What's new

The Emperor Has No Clothes

KM32MVP

Well-Known Member
In 1837, Danish author, Hans Christian Andersen, wrote a wonderful fairy
tale which he titled The Emperor's New Clothes. It may be the very
first example of the power of political correctness. It is the story of
the Ruler of a distant land who was so enamored of his appearance and
his clothing that he had a different suit for every hour of the day.

One day two rogues arrived in town, claiming to be gifted weavers. They
convinced the Emperor that they could weave the most wonderful cloth,
which had a magical property. The clothes were only visible to those
who were completely pure in heart and spirit.

The Emperor was impressed and ordered the weavers to begin work
immediately. The rogues, who had a deep understanding of human nature,
began to feign work on empty looms.

Minister after minister went to view the new clothes and all came back
exhorting the beauty of the cloth on the looms even though none of them
could see a thing.

Finally a grand procession was planned for the Emperor to display his
new finery. The Emperor went to view his clothes and was shocked to see
absolutely nothing, but he pretended to admire the fabulous cloth,
inspect the clothes with awe, and, after disrobing, go through the
motions of carefully putting on a suit of the new garments.

Under a royal canopy the Emperor appeared to the admiring throng of his
people - - all of whom cheered and clapped because they all knew the
rogue weavers' tale and did not want to be seen as less than pure of
heart.

But, the bubble burst when an innocent child loudly exclaimed, for the
whole kingdom to hear, that the Emperor had nothing on at all. He had
no clothes.

That tale seems to me very like the way this nation was led to war.

We were told that we were threatened by weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, but they have not been seen.

We were told that the throngs of Iraqi's would welcome our troops with
flowers, but no throngs or flowers appeared.

We were led to believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to the attack
on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, but no evidence has ever been
produced.

We were told in 16 words that Saddam Hussein tried to buy "yellow cake"
from Africa for production of nuclear weapons, but the story has turned
into empty air.

We were frightened with visions of mushroom clouds, but they turned out
to be only vapors of the mind.

We were told that major combat was over but 101 [as of October 17]
Americans have died in combat since that proclamation from the deck of
an aircraft carrier by our very own Emperor in his new clothes.

Our emperor says that we are not occupiers, yet we show no inclination
to relinquish the country of Iraq to its people.

Those who have dared to expose the nakedness of the Administration's
policies in Iraq have been subjected to scorn. Those who have noticed
the elephant in the room -- that is, the fact that this war was based on
falsehoods * have had our patriotism questioned. Those who have spoken
aloud the thought shared by hundreds of thousands of military families
across this country, that our troops should return quickly and safely
from the dangers half a world away, have been accused of cowardice. We
have then seen the untruths, the dissembling, the fabrication, the
misleading inferences surrounding this rush to war in Iraq wrapped
quickly in the flag.

The right to ask questions, debate, and dissent is under attack. The
drums of war are beaten ever louder in an attempt to drown out those who
speak of our predicament in stark terms.

Even in the Senate, our history and tradition of being the world's
greatest deliberative body is being snubbed. This huge spending bill
has been rushed through this chamber in just one month. There were just
three open hearings by the Senate Appropriations Committee on $87
billion, without a single outside witness called to challenge the
Administration's line.

Ambassador Bremer went so far as to refuse to return to the
Appropriations Committee to answer additional questions because, and I
quote: "I don't have time. I'm completely booked, and I have to get
back to Baghdad to my duties."

Despite this callous stiff-arm of the Senate and its duties to ask
questions in order to represent the American people, few dared to voice
their opposition to rushing this bill through these halls of Congress.
Perhaps they were intimidated by the false claims that our troops are in
immediate need of more funds.

But the time has come for the sheep-like political correctness which has
cowed members of this Senate to come to an end.

The Emperor has no clothes. This entire adventure in Iraq has been
based on propaganda and manipulation. Eighty-seven billion dollars is
too much to pay for the continuation of a war based on falsehoods.

Taking the nation to war based on misleading rhetoric and hyped
intelligence is a travesty and a tragedy. It is the most cynical of all
cynical acts. It is dangerous to manipulate the truth. It is dangerous
because once having lied, it is difficult to ever be believed again.
Having misled the American people and stampeded them to war, this
Administration must now attempt to sustain a policy predicated on
falsehoods. The President asks for billions from those same citizens
who know that they were misled about the need to go to war. We
misinformed and insulted our friends and allies and now this
Administration is having more than a little trouble getting help from
the international community. It is perilous to mislead.

The single-minded obsession of this Administration to now make sense of
the chaos in Iraq, and the continuing propaganda which emanates from the
White House painting Iraq as the geographical center of terrorism is
distracting our attention from Afghanistan and the 60 other countries in
the world where terrorists hide. It is sapping resources which could be
used to make us safer from terrorists on our own shores. The body armor
for our own citizens still has many, many chinks. Have we forgotten
that the most horrific terror attacks in history occurred right here at
home!! Yet, this Administration turns back money for homeland security,
while the President pours billions into security for Iraq. I am
powerless to understand or explain such a policy.

I have tried mightily to improve this bill. I twice tried to separate
the reconstruction money in this bill, so that those dollars could be
considered separately from the military spending. I offered an
amendment to force the Administration to craft a plan to get other
nations to assist the troops and formulate a plan to get the U.N. in,
and the U.S. out, of Iraq. Twice I tried to rid the bill of expansive,
flexible authorities that turn this $87 billion into a blank check. The
American people should understand that we provide more foreign aid for
Iraq in this bill, $20.3 billion, than we provide for the rest of the
entire world! I attempted to remove from this bill billions in
wasteful programs and divert those funds to better use. But, at every
turn, my efforts were thwarted by the vapid argument that we must all
support the requests of the Commander in Chief.

I cannot stand by and continue to watch our grandchildren become
increasingly burdened by the billions that fly out of the Treasury for
a war and a policy based largely on propaganda and prevarication. We
are borrowing $87 billion to finance this adventure in Iraq. The
President is asking this Senate to pay for this war with increased debt,
a debt that will have to be paid by our children and by those same
troops that are currently fighting this war. I cannot support
outlandish tax cuts that plunge our country into potentially disastrous
debt while our troops are fighting and dying in a war that the White
House chose to begin.

I cannot support the continuation of a policy that unwisely ties down
150,000 American troops for the foreseeable future, with no end in
sight.

I cannot support a President who refuses to authorize the reasonable
change in course that would bring traditional allies to our side in
Iraq.

I cannot support the politics of zeal and "might makes right" that
created the new American arrogance and unilateralism which passes for
foreign policy in this Administration.

I cannot support this foolish manifestation of the dangerous and
destabilizing doctrine of preemption that changes the image of America
into that of a reckless bully.

The emperor has no clothes. And our former allies around the world were
the first to loudly observe it.

I shall vote against this bill because I cannot support a policy based
on prevarication. I cannot support doling out 87 billion of our
hard-earned tax dollars when I have so many doubts about the wisdom of
its use.

I began my remarks with a fairy tale. I shall close my remarks with a
horror story, in the form of a quote from the book Nuremberg Diaries,
written by G.M. Gilbert, in which the author interviews Hermann Goering.


"We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to
his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful
for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

". . . But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine
the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a
Communist dictatorship.

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people
have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and
in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you
have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It
works the same way in any country."

Sad, sad day.
 
I understand Robert Byrd was your home-state Senator and all, but guy had his flaws.

I mean, I notice you didn't go with this quote:

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
 
No one is without flaw, Byrd admitted his mistakes... be it joining (if briefly) the KKK in his youth or filibustering the Civil Rights Amendment... but if one is to consider these follies I think it only fair to consider the continual atonement he sought, the apologizing he done and the guilt he bore later in life.

I know more about Byrd then most here, probably because im from WV...nevertheless I say without bias there was no greater student of the Senate and Constitution during my lifetime nor many of the members of this board. He literally wrote the book on the history of the Senate...carried a copy of the constitution in the jacket pocket over his heart and quoted Greek and Roman philosophers often in his floor speeches.

2003
Larry King: "You've seen 11 Presidents while in Congress, you've served under 11 Presidents.."
Robert Byrd: (interrupting) "No, I haven't served under any of'em...I served with them."
 
There are certain flaws that I consider to be game changers. Flaws that, in my opinion, change my complete understanding of someone.
 
So basically, man is either black or white? Either everything they've done is masked with vile excrement because of a flaw in their youth or they flitter about without receiving scorn regardless of the vigor (or lack there of) with which they fight for you because they had no such indiscretions in their youth?
 
So basically, man is either black or white? Either everything they've done is masked with vile excrement because of a flaw in their youth or they flitter about without receiving scorn regardless of the vigor (or lack there of) with which they fight for you because they had no such indiscretions in their youth?

Like Vinyl mentioned, there are some things from which one simply does not hide. Applologies come cheap when trying to save your own ***.
 
I also have to wonder about the term Pork when I consider representatives job in Congress. That is- to stand as a voice for the constituents who put him there. By that reasoning, it would seem that if a State wants federal funding to bring in infrastructure, jobs and other similar things to improve the quality of life of the individuals who live there, then its the Senator's "job" to stand for his state. We jump at the opportunity to condemn "pork," but I tend to see it as a man who's doing his job.
 
So, in ur estimation his apologies were not from the heart? Just trying to save his own ***? Im guessing you have proof? Otherwise ur junking up intelligent discourse with biased, personal feelings.

At least if i make a personal statement i try to label it as such.
 
I also have to wonder about the term Pork when I consider representatives job in Congress. That is- to stand as a voice for the constituents who put him there. By that reasoning, it would seem that if a State wants federal funding to bring in infrastructure, jobs and other similar things to improve the quality of life of the individuals who live there, then its the Senator's "job" to stand for his state. We jump at the opportunity to condemn "pork," but I tend to see it as a man who's doing his job.

The problem is in the way with which they secure these funds. Hiding them in a massive health care bill where you hope nobody ever notices them is pork no matter what you want to call it.
 
Even Foxnews can acknowledge it as a loss...that should tell you something.

A man of the Senate. I am sure that Robert Byrd, who died last night, would want people to remember that about him. And amidst all the remembrances of his life--from his many fans and his many critics--it’s important to remember what the word “Senator” meant to Byrd.

Byrd was a throwback: A throwback to the Constitution. To him, it mattered a lot that the powers of Congress are listed first in the Constitution, in Article One, while the powers of the president are listed second, in Article Two. For Byrd, that ordering of power was sacred and permanent--as sacred and permanent as the Constitution itself. And with that reverence came an understanding that concentrated power, clustered in the presidency, is always a danger.

Many Republicans find it easy to oppose imperial presidencies--when a Democrat is in the White House. And many Democrats find it easy to oppose secretive presidents--when a Republican is at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Byrd was different. He was a senator, resolutely protective of his institution and against all opponents, especially presidents, in either party. And so he would lecture, on C-SPAN and elsewhere, on the history of senates, going back to the Roman Republic. No doubt many of his listeners were rolling their eyes as he talked about, say, the ancient Roman Helvidius Priscus, who fought imperial power in the first century, but Byrd knew what we all should know--if you don’t understand history, you won’t just repeat it, you will repeat the worst parts of it.

In his own way, Glenn Beck is doing the exact same thing today; he is reminding Americans of their own history. There’s power in that, and greatness. Both Byrd and Beck have been willing to do some of the hard work of freedom, which includes knowing where your freedom comes from and how it can exist only within the framework of a Constitutional Republic.

In the course of his six decades in Congress, Robert Byrd rose to the pinnacle of Senatorial power--as Senate majority leader in the 70s and 80s. But his real home was in the Appropriations Committee, from which he procured pork-barrel spending for his beloved West Virginia. And if you didn’t like it--he didn’t care. As a Senator he had the power of the purse. It was in the Constitution.

And so in the course of his 92 years on this earth, Robert Byrd did something to offend just about everyone. He even joined, briefly, the Ku Klux Klan. But the voters of West Virginia, including black West Virginians, forgave him.

And as for the rest of us, if we treasure the separation of powers, if we fear over-centralization in the executive, if we think that procedure is what protects freedom--then we should celebrate his life and honor his memory.

James P. Pinkerton is a writer and Fox News contributor. He is the editor/founder of the Serious Medicine Strategy blog.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/28/james-p-pinkerton-senator-robert-byrd-constitution-senate-president-republican/
 
Agreed. If the president has term limits so should everyone else. 51 years? WAAAAAY too long. 3 term max. Then make them run for another job like House of Reps or something.

Funny story about Presidential term limits: Only one president has ever had more than two terms and virtually everyone agrees that it would have been a bad idea for him not to run the third time.
 
Since when did being a racist count as a "youthful indescretion"? Throwing a keggar when your parents are out of town is a "youthful indescretion". Hating black people is something that came from his heart. Hard to believe his "apologies" weren't spurnned on by mounting civil rights pressure and his desire to stay in office.
 
Barack Obama never had a problem with Byrd's past. In fact, there's a touching passage in Obama's second book describing his first meeting with Byrd, where Byrd's past came up. The regret the man felt about it was evident.

It's been frustrating to me how for some people, a distinguished 50 year career has been boiled down to something the man did before he even thought about running for Congress. Get over it, the man was a true patriot, and it's an awful loss.
 
To be honest, I regret posting the quote from his letter. I was mostly being snarky because I was annoyed that the OP posted a lengthy speech with no context regarding who said it or why it was being posted, so I felt like being contrary.

I'm more than willing to acknowledge that bringing up something Byrd wrote 60 years ago is a cheap-shot, especially given the somewhat overwhelming evidence that he was a very different person at age 65 than he was at age 25.
 
Back
Top