The key to winning any election is mass appeal. In simple terms: If a candidate can convince the majority of the electorate that he or she is the most favorable option, the path to the Capitol is paved in gold. Read more on HumanEvents.com…
On May 27, 2010, In Political Pieces, By Billy Hallowell
On August 12, 2009, In Political Pieces, By Billy Hallowell
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” – Al Gore, 2002
In July, the FBI released summaries of more than 20 interviews and casual conversations the agency carried out with former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Aside from creating a more robust picture of the conditions that led up to the Iraq War, the discussions flagrantly expose Hussein’s motives in resisting U.S. pressure to cooperate with U.N. inspectors. Furthermore, they provide an informative lens into his psyche during the months leading up to the invasion.
According to The Washington Times, “The new documents paint a picture of the Iraqi dictator in the final years of his life as arrogant, defiant and often delusional.” At points throughout the interviews, Hussein would often insist that he was still the president of Iraq. He denied ties to the al Qaeda and insisted that “…Iraq does not have orphans walking the streets.”
While the aforementioned elements are offsetting, the most startling revelation was Hussein’s own admission that he purposely misled the world to believe that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Even more alarming is the motivation he attributes to this self-proclaimed action. In the interviews, Hussein told officials that, in the months leading up to the Iraq War, he feared a nuclear-equipped Iran more than he did any reaction from the United States.
George Piro, Saddam’s FBI interviewer, wrote, “Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.” Thus, the reason for Hussein’s intended deceit – a trickery that led to intense regional and global instability – was rooted more in political posturing and survival than it was in his narcissistic desire to exponentially increase Iraq’s power in the Middle East.
Importantly, this admission raises a number of red flags. Since 2003, American liberals have railed against the U.S. government, stating that former President George W. Bush purposefully misled the American people in his affirmations that Iraq possessed WMD. According to those on the left, Republicans used weapons-based rhetoric as an excuse to initiate military operations in the region. However, the release of these transcripts devalues this notion.
Teamed with the countless pieces of evidence contradicting Bush’s alleged purposeful deceit, Hussein’s own admission provides a basis for amplified understanding that sheds light on the bluffs and malfeasances that led the U.S. to invade. It is with this information that a more rational understanding of U.S. operations can be processed.
Considering Hussein’s weapons bluff, it is not surprising that the United States was led astray. When placing Iraq’s violently aggressive history and non-compliance into context, there was surely reason to believe that the nation was, indeed, illegally cultivating and harboring WMD. In fact, politicians were candid about their belief that Hussein did possess weapons in the decade preceding the Iraq War.
Prior to the commencement of military operations in 2003, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and others, from both sides of the political aisle, publicly stated Iraq’s threat to the international community. Following Iraq’s use of chemical weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds in the 1980s and Hussein’s vocal hatred for the West, this caution on behalf of American political minds was fully justified.
However, when the war broke out, liberal politicians were suddenly less vocal about these dangers and, collectively, their tone changed dramatically in the years following its inception. Nonetheless, their prior warnings about weapons are well documented and corroborate the fears and insinuations that reinforced U.S. rationale in striking Iraq. On an episode of Larry King in 2003, President Bill Clinton said, “When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for.”
In a 2002 speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, Al Gore reiterated Hussein’s insatiable lust for weapons when he said, “Nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction.”
Hussein’s possession of WMD was universally accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike, as those individuals with access to privileged information – whether they were former presidents or members of Congress – all reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein either possessed or sought to possess dangerous materials. This, teamed with Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with the international community when questioning about said materials began, inevitably led to U.S. military action.
The historical record now shows that it was Hussein, not George W. Bush, who manufactured and allowed the fester the idea that Iraq possessed powerful weapons of mass destruction.
On April 16, 2009, In Political Pieces, By Billy Hallowell
The New York governor’s push for gay marriage tops this week’s legislative charts. Earlier today, The New York Times reported Patterson’s intention to unveil legislation in support of homosexual unions.
According to the governor, pushing for this legislation is a natural progression. As per the Times, he said, “The timing was always right…It’s just who is willing to take that step. And I am.” Considering his grim approval ratings, the move may be viewed as a strategic shift aimed at appeasing leftist voters.
Going back mere months, Patterson was catching heat from the left for his U.S. Senate pick. He selected Kirsten Gillibrand to fill former Sen. Hillary Clinton’s seat, a move that was deemed unpopular by some liberals who viewed some of Gillibrand’s more conservative stances unfavorably. Now, when the governor needs all of the political support he can get, he is taking on a tone that is undoubtedly more Democratically-pleasing.
Although he will surely gain support from the left, many New Yorkers on both sides of the aisle are disengaged with his policies following proposals for the “fat tax,” state levies on music downloads and other legislative gems.
Also, it’s important to consider the impending effect the affirmation of his stance might have over his relationship with conservatives. According to the Times, “The governor also risks alienating socially conservative voters at a time when he can least afford to drive away any more support.”
Patterson’s most recent actions might be construed as partisan, although one could also claim that his selection of Gillibrand, teamed with his support for gay marriage, provide an eclectic, somewhat moderate, take on a cornucopia of sociopolitical issues.
Either way, it is difficult to deny political motive in his timing, as he has had many months to make such a declaration, but has chosen to do so at the height of his unpopularity. Nonetheless, his announcement will be welcome news to gay marriage proponents both in-state and nation-wide who continue the fight for gay marriage.
On February 3, 2009, In Political Pieces, By Billy Hallowell
Talk about failing to learn life lessons. After battling for governmental control, Obama is making lofty decisions that stand firmly against the will of the American people. While he has experienced extremely high approval ratings for his performance these past three weeks, digging somewhat deeper into the polls showcases a substantive shift in public opinion. From climate change to corruption — to funding for overseas abortions — Obama and the Democrats are paving the way for future electoral defeat.
In an era when millions of Americans are suffering job losses and struggling to meet their most basic needs due to corruption and greed, Obama has pursued individuals who have defaulted on their taxes and evaded general responsibilities to serve in his cabinet. In no particular order there was Tom Daschle (“was” because he has now officially bowed out of consideration as a nominee for the position of Health and Human Services Secretary), who failed to pay over $130,000 in taxes. Obama had this to say in response to the outcry surrounding the potential cabinetee (as per FOX News):
“Tom made a mistake, which he has openly acknowledged. He has not excused it, nor do I,” Obama said. He added that the “mistake” should not diminish the “many contributions” Daschle has made to the country.
Then comes Nancy Killefer, who also withdrew her name for consideration for the position of “chief performance officer.” Killefer would have been the first to take this position, but tax problems also hampered her ability to accept it. And then there is Bill Richardson, who — according to FOX News — withdrew his name over an alleged kickback investigation:
The confusing part of the nomination conundrum centers upon Obama’s promise to root out corruption. So far the only rooting that’s been done is for earmarks and fiscal irresponsibility (i.e. a stimulus plan that calls for $600 million for government vehicles and funding for overseas abortions).
Aside from these shining examples of hypocrisy stands America’s new Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, who belatedly paid $34,000 in income taxes. The irony behind this clearly centers upon the fact that Geithner, a man who did not pay his own taxes in a timely manner, is going to advise President Obama on all things economy: government fiscal policy, and domestic tax policy, amongst other responsibilities. And I thought Gregory B. Craig’s (Obama’s White House counsel) defense of a presidential assassin was an embarrassment to the Obama Administration. Talk about one-upping one’s self.
Clearly, the American people should have some concerns. One could argue that the aforementioned examples simply result from human error. But, upon examination there is a pattern building here that is disturbing at best. Even when one looks beyond the drama surrounding nominees and confirmations, the Democrats are making decisions that rail against the will of the people.
Unfortunately, Democrats have a habit of complaining about Republicans so fervently that they eventually convince the people, through the liberal media, that Republicans are ill-equipped to lead (and some are, but it’s nowhere near the proportion of Democrats). Then, when they finally convince their way into office, they spend the majority of their time undoing every conservative regulation they can get their hands on, while failing to take the time to formulate their own policies. It’s the ultimate na-na-na-na-boo-boo, only the Democrats are willing to throw money at any problem that their undoing of well-meaning conservative policies doesn’t immediately solve.
Just look at Obama’s major decisions thus far. According to polls released this week, the majority of Americans stand against Obama’s first two executive orders. As for the first of these orders — the president’s decision to provide funding to family planning organizations overseas that provide abortions — 58% of Americans disagree with Obama; only 35% support the decision.
And when it comes to the closure of Guantanamo Bay, 50% of the American public opposes, with 44% supporting his decision to close Guantanamo’s doors within a year. While his approval rating is currently high, the American people are already making it known that they disagree with his far-left agenda (these two orders are precipitating facets of his worldview).
Understanding ultraliberals is a daunting task. They will protest in the streets when Americans go overseas to defend inherent freedoms, but when it comes to international infanticide, they sit on the sidelines and stand idle. At the least, you’d think they’d at least spout off about the need to support the domestic abortions they support so fervantly before shipping funding off to other countries. Apparently funding clinics that provide abortions in Zimbabwe is more important than funding our crumbling educational system.
Obama needs to get with the program. Instead of holding press conferences to tell us how he’d never have a lobbyist serve in his administration right before backtracking and hiring a lobbyist, he should spend his time making meaningful and well-planned policy. We need him to succeed, but with uncollected decision-making at the helm, success isn’t on the horizon.
Booking Information
Billy Hallowell is exclusively represented by Single Source Speakers (SSS). To schedule an event with Billy, please contact SSS by e-mail or phone (407) 575-1335.