Political myth and political reality

There quite a few beliefs that the political class sticks to that are totally baseless.

 

Clinton presidency was a fiasco: Health care was the wrong move at the beginning of the presidency. No sane politico would attempt it except, of course Clinton. This, of course, is complete nonsense. Clinton attempt was the basis on which Obama will build his less than universal health care system. Clinton has put the issue on the agenda. Were Obama to start from scratch he would have a much tougher task.

 

Same with gays in the military, Clinton did the initial ground work while the gay community used the open agenda and ran with it to substantial achievements.

 

Clinton rescued several collapsing economies, Mexico, Thailand and Indonesia. There was little noise about it, there was no feeling of sinking; the problems were solved one at a time with hardly a ripple.

 

Muslim terrorists were created by the US policy: That’s a mantra especially on the left; it couldn’t be further from the truth, The US is a comfortable excuse for terrorist, but not the reason.

 

Al-Kaida is an internal Saudi reaction. The Saudi regime is suffocating, oppressive, oligarchic, extremely religious and depressing. Al-Kaida was formed to oppose that terrible regime and everything connected to it, the US in particular.

 

Until recently, most educated Muslims wanted to live in the US, in a country of freedom, a country where the government doesn’t target people and a country that offers Muslims and Christian an almost equal opportunity to excel.

 

Britain has internal Muslim terrorism, while the US doesn’t. If Muslims really believe the left propaganda, Detroit would have been on fire instead of a great place to go to Arab restaurants.

 

Somehow, we buy excuses instead of examining a situation objectively. The reasons for that are mainly prejudice, intellectual laziness and old European racism.

 

Political anger: Often one reads about a political entity being angry at the other side. “GOP anger flares after Sen. Clinton slams party.” In simple terms, the GOP didn’t like Clinton critizing them. You wouldn’t either, but a party doesn’t get angry; angry is getting red in the face and may be kicking the wall. Nothing like that happens. “Arab anger should not be dismissed offhand but should be understood, particularly in regards to the purported trial of Saddam and senior Baathists.”

 

The term “Arab anger” by itself is not clear although it is used frequently. Does it mean that individuals are sufficiently upset? Does it mean that the political class is angry? All I know is that the use of “anger” is an attempt to describe organizations and communities as having emotions that are very personal and human.

 

This clearly is either a crude propaganda tool or a commentary by people with limited expressive ability.