Led to Where?
Regularly editorialists and other writers on political subjects preface their remarks with statements that they presume are so universally accepted as true and common knowledge that any attempt to contradict or refute them is not only doomed to failure but also laughable. One such statement that one sees constantly is that, no matter what else you might think about them, R. Guiliani, the ex-mayor of New York City, and G.W. Bush, the supposed President of the U.S.A., showed great leadership immediately following the events of 9/11.
Showing great leadership has to mean that these people led something, and that that something therefore proceeded down a path that was clear for all to see, in a direction clearly of great benefit. But I'm wondering. After 9/11, what exactly did those two huge entities of a city and a country do?
New York City buried all the bodies and pieces of bodies that they could find and cleaned up the incredible mess caused by the several surprise demolitions of that day. But they would have done that anyway, no matter who was mayor, or without any mayor at all. Having observed New Yorkers for a great many years, I refuse to believe that they were ever on their knees crying out for a strong hand to lift them up. Otherwise since then I haven't heard of any change in New York City in the last six years that amounts to anything remarkable.
What has the U.S. done of note in the same time span? People will rush to answer that, “Well, it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and meanwhile don't you dare mention such inconvenient facts as that no citizens of either country were aboard the four hijacked airliners wielding box knives.”
But my perception has been that “the U.S.” as such didn't do anything much. The great majority of American citizens just kept on doing whatever they had been doing beforehand, picayune or momentous, and instead it was the illegal adminstration in power at the time that invaded, using its ability to send American volunteers to shoot up and to imprison large numbers of people in other countries. There is a strong disconnect that can be felt between Americans at large and events in the Middle East, to a degree that I don't recall existing during WW 2, Korea, or even the Vietnam wars. And the conflagrations in both those tragic countries continue to blaze, with a longer duration now, by two years, than the U.S.'s direct involvement in the Second World War, with no satisfactory end in sight, except for people who make their livings disposing of the dead.
“Besides that, what else?” I would ask these defenders of the universally “known,” and I don't see how anyone could come up with a coherent answer, because the miscreants in control of the government have set afoot no constructive measures of any kind since 9/11. Instead we have an economy tottering on the crutches of foreign lenders, huge cracks in ways of thinking in every direction, and a “War on Terrorism” that has led to parts of the U.S. justice sytem, already a badly eroded institution, crumbling as thoroughly as did the several demolished buildings of the World Trade Center.
So what kind of leaders were these two guys if that city and the country proceeded to nothing worth cheering about or building on for the future?
Showing great leadership has to mean that these people led something, and that that something therefore proceeded down a path that was clear for all to see, in a direction clearly of great benefit. But I'm wondering. After 9/11, what exactly did those two huge entities of a city and a country do?
New York City buried all the bodies and pieces of bodies that they could find and cleaned up the incredible mess caused by the several surprise demolitions of that day. But they would have done that anyway, no matter who was mayor, or without any mayor at all. Having observed New Yorkers for a great many years, I refuse to believe that they were ever on their knees crying out for a strong hand to lift them up. Otherwise since then I haven't heard of any change in New York City in the last six years that amounts to anything remarkable.
What has the U.S. done of note in the same time span? People will rush to answer that, “Well, it invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and meanwhile don't you dare mention such inconvenient facts as that no citizens of either country were aboard the four hijacked airliners wielding box knives.”
But my perception has been that “the U.S.” as such didn't do anything much. The great majority of American citizens just kept on doing whatever they had been doing beforehand, picayune or momentous, and instead it was the illegal adminstration in power at the time that invaded, using its ability to send American volunteers to shoot up and to imprison large numbers of people in other countries. There is a strong disconnect that can be felt between Americans at large and events in the Middle East, to a degree that I don't recall existing during WW 2, Korea, or even the Vietnam wars. And the conflagrations in both those tragic countries continue to blaze, with a longer duration now, by two years, than the U.S.'s direct involvement in the Second World War, with no satisfactory end in sight, except for people who make their livings disposing of the dead.
“Besides that, what else?” I would ask these defenders of the universally “known,” and I don't see how anyone could come up with a coherent answer, because the miscreants in control of the government have set afoot no constructive measures of any kind since 9/11. Instead we have an economy tottering on the crutches of foreign lenders, huge cracks in ways of thinking in every direction, and a “War on Terrorism” that has led to parts of the U.S. justice sytem, already a badly eroded institution, crumbling as thoroughly as did the several demolished buildings of the World Trade Center.
So what kind of leaders were these two guys if that city and the country proceeded to nothing worth cheering about or building on for the future?
posted by Carl (aka Sofarsogoo) | 11:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home