There are many in the US, including some Sparrow Chat readers, who support Hillary Clinton’s run for the Democratic presidential nomination, but her campaign has not proved the runaway success it was once anticipated to be. Much of her persuasion lies in the experience she holds over her major competitor. Or, at least, that’s what she’d have us believe.
In fact, there is little difference between Obama and Clinton when one considers working political experience. Clinton expands her resume by quoting the time she previously spent in the White House. Being First Lady, however, is hardly a suitable curriculum vitae for president, and cannot remotely be considered serious ‘political experience’.
For sure, she gained a certain involvement during her time as First Lady – by access to the Washington elite. The US Establishment welcomes First Ladies with open arms. Hillary Clinton wooed the Washington Establishment for eight years while her husband was president. She became a part of it, and still is.
That fact was displayed recently in the arrogant and conceited suggestion, by both her and Bill Clinton, that Barack Obama agree to become her running mate for Vice President; that he step aside and allow her to be nominated.
The Washington Establishment is awash with arrogance and conceit. Little wonder, then, she misjudged the character of an outsider.
Barack Obama is not part of that elite – at least, not yet. Neither is he prepared to give up his lead in the campaign in order to secure Clinton’s nomination.
It was yet another bad miscalculation by Hillary Clinton; one of a long list that have left her struggling to stay in the running against Obama. Experience may, in her eyes, be an important criteria for choosing the next US president, but a plethora of mistakes, miscalculations, and bad judgments belie her claims to be the right choice.
Frankly, I have no doubt who I’d rather have answering the White House telephone at 3.00am in the morning.
1997 was the year a sheep named, “Dolly” was cloned; six billion pairs of eyes turned skywards for a first-ever glimpse of Comet Hale-Bopp; an earthquake near Ardekul, in northeastern Iran, killed at least 2,400 people, and just one week before that dramatic event the Right Honorable Anthony Charles Lynton Blair MP became prime minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
While the cloning of Dolly was probably unrelated to Tony Blair’s ascension, perhaps we all ought to have paid more heed at the time to the implications of the other two major events, given what transpired over the following decade. But then, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
When Blair first appeared on the political scene in a big way, he was hailed in much the same way Barack Obama is storming America today. Long gray years of Margaret Thatcher, followed by an even grayer John Major, had a depressing effect on the British public. Blair’s cheery, good-natured, smile was a ray of sunshine after a prolonged bout of chilling, winter rain.
To many in America Tony Blair is something of a hero. His staunch support for that country throughout the Iraq War, often at the expense of his relationship with other European leaders, and a friendship with George and Laura Bush, fooled many in the United States into believing this was a truly great and compassionate man.
His political legacy at home tells a somewhat different story, particularly in the later years of his premiership. Just as Margaret Thatcher began as a promising leader and degenerated over the years, so Blair allowed the power of the position to overtake his better judgments. His decision to move the Labour Party from the left and into the center of the political spectrum, was one of his greatest disservices to the British people. It opened the door to a corporate invasion on scales only previously seen in the United States. The Labour Party, previously the defender of the working classes, became a pawn of corporate power leaving the populace with neither voice, nor choice, as both major parties now occupied a near identical position on the political spectrum.
In one fell swoop, Blair demolished a British political system dating back almost a century and replaced it with an American model. All that remained was for the prime minister to become President of the UK, and this Blair set forth to achieve, with alacrity.
He knew there was no way British society would accept an official title, but methodically he drew the reins of power ever closer to his chest, and mimicking the actions of his buddy across the ocean, gradually and slyly became president in all but name.
Like George Bush, he manipulated his parliament into voting for war against Iraq. There can be little doubt the frequent trans-Atlantic visits resulted in much secret discussion on the future of two nations’ fortunes once Iraq was subdued; how the spoils would be divided, and the personal rewards that would become available to both leaders.
When the time came for Blair to relinquish his political post, he chose his moment with great care. Iraq was bogged down in turmoil, his majority in parliament – and hence his power in government – was about to be slashed by a public disaffected by four years of useless and unworthy war.
Blair was still only fifty-four years old and a lucrative career awaited him, not in his home country, but in the land he’d sold out his European neighbors to woo – America. No sooner was his resignation in the mail, than Tony Blair upped sticks and moved to the United States to begin a series of lecture tours that have since reaped him millions of dollars.
Blair’s religious convictions were always kept well under wraps during his time in political office. The British are adamant about the separation of politics and religion and would tolerate no intervention of ‘God’ in their parliament. Once, when Blair was asked in an interview about his Christian faith, his director of strategy and communications, Alastair Campbell, leapt forward and abruptly responded, “We don’t do God.”
On leaving office, however, Blair lost no time in converting to Roman Catholicism, the faith of his wife. Unlike ordinary folk, who visited their local priest over such matters, Blair’s ego led him straight to the top – Pope Benedict XVI, who arranged for none other than the British Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, to be responsible for Blair’s conversion.
Like George W Bush, Blair has admitted to praying and receiving guidance from God over the Iraq war.[1] Obviously, the Christian God has a real down on Muslims generally, and Iraqi Muslims in particular, having made it clear to both leaders that wreaking apocalyptic suffering on that nation was the right way forward.
Of course, it has to be remembered that God had already inflicted a huge earthquake on Iranian Muslims to celebrate Blair’s prime minister-ship in 1997, so perhaps this latest divine endorsement was not totally unexpected.
It would appear that faith, along with his egotistical power-lust and a demand for wealth, is now driving Tony Blair full-bore. Convinced he has a role to play in uniting the Abrahamic religions he has wangled a part-time job at Yale University teaching, of all things, “Faith and Globalization”. Part-time it maybe, but experts agree it will net him around $200,000 plus a generous expense account.
Yale has an attraction for Mister Blair; his son Euan is currently studying for a Masters degree there after obtaining a generous $100,000 scholarship. Of course, Yale is George Bush’s old educational establishment, which may account for the ease with which both son and father Blair obtained their positions. After all, those Bush/Blair cosy weekends must have produced some rewards, as already suggested.
The peak of Tony Blair’s egotistical endeavor has to be the “Tony Blair Faith Foundation”. In between teaching at Yale; his $150,000-a-time US lecture circuit; envoy to the Middle-East for the Quartet nations (a supposedly unpaid appointment) and advisory positions with the finance houses of J.P. Morgan and Zurich (which each earn him more than $4 million dollars a year), Tony Blair is forming a new charity this summer to ‘bridge the gap’ between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
Interestingly, the director appointed by Tony Blair to run the foundation is none other than Jeremy Sinclair, one-time British Tory loyalist, a founding partner and now chairman of advertising agency M&C Saatchi.[2]
Sinclair was responsible for the British Tory party’s notorious ‘demon-eyes’ campaign against Blair in earlier years……
…….. so it is somewhat ironic he should now be holding such a position.[3]
It seems likely Blair’s manic ego may have caused him to overstep himself on this occasion. Perhaps he just doesn’t realize how much he is despised by Muslims for his role in the invasion of Iraq, and his support for the US alliance with Israel.
If Mister Blair is hellbent on building a bridge between the three Abrahamic religions it is unlikely the majority of the Muslim world will rush to support it.
While he may find Jews prepared to buttress the structure, with no foundations at the Islamic landfall Mister Blair will likely find himself staring at failure from the end of a very long jetty.
There have been a number of political leaders throughout history who have jettisoned their parties in favor of the opposition. Tony Blair has managed to go one step further than that. After dragging the Labour Party, kicking and screaming, to the center of the British political spectrum, he then proceeded to engage himself with the cream of right-wing, conservative society. Among his many close friends are George Bush, Richard Murdoch, Ehud Olmert, Nicholas Sarkozy, and most of the US Republican party. It may not be far from the truth to suggest that Tony Blair, in the space of fifteen years, has moved from left of center to neo-conservative.
Few, in history, have managed such an extreme exhibition of political acrobatics.
George W Bush has vetoed a bill outlawing torture by the CIA. In his own words, he stated that anything was permissible that prevented another terrorist attack on the US. Americans are, tonight, debating the rights and wrongs of that presidential action.
Let me just repeat that last sentence, so the reader has an opportunity to truly consider its import:
Americans are, tonight, debating the rights and wrongs of that presidential action.
What that one sentence clarifies beyond question is that over the last seven years, America has become a society that condones the use of inhumane and cruel practices, labeled ‘torture’ under the Geneva Conventions, as an official part of their national defense strategy.
How has a once proud nation fallen.
Europe, for decades, has suffered intermittent terrorist atrocities, yet never once has torture become a debated issue in any European nation. The atrocities of Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan too clearly revealed the degradation of the human being who sinks to such levels. It is a matter few Europeans would even momentarily consider when discussing the combating of terrorism.
We can expect such low moral fiber from the likes of George W Bush. Anyone who, as a state governor, can openly mock the pleas of a woman condemned to die on death row is an obviously sick and depraved human being.[1]
But what of the rest of America? Why is the question of torture even being debated in this nation?
The major reason debate is rife over torture techniques lies with America’s weak and wimpish politicians. So many of them refuse to come right out and condemn these practices, clearly and unambiguously, that a high percentage of the electorate, who rely on the communications of such individuals for their political and moral guidance, hear the hesitation of their congressmen and assume it must be an okay thing.
A similar situation exists in the right-wing churches where many pastors are insisting it’s God’s will that such practices as waterboarding are used against ‘evil’ and ‘ungodly’ terrorists.
When both politicians and churchmen are prepared to support acts condemned by the Geneva Conventions, it’s little wonder the populace are confused and begin to take sides over a matter that, in all decency, should never, ever, be an issue.
George W Bush is, thankfully, on his way out, so let’s examine the principles of those vying to take his place.
Can any of them be relied on to come right out and condemn, unequivocally, those actions of this present administration that are in contravention of the Geneva Conventions?
John McCain, the Bush alternative, has always opposed the use of torture techniques, including waterboarding, given that he was subjected to some rather vigorous examples himself back in the Vietnam era. We can assume his objections are rock solid – can’t we?
Sadly, John is given to sending mixed messages to the American populace, so his recent vote against the bill to ban the CIA from using such techniques perhaps comes as no great surprise.[2] After all, he is running on a Republican ticket, and some rednecks just relish the idea of screwing a few of those Islamofascist bastards.
Republicans aren’t the only ones to pander to the neolithic base of their parties. Here’s what Hillary Clinton had to say recently on the subject:
This response from Ms Clinton outraged Mark Kleiman, a professor of public policy at the University of California-Los Angeles:[3]
” The CIA just announced that it would no longer do waterboading. That clearly implies that the CIA was doing waterboarding. Waterboarding is torture. If HRC can’t say “No waterboarding,” her “No torture” isn’t worth the spit behind it.
The same goes for the cold cell, for “long time standing,” for “disappearing” people into secret prisons, and to “rendering” people to countries which we know practice torture. It’s legitimate to say “I won’t know just how bad things are until I’m President,” but it’s not legitimate to pretend that we don’t already know that torture is going on in our name, and that if we decide not to hold war crimes trials we at least need a truth and reconciliation commission to expose the facts.
Part of HRC’s problem is that the Bill Clinton regime didn’t have entirely clean hands, specifically on the “rendition” issue. But it now seems clear that if we want the country to make a clean break with current policies on maltreatment of captives, we can’t do so by putting HRC in the White House.”
Oh, dear, it seems that Hillary can’t be trusted on the issue either; no wonder Americans are confused.
That only leaves one other presidential contender – Barack Obama. Is he joining with his fellows in skirting the issue, insisting the truth of waterboarding and similar ‘enhanced techniques’ can only be evaluated once the White House is won?
In October 2007, while commenting on the possible appointment of Michael Mukasey as Attorney General, Obama stated:[4]
“I have been consistent in my strong belief that no Administration should allow the use of torture, including so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ like water-boarding, head-slapping, and extreme temperatures. It’s time that we had a Department of Justice that upholds the rule of law and American values, instead of finding ways to enable the President to subvert them. No more political parsing or legal loopholes. I cannot support Judge Mukasey unless he clearly and unequivocally rejects techniques like water-boarding.”
Throughout his nomination campaign, Obama has apparently remained consistent in his opposition to such techniques.
It would appear that Obama is the only candidate the American people can rely on to guide them in matters moral, as well as political.
Whether you love him or hate him, Barack Obama, at least for now, appears the only true embodiment of “what you see is what you get”.
