30 October 2005
Spectator
The View from Here
TIME TO END HIGGINS' MASQUERADE
The Spectator recognizes that we are nearing Halloween and he recognizes the great joy some people have in dressing up and pretending to be something they aren't. But at least one local pol owes it to his constituency to take off his disguise and let those who voted for him know who he really is. Last fall, Brian Higgins ran as a Democrat. He took bales of money from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He hired Democratic consultants recommended by the DCCC. He spouted a sound Democratic message. And he got elected by Democrats on the basis of that message and that campaign in a district with a hefty Democratic electoral majority. So just who is the guy running around with the bad hair-do and Tom DeLay issues? It can't be Brian Higgins. Brian Higgins, the candidate, would never have favored a Republican, NRA-kiss-ass law to give the gun industry bullet-proof protection from product liability. Brian Higgins, the candidate, would never have injected himself into the Terry Schiavo case in Florida on the side of the Republican hypocrites trying to tell a grieving husband what to do about his brain-dead wife. Those votes are worse than Jack Quinn hanging out with Bill Clinton just before Quinn voted to impeach him. But apparently, Brian Higgins, the congressman, is a lot different than the candidate. Now that Higgins' has had a taste of the good life in the nation's capitol, he wants to stay there. The congressman eschews the party, eschews his claims to be a Democrat, and casts his votes to ward off a rumored attack in '06 from the libidinous ex-quarterback of the Buffalo Bills. Higgins may believe that his votes with the Republican majority will be his political body-armor against a Republican challenger but dumping the interests of those who brought you to the dance just might jump up and bite him on the ass. We can only hope. It should be interesting to see where Higgins lines up as the GOP budget ax is poised to cut a wide swathe through federal programs for the poor. Whose side are you on, Congressman?
POWELL IS NO "LOYAL SOLDIER"
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson has become the latest senior government official to talk about the "cabal" running foreign policy fiascos for the Bush White House. What he has said is nothing new or unheard of but it is nice to see the facade of silence crumbling now that these jerks are in trouble. One thing Col. Wilkerson said though rings hollow. When asked about why his boss Colin Powell has yet to speak up about the hoops he jumped through for Bush, the good colonel said "because Gen. Powell is the most loyal soldier in the world." That - in a word - is bullshit. Who is Powell being loyal to? Is he being loyal to the people of this country? Is he being loyal to the brave men and women dying and being maimed for lies? Is he being loyal to anyone but himself and the schmuck who made him Secretary of State? Hell, no he's not! Colin Powell is the biggest disappointment in a gaggle of lackluster Bush appointees because he wasn't lackluster. Powell has something to offer. He had some native intelligence to bring to the table. Unlike the chickenhawks around the table in the White House chomping at the bit to go to war, Powell had been to war. He knew what happens when you put Americans in harm's way. Too bad he didn't see fit to tell anyone about it. Too bad he sat at the table like the hired hand he was and kept his mouth shut. A lot of people are dead because Powell swore to the lies the other guys told. By claiming that silence makes Powell a good soldier, Col. Wilkerson demonstrates again why mommas shouldn't let their babies grow up to be soldiers.
FREEH SHOWS WHY THE FBI COULDN'T FIND IT TERRORISTS
Watching former head of the FBI Louis Freeh making the rounds of talk shows to hawk his book gave the Spectator greater insight into how the tragedy of Sept. 11 could have happened. Freeh maintains that he couldn't have any type of professional relationship with President Clinton - his boss - because Freeh's FBI was constantly investigating the president. Fair enough, but why did Freeh stop there? Why didn't he tell us the results of his copious, continuous investigations? Why didn't he catalogue all the charges resulting from the FBI investigations? Why didn't he tell us all the evil deeds the FBI uncovered and sent to prosecution? Oh yeah - because there weren't any. All that time, all that money, all those man hours - poured down the sewer in pursuit of a political agenda that resulted in nothing more than adultery. I am so proud of my FBI. The Spectator saw three of the Freeh interviews and the noticed the same affect in each interview. Louie Freeh couldn't look the interviewer in the eye. Whenever he started talking about the third-hand information he got about how Bill Clinton never asked the Saudis for permission to interrogate suspects in the killing of US airmen, Freeh's eyes dropped off the table. He stared down and continued his hearsay about "reliable sources." Clinton should have been indicted for letting Freeh head the FBI.
Copyright 2005 by Buffalo Report, Inc.