw the end of the Cold War, were not asked to volunteer for service during the Gulf War, and as a group, has made no sacrifice in for the "War on Terrorism" or the War in Iraq. Rather, the government has asked the people to accept tax cuts and watch sanitized news coverage of the wars - smart bombs falling near the "Luckiest Man In Baghdad," embedded reporters’ censored reports, and no body bags. They have grown up with the conservative ideas that their parents have established in their later years and nothing has shaken them up to become liberals with hearts.

As these conservative twenty year olds become older they will likely become more conservative. While they may seem moderate today, they will evolve into extremists by the time they are 40. It is not a liberal to conservative migration for the Xers, it is liable to be from conservative to extremist. Such a migration is not beneficial for American politics. In the future, there will no longer be the give and take between change and status quo. It is liable to become a pull between status quo and the destruction of the government, which is what most far right conservatives are seeking. The future of the American Government and politics as we know it depends on the youth establishing a heart, and it needs to happen before they get too old.

Follow The GM Business Model

General Motors is in the news because of its financial difficulty and the possibility that it will file for bankruptcy. In many of the reports that the mainstream media has presented, the employees and retirees have become the villain and the de facto reason for the financial difficulties. Additionally, management is criticized for having given such "luxurious" compensation packages to the employees over the course of the company’s history. These reports are wrong, and it is time that pundits stop criticizing GM for its past decisions, especially those which were supposedly beneficial for the employees.

At its height, GM management obviously believed that since it was doing so well it owed a great deal of its success to the employees and that the employees should share in the rewards that the company was banking. There is nothing wrong with this idea. In fact, more companies need to embrace the idea that its success cannot occur without the workers getting decent wages stabile health benefits and job security. The better the employees are treated, the less likely they will be to leave and the more likely that the experienced work force will ensure that quality product is built. Without a happy workforce, a company cannot succeed.

Ensuring that the employees are well compensated through wages and benefits is more important today than it has ever been. With CEO wages 450 times that of the average worker, the employees are becoming more resentful of those who are above them. This was evident when Northwest Airlines’ unions took pay cuts, which they were told were in the best interest of the company, but balked when management gave itself huge bonuses the next day. The mentality that workers do not care about the inequities in their pay verses their supervisors or upper management has to end. It is time that the rewards stop going only to the top, the workers who are the backbone of the company need to receive their just rewards.

GM’s problems are not a result of "lavish" employment agreements. The retirement packages that are discussed and the "high pay" for workers, and the health insurance for all employees has not resulted in GM facing bankruptcy. These problems are largely based upon poor marketing and product decisions made by the high paid managers. Companies should pay their workers $20.00 per hour, which is what the average GM worker makes. That is only $40,000 per year. Such an income only places a person in the 40th percentile of the average incomes in the nation. In other words, 60% of the rest of the nation’s workers make more than GM’s average worker. $20/hour is not lavish; it is merely a middle class wage, and paying someone a middle class income cannot be deemed unreasonable or lavish.

Also, it is time that companies start accepting the obligation of providing retiree health care. Federal and state government administrations are drastically cutting Medicare and Medicaid funding. Unless universal health care is established, employers are going to have to take on the obligation for retiree health insurance if for no other reason than to encourage people to retire. As employees grow older, they will be more prone to get sick and need additional medication. If they do not have access to medical health insurance, they may be unwilling or unable to retire because they know they will not be able to afford their healthcare costs. Thus, the more it appears that Medicare and Medicaid will go defunct, the more important it will become that employers take on the responsibility of providing such coverage.

GM was way ahead of the curve on all of these issues. It provided its employees middle class wages. It promised that its employees would be able to retire and have an good income and it promised that it would provide retiree health insurance. All of these commitments are necessary in order for a company to show that it is interested in the well being of the employees. The more the company looks to the employee’s well being, the more the employees will look out for the company’s best interests- thereby creating greater profits for the company. This is the synergy that is necessary to ensure a prosperous and health business.

It is time to start praising GM for understanding this necessity and praise it for standing by its obligations even as it continues to face financial difficulty.