Sacrificing others' lives for political gain the supreme wrong
From Nifong to Murtha: Sacrificing others’ lives for political gain is a hallmark of the modern Left
Since the issuance of indictments last April, the prosecution of three former Duke University lacrosse players (all young white males) for the alleged rape of a black female “dancer” has continued, despite continuously mounting evidence against their assumed guilt. Included in this potentially exculpatory data was DNA evidence (which was suppressed – an act for which Nifong has now given eleven separate explanations).
Trusting his victim more than science, Nifong decided that all he needed to proceed with his case was the fact that, “in a photo line-up done April 4, the accuser identified [two of the accused] as her assailants “to a certainty of 100 percent,” and identified” the third to “a certainty of 90 percent”
Playing to the crowd in the racially-charged atmosphere which filled the scandalized community after the “victim” made her accusations, Nifong decided that he had more than enough evidence to proceed with the ruining of three young men’s lives – despite the fact that it took all of a month for the rest of the American public to glom on to the fact that, due to her countless revisions to every aspect of her story about the night in question, the accuser either (a) had no idea what she was talking about, or (b) was a pathological liar.
Public statement after public statement followed, with Nifong having appeared in front of the media more than 70 times by the end of May (though as soon as the defense began to hit back, and negative PR – also known as “the facts becoming public” – began to taint the case, the DA began publicly considering issuing a gag order. This idea was backed by the NAACP, which was suddenly worried that “media coverage of the alleged rape [would] deprive the alleged victim of her legal rights to a fair trial.” How typical of liberals – as similarly expressed in proposals like the Fairness Doctrine for talk radio, the modus operandi is, of course, to call for silencing of one or both sides once the PR machine begins broadcasting a message not 100% in tune with the “party line.”)
Now, almost a full year into the case, we learn from Nifong himself the very good reason why he continued the rape prosecution of these young men, destroying their reputations and threatening to deny their freedom with years in jail. That reason, which was disclosed in a letter on the case from Nifong which was “included in a voluminous filing [February 28] to the State Bar,” was this:
The lacrosse case arose “during the last few weeks of a hotly-contested Democratic Party primary in which I was seeking to retain my office,” [Nifong] said. “I was not always able to give the case my full attention.”
Well, that clears everything right up. I mean, had it been something trivial, well, then it would have been worth getting upset about the fact that three young men’s lives were ruined by his wrongful, unethical, and potentially criminal prosecution. But hey, this was about politics – and that’s clearly more important than the lives and freedoms of others!
Of course, the mere fact that he was embroiled in the aforementioned “hotly-contested Democratic Party primary” in the first place shows how insignificant the concept of “honesty” was to Mr. Nifong. In an appearance last week on the Charlie Rose show, North Carolina Governor Mike Easley had this to say about his appointment of Nifong for the DA position (which opened up due to the previous officeholder’s appointment as a judge):
…I wanted someone who wasn’t going to run, that was a long-term prosecutor, just to hold the office together until somebody was elected. And our staff interviewed him. He said he wasn’t going to run, and we didn’t think he would. And then he got out and started running.
There’s a totally different standard you set for somebody who is going to be the elected district attorney and get into politics, and then there’s somebody who you want just to run the office. Because when you get out there and start making political comments, it requires a whole lot of different talent, a whole lot of different skills that obviously he didn’t have. And he would not have been appointed had we known he was going to run...
Honesty, of course, all too often takes a backseat to ambition and to political maneuvering. However, there is something far more sinister – and far more alarming – about the mindset that allows political and personal gain to be sought at the knowing expense of others’ lives. This prosecution destroyed the reputation of all three of these young men. Furthermore, they could have lost their freedom for a significant period of time, being confined to prison for years for crimes they did not commit. That mattered none to the Democrat district attorney, though, who saw an opportunity to score political points in a race-conscious community by putting away three white males for the rape of a black female – even after it became obvious, through both testimony and evidence, that no such incident occurred.
Sacrificing others' lives for personal political gain, though most often publicly attributed – incorrectly – to so-called “chickenhawks” in the nation’s (GOP) leadership, is actually a distinguishing characteristic of the modern Left.
Strong shades of the mindset which allowed a prosecutor to ruin young men he knew to be innocent, for the purpose of his own gain, can be clearly seen in other areas of power and of politics. One such area is in the Congressional Iraq debate, where elected Democrats have sought to condemn and to subvert America’s efforts there, despite the fact that their political posturing, their efforts to undermine the President’s leadership of the war, and their attempts to hamstring the administration’s (and the military leadership’s) options in a war that requires flexibility, has cost American (and Iraqi) lives.
These attempts to score political victories have cost real lives of real people – people who, due to the enlarged, overly ambitious egos of American politicians (and due to acts carried out for the simple reason of a hatred of the President), will never again return home to their families, will never live out their lives, and will never again have an opportunity to pursue their hopes and dreams like the rest of us at home will. Our troops voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way, and they do so because of a higher ideal which they believe is worth the price not only of their time and their comfort, but of their lives.
The lives of others are simply details in the game that is politics and power to such people. Scoring political points at the expense of these people’s lives – or of any people’s lives – is neither honorable nor acceptable, and those who do such, where applicable (such as in the case of Mr. Nifong), should be punished to the fullest extent possible. Those who have a (perhaps unfortunately) protected right to bluster, to bloviate, and to undermine – such as those in Congress – must either be made to see the effect of their inhuman callousness, and to realize that this is not a game – that their acts have an impact on the lives of others (though they unfortunately cannot be made to care about it) – or they must be shoved to the side and drowned out by the majority of this nation which is unified at least in its desire for the civilized treatment of their fellow human beings (let alone, in this case, in their desire for victory and for the ending of bloodshed in a way which not only spares lives in the present, but which will leave the best conditions possible for the preventing of bloodshed in the future, as well – both around the world and at home).
People who weild such power that they have a legal say in others’ freedom – let alone in others’ lives and deaths – have an indescribably immense responsibility to exercise infinitely more wisdom, judgment, conscience, patience, reason, and moderation in the exercising of that power than the normal man. People like Mike Nifong, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, and their ilk hold that power over others, but have demonstrably a total lack of (and lack of interest in) those necessary qualities and requirements when exercising it – and that may be the greatest transgression that a person entrusted with power over others can commit.
Mr. Emanuel, a special operations military veteran, is a leadership fellow with the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia, where he also studies Classics. In addition, he is a contributing editor for conservative weblog RedState.com, and is a columnist for the Athens, GA Banner-Herald newspaper.
Labels: Congress, Law, Liberals, Scandals, War
Permalink |
|
Rest in Peace, Charlie Norwood
Mourning the loss of a Conservative LionCharlie Norwood, six-term GOP Representative from Georgia’s 10th Congressional District, passed away at his Augusta, GA home yesterday. The ailing Congressman’s death came only days after he declined further medical treatment in Washington for non-small-cell lung cancer, and returned home to hospice care, and to be with his family in the last days of his life.Norwood had also battled idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) for years, being diagnosed with the condition in 1998 and receiving a lung transplant in 2004 as treatment.
A member of the 1994 “Republican Revolution,” the sixty-five year old Congressman worked tirelessly on several issues of importance both to his state and to the nation. An Army veteran himself, with two Bronze Stars earned in Vietnam, he spearheaded the effort to secure full medical coverage for military retirees, co-authoring the Keep Our Promises to Military Retirees Act.
He also worked with the Governor of Georgia on a plan to preserve federal funding in support of Georgia’s State Children’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP), also known as “Peach Care,” and fought for other comprehensive healthcare reform measures.
Norwood did his part to represent Americans across the political and economic spectrum. He championed the needs of individuals, such as special needs students, for whom he authored the Discipline Reform Amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and he also worked to improve industries, like broadcast television, for which he authored Community Broadcasting Protection Act.
Norwood’s congressional legacy was set up to live on in the 110th Congress with the reintroduction Monday of his signature legislation, the “Patient’s Bill of Rights.” Known as the “Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act of 2007” and co-sponsored by Democrat David Dingell of Michigan, this legislation, if passed, would reinstate the rights of medical patients to sue federally-governed health plans in state court for injury or death-causing medical decisions and improper denials of care – an ability lost to the public with the 1974 passage of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Shortly before his death, Norwood wrote that, given the leadership positions of several Democrats who had in the past supported the Patient’s Bill of Rights, there was “no reason” that the 110th Congress couldn’t “pass the original, un-compromised bill with a veto-proof majority.”
“At the last poll,” he concluded, “the Patient’s Bill of Rights had an 82% public approval rating. If the Democrats can use their new majority to pull that off, they will and should score big with the public.”
Norwood was a rock-solid conservative on many issues, from taxation (he was a “FairTax,” or national income tax, supporter) to immigration. The author of a provision in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act which required that Medicaid recipients verify US citizenship, he also supported a security fence along the US’s southern border, supported fines on businesses which employed illegal aliens, and opposed any form of amnesty for undocumented immigrants. He was staunchly pro-life, and supported school vouchers as a means of “returning decision-making to families” – something at the heart of the core conservative pro-choice and pro-personal-responsibility philosophy.
Though his views on many of these issues put him in direct opposition to most core Democrat issues and principles, the overall sentiment toward the late Congressman has largely been both warm and respectful from both sides of the aisle. Both Republican and Democratic commenters on Georgia political blog “Peach Pundit” have attested to the fact that, regardless of political affiliation, there was never any doubt that Dr. Norwood “put the interests of his constituents, his state, and his country first,” and professed admiration for a “good and honorable man who dedicated his life to public service and to serving his constituents to the best of his ability.”
Norwood’s popularity in his congressional district was inarguable. Despite redistricting in 1996 and 2002, he never received less than 52.3% of the vote (in 1996), and received over 60% of the vote five times, including twice over seventy percent. His reelection in 2006, unfortunately was his last.
With Norwood’s passing, Governor Perdue will be required, by the end of next week, to submit to Secretary of State Karen Handel a proposed date, at least thirty days away, for a special election. There are countless names being mentioned as potential candidates for that seat, although all but one have been smart enough not to announce their candidacy yet, instead opting to wait out of respect for Dr. Norwood and his family.
The show, as they say, will go on in the 10th Congressional District, and in the US House of Representatives. However, it will be a bit less
warm and a bit less colorful for the loss of this great man. Conservatives this week lost an icon and a champion of their cause and their values; more importantly, though, the Norwoods lost a beloved family member, and many, many more around Georgia and around the country lost a dear, dear friend.
Rest in Peace, Congressman. For those who knew you, it was an honor; for those who didn’t, it was an opportunity missed to know a great man; and for those whose lives you touched through your endless dedication to public service – which was all of us, regardless of ideology or affiliation – it was an experience for which we wouldn’t trade anything in the world.
Mr. Emanuel, a special operations military veteran, is a leadership fellow with the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia, where he also studies Classics. In addition, he is a contributing editor for conservative weblog RedState.com, and is a columnist for the Athens, GA Banner-Herald newspaper.
Permalink |
|
A rough start for Robert Gates
Dr. Robert Gates, President Bush's nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, got off to a bit of a rocky start in his role as the perspective administration representative in charge of America's warfighting capability. On Tuesday, in his one day of testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gates managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy with a single two-word answer: "No, sir."These words, uttered in response to Senator Carl Levin's (D-Mich.) pointed question, "Do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?," set Gates up, in the eyes of both the media and the Democrats, as a welcome opponent to the administration's current point of view on the war, as exemplified by President Bush, who said at an Oct. 25 news conference, "Absolutely, we're winning."
Though he tried to mitigate his position after lunch, saying that he did not want troops to think he believes they failing in their mission, Gates was unable to convince many that his later-adopted stance of "we are neither winning nor losing at this point" was accurate - especially since, when specifically asked by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) whether he agreed with his statement to Levin, he confirmed his previous response.US and foreign media outlets, including terrorist-friendly Al-Jazeera, immediately ran with Gates's comments under blaring headlines like "Gates: US not winning Iraq war," and in articles which prominently featured a loose quotation of his statement regarding the lack of stability in Iraq, and the potential for a "regional conflagration."
This earned Presidential spokesman Tony Snow some heat at Tuesday evening’s press conference. One reporter asked the press secretary if he thought that it was "demoralizing" for the potential Secretary of Defense "to say to troops out in the field who hear this that America is not winning the war," to which Snow responded:
What I think is demoralizing is a constant effort to try to portray this as a losing mission. You know what you ought to do? You ought to talk to some of the troops when they come back. Give them a call. I think you'll find that they are committed to the mission, and furthermore, you will find that Bob Gates, in his testimony today, did nothing to give the indication that he lacks confidence in either the mission or the people conducting it.Though Gates attempted to further moderate his response by saying, "Our military wins the battles that we fight," and by adding, "Where we're having our challenges, frankly, are in the areas of stabilization and political developments and so on," it was too late to undo what his two-word answer had done.
The administration made a valiant attempt to spin this public comment as the positive that it may prove to be. In his Tuesday evening briefing, Snow said, "There are any number of times...when an advisor may come in and tell a President something that a President may or may not wish to hear, but this is a President who is not afraid of having somebody tell him what they consider to be the truth. As a matter of fact, he welcomes it."
In other words, Gates is a man who is ready and willing to offer his analysis, advice, and fresh ideas on Iraq. With regard to the administration's point of view as stated by the President, Gates is incorrect on the status of an impending victory in the region; however, what may really be missing from this discussion - as has seemingly been the case more often than not of late - is a definition of winning itself.
A former member of James Baker's Iraq Study Group, one thing that Gates was ostensibly hired for was his perspective on - and ideas for a successful conclusion to the situation in - the Middle East. A proponent of direct talks with Iran and Syria, and of seeking a political solution in the region rather than a military one, Gates has critiqued US troop levels in Iraq as too small after the initial invasion, and has also argued for a reduction in the number of forces now in the country as soon as the Iraqis can be reasonably expected to handle their own security.
"In my view, all options are on the table, in terms of how we address this problem in Iraq," Gates told the committee, which approved his nomination by a 24-0 vote after only five hours of testimony.
The quick, unanimous vote was, in part, an "anybody but Rumsfeld" statement by many who viewed the outgoing Secretary of Defense as a symbol of the administration’s stay-the-course attitude in a conflict which has been losing popularity for some time now - despite evidence to the contrary in the form of a classified memo from Rumsfeld to President Bush, sent two days before the election, in which he outlined several new ideas for the prosecution and the publicization of the Iraqi conflict.
Sen. Levin, the rising committee chairman, said that he "voted yes because in both the substance of his answers and the tone of his answers, he seemed open to course correction." Ten other Democrats - including Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) - voted in favor of Dr. Gates, which brings up an interesting issue: a year from now, if Iraq policy has not been changed, the situation in the region has not improved, and massive troop withdrawals have not commenced, campaigning Democrats who gave him the rubber-stamp approval after only five hours of questioning may have some pretty serious questions of their own - from their own side - to answer.
As far as the present goes, Snow assured the media and the public that the suggested disagreement between Gates and the President "doesn't exist."
Let's hope that that is, in fact, the case, and that Gates's statement that we are not winning in Iraq - a claim which was immediately echoed far and wide by our enemies - was either a misstatement or a result of the lack of a clear objective in the region, rather than a statement of belief in our armed forces' failure in their mission. For, in the unlikely event that Dr. Gates does believe that we are doomed to failure in Iraq, then, should he be confirmed by the full Senate, the President will have a negative, defeatist voice within his own cabinet, influencing defense policy. The fact that the voice in question will be that of the man who is responsible for leading our Armed Forces to victory in war gives this the potential to be a problem much larger than an opposition-controlled Congress.
Labels: Congress, National Security
Permalink |
|