Become a columnist. Or write an article. Or head back to the homepage.  

Columns

All Politics is Local

The late great Speaker of the House of Representatives and Irish-American "Tip" O'Neil once stated that "All politics is local". Whatever I thought about his liberal political ideology is immaterial. Tip O'Neil was a consummate politician who believed in what he did and practiced what he preached. He was a very successful leader who became popular among his constituents because he listened to them. He would walk in the streets and talk to the working man and listen to what they had to say and to what they needed. Then he turned around and made it his policy and very rarely alienated those people who elected him because he represented their voices.

As for President Bush, I do not know this man. I did not vote for him despite my conservative values because he was in my opinion, sleeping in the same name brand political bed as his "rival" Al Gore in the Presidential election and instead voted for a different Presidential candidate I felt seemed more in tune to what Americans really want.

This article is not about bashing Bush or America, just that I feel very uncomfortable about what is happening between our nation and Iraq. Disraeli once commented, "no political leader is as he appears to be," and coming from the likes of Disraeli, I think I can take his word for it. If all politics is local as Tip O'Neil said, then to Bush and the entire political structure in Washington, D.C. it must be "All politics is global." because I don't think Bush is listening to us, but to the corporate wonks and dark, scheming political power brokers.

I personally believe in what America stands for, and not how our political leadership wants to twist political reality to fooling everyone into what America stands for. I stand for what use to be the American Way. That is, the Arsenal of Democracy, and the exclusive superpower dedicated to promoting fairness and honesty and God-given rights or "unalienable" rights guaranteed by our Constitution. We never strike another nation unless they offend us, first. We stand for what is right, by force if necessary, by example otherwise. The very spirit of our peoples and being one nation under God will deliver us through any crisis. Justice, peace, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, blessed with abundance and charity toward any peoples who suffer, no matter their race, creed or circumstances.

I see none of this happening in the current situation with Iraq, and I remain sternly convinced that there will be no war. So, one might ask, if I don't think there will be a war, then why does the U.S. have over 300,000 men in the region? Well, let me say it has nothing to do with the fact that all politics is local. While farmers are going bankrupt and the homeless litter our city streets and the economy falters, we seem awfully concerned about Iraq's capability to cause harm to Israel. Not that I am anti-Semitic, but excuse me, the United States subsidizes Israel to the tune of over $4 billion a year, enough to give every citizen in Israel $2500, or enough to remove every farmer from bankruptcy and put every homeless person in America in a home. In a recent report issued from the Associated Press, the U.N. inspectors in Iraq were all upset that Iraq had missiles capable of traveling further that the imposed 93 mile limit. That was enough to strike Turkey, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Jordan, but the Inspectors made no fuss about that, but rather their concern that the missiles could be used to strike Israel, with one of the best equipped armies in the world. Which leads me to wonder the stated purpose of American troops in the region. We are poised to invade a crummy third-world nation with a typical dictator that used to be our ally. We did not intervene when he gassed the Shiite Moslems, only when he conquered an oil-rich fiefdom called Kuwait. Never mind the North Korean hard-line communist regime building their own weapons of mass destruction with 50,000 American troops stationed across the border in South Korea -- but there are no oil interests in that region, and Israel is nowhere near North Korea.

So you tell me. Are our sons and daughters being sent into harm's way to defend Israel, the helpless nations around Iraq (Turkey also has one of the best armies in the world), or the interests of oil? And considering that the U.S. hardly does business with Iraqi oil and there is no strategic value in invading Iraq, such as to check the spread of communism or some other failed political ideology, then do we truly believe that by invading Iraq, we can end terrorism?

And so what if Iraq took over all the oil in the entire region. Do you really believe Saddam Hussein would "hold the world hostage", or would he merely be the guy that gets all the money? Russia has more oil, and the Alaskan oilfields has all we need and other countries have oil, so we can tell the entire Middle East to take their terrorism and oil and keep it. I'm tired of paying for terrorism at the gas pump anyway. If they hate us that much, we don't need to do business with them, do we?

Or am I being prophetic by insisting that Bush will never invade Iraq, so long as the interests of Israel are served? He'll pull back or sign some peace agreement, just in time to boost the economy. Then he will be praised as being a great leader among leaders, having "stood up" to Saddam Hussein, protecting "American" interests, and healing the economy.

If I'm wrong, I'll eat my hat.

by

Fred Roe
14th March, 2003

Discuss this Article

Topics