09/26/2006 05:47 pm ET | Updated May 25, 2011

Screw Equivocation

I listened to our brave 2000 Presidential candidate Kerry, who actually served in Vietnam, on Imus this morning. He was asked what he thought about the "torture" compromise reached in the senate, his reply was something like "I have not as yet read it and am happy that we reached a compromise."
Screw compromise on this issue. How would it have been had he said something like "torture is just wrong, and so not American. We must return to appropriateness not cruelty, we just should do the right thing all the time."
It appears that all of our "political" leaders specialize in equivocation. They are willing and anxious to avoid answering questions directly. They are careful about every word that they say that can be used against them. Take a chance, be open and honest about everything and be prepared for Chris Wallace types of things.
As I often do, it is time for me to digress (not equivocate). Over 50 years ago I was an Air Force radio maintenance instructor and essentially the same smart ass as I am today. A Second Lieutenant was giving me a hard time about something and of course I was being surly. It quickly became a battle to determine "who's was bigger." He resorted to threatening me "for my tone of voice," and having me arrested and tried for insubordination. I of course invited him to do that and good for us both, he backed down in that he had more to lose by so doing then I did. I had not said anything that he could use against me, but it was my "tone of voice" that had upset him.
I absolutely loved what President Clinton said to Chris Wallace, and I loved his "tone of voice" in saying it. I loved his passion and conviction and I paid attention to his words. We are now embroiled in a discussion concerning his tone of voice, and weather or not he lost his temper. A question like "why didn't you do more..." is a hostile one. It was meant to "score points," not get an answer. Would Wallace have asked Bush "why didn't you do more to determine if the Iraqis had WMD's?" Ask Rumsfeld "why did you not do more in your pursuit of Bin Laden?"

Chris Wallace is now at the center of a controversy that he, not Clinton created, and I expect that he is just thrilled to be just where he is. We will now be embroiled in a "he should have remained calm, or he was right" media festival for at least a few days. Wallace is a "small" on air personality disputing a two term President of the United States. Boy must he feel important rather than rude, biased and silly for asking a gotcha question to which there was no right answer except for the put down he got from President Clinton.
How Fox (News Corp) can say that they are "fair and balanced" with a straight face is something I have difficulty dealing with. They defend Wallace for his asking "why did you start beating your wife" type of question.
The "Clinton" episode should lead the way for speaking out. The Democrats MUST stand together on the issues and speak out with a "Karl Rove" type of "one voice, one message" campaign.
Bush either lied to us or made a horrible mistake in taking us to war in Iraq. Pick one or the other, there is no third choice
Our years at war have been badly managed
Torture is wrong, un-American and doesn't yield reliable information
Katrina was badly managed
Our tax policy and approaching 9 trillion dollar debt is horrid
Spying on Americans without a warrant is wrong
Even one American without health care is unacceptable and we have millions
And on and on and on and on and on
Support Clinton; jump up and down together at every opportunity. Be critical of the status quo, and DO NOT BE AFRAID!
We have politically been afraid for too long, stand up, go to the window, and shout "I'm fed up, and I'm not going to take it anymore."
Sound familiar?
Norman Horowitz