Chicago Republicans

Yesterday, the news stations were nothing but wall-to-wall coverage of national hero former-President Bill Clinton on a mission to rescue two American journalists in North Korea. Aparently the two journalists were covering North Korea while working for Al Gore's television network, "Current TV." In the course of their coverage they were captured, "tried," and sentenced to twelve years hard labor. They were held by the Norks for about five months before Clinton swooped in from the heavens.

No matter how hard the White House tries to convince us that this was a "private mission," it most certainly was not. Sure, President Clinton is no longer a government official, but he is a former President and the husband of the Secretary of State. Not to mention he flew in an unmarked white plane not unlike the ones the CIA flies or that the two journalists work for a former Vice President. So what makes these two ladies so damn important? Is it only because they work for a former Veep, or were they on some secret mission taking notes on how to be a better communist?

The reporter on NBC even mentioned that they were staying at the guest house of Kim-Jung Il,;a guest house that this particular reported has apparently also stayed in. She says that it is quite accomadating, but that the ladies must have missed their families. So were they prisoners or not? Was this even a rescue, or just a giant photo-op? 

Now, assuming the story is true, I am certainly happy to see these two ladies return home safely and circumvent twelve years of hard labor. But at this very moment there are many more Americans being held against their will in foreign countries, while the ex-President Brigaide remains noticeabley inactive. So why now, and why these two journalista? But more importantly, what did we have to give North Korea to get them back?

Maybe Kim Jung Il is just a big Clinton fan. He said, "Let me meet that chubby-chasin' ex-President of yours and I'll let two skinny ones go." Or maybe Bill was already in the neighborhood selling more secrets to China and figured North Korea was an easy enough detour. But whatever we gave them, I am certain that the Iranian government is wondering why the United States is so eager to negotiate with the North Koreans, who already have nukes, but so unwilling to deal with them. Sure enough, Iran practically begged Clinton to fly to Tehran to rescue the three American journalists in their custody. He declined.

Again, I am happy these two ladies are safe, but I think we are setting a dangerous precedent by sending a former President to rescue two journalists in an enemy country who understood (or should have) the risks involved when they took the assignment. This is, and should be, the job of the United States Consulate, not the President, current or former.

I would like to remove my cynic hat for a moment and admit that I was moved by the images of the Boeing business jet landing in Burbank, CA this morning, carrying the two American journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee who were released from a North Korean prison yesterday. No doubt that these women were rescued from a horrific prospect of spending 10-12 years in a hard labor camp, where rapes and beatings are daily occurrences. These women were not truly prisoners but instead became hostages as the North Korean government used them to manipulate concessions from the United States. All administrations have had to deal with slimeball dictators when seeking to save American lives and no doubt have all had to make private promises or submit to some awful propaganda parade for the greater value of our citizens' lives. It is probably one of the ugly realities of being an American president, but reassuring to know that we value such lives. And I can't believe I am saying this, but what better person to submit to the task of kissing up to Kim Jong Il than the master of sweet talk, Bill Clinton. I mean this when I agree he was the right man for the job. As much as I may dislike his politics and personal choices, he can smooth talk and convince like no other politician in history, including our current President. But also, and again, I can't believe I am writing this, he was the best person to send to examine Kim up close and personally and help determine what kind of man we are dealing with. Clinton has an uncanny ability to perceive and read people and appease them, without giving up of himself. We may have just achieved some of the best intelligence on North Korea through his visit.

I watched the images of these women tearfully reuniting with their families and loved ones, saw the true and deep gratitude they had for those who helped in their release, and could only guess through their carefully chosen words at the horrors they faced. I was ready to turn off the TV and be grateful for the usefulness of Clinton when Ling said something that caught me. In addition to thanking Clinton and his team and her family, she pointedly thanked President Obama. It just sounded so out of place and when coupled with the image of her standing there with Clinton and her boss, former Vice-President Al Gore, I started to get cynical again. Are we really just going back to the appeasement diplomacy that served Clinton so well but fell on George Bush to clean up? Does Obama have to be credited in every success that comes under his watch? Is he to be viewed as master of all things small and large? And if it went beyond Clinton and involved Obama, what private concessions did he make that we may only discover years later? Any prisoners released? Ships with luxury (or medical) goods for the Supreme Leader allowed to deliver despite international embargoes? Was Hillary's apology and Bill's visit the only price? What will we do to negotiate the release of American hikers who wander into Iran?  No doubt it is a no-win situation, but I don't have the confidence or trust that it won't be a we-lose one either. No doubt freedom comes at a price, I would just like to know what we are truly spending to get it.

Voting "present" is like having your cake and eating it, too; you allow things to happen without having to reveal your true position on the matter. Your inaction lets you wait to see if it was the right move. If it works, you didn't vote against it and if it doesn't, you didn't vote for it. Like it or not, President Obama has to address what is going on in Iran and North Korea. His delay in speaking up for freedom and against the violence and ruthless control in Tehran only highlights the fact that what is going on in the world is not what Obama had in his plans. How he has delayed is an insight into his instincts on these matters. The fact that right out of the gate, the greatest man in speechmaking was unable both to posit ourselves as not meddling while simultaneously standing behind those who want freedom tells us that he is not inclined to hold America as a beacon of freedom. He seems reluctant to cast his vote or take a clear position. Only in dribs and drabs and finally yesterday could he bring himself to use the words that have flowed so much more freely from other Presidents' speeches - "those who stand for justice stand on the right side of history". I am not convinced that his heart is behind those words. Given his world tour apologizing for America's role in bringing freedom to and improving the lives of others, how can we expect him to stand up for political self determination, even when it is an issue of national security. His belief that he alone can control the matters of nuclear buildup and stability, in both Iran and North Korea, through diplomacy, persuasion and apologetic politics is finally being questioned. His policies don't seem to have a plan for when that doesn't work and he lacks higher principles to give us confidence in what he might do. When questioned on his plans and principles by those such as Major Garrett of Fox News, we should be troubled by his refusal to answer or to allege that as President he cannot be questioned. There is no doubt that we need to tread carefully when it comes to Iran, that our meddling could disrupt the natural course of revolution or actually be used against the cause of freedom. There is no doubt that our actions regarding vessels carrying arms to North Korea will force our hand prematurely. But my concern is deeper than a question of tone or strategy. I think we now have a right to question our President's commitment to what America really stands for. He is using the current reluctance of this country to enter into another conflict and Iraq-Afghanistan fatigue to excuse himself from making a clear statement against Iran. We have to ask whether he would even under ideal circumstances lend real support to those who desperately want freedom. What lengths would he go to to keep us safe? Is he really a protectionist when it comes to exporting human and political rights? Given tonight's propaganda-fest on healthcare and what he intends to do with the financial industry, does he believe in freedom for Americans?

I am writing this in the Richard J. Daley center waiting to see if I will be selected for a jury for the notorious Cook County Circuit Court. This gives me an opportunity to think about the latest Obama agenda item, healthcare. Especially since sitting in a large room waiting for bureaucrats to determine my fate might be like visiting the doctor under an Obama plan. And, eerily, the TV in the waiting room is tuned to the ABC channel. It is clear our President wants to focus completely on revamping the healthcare industry not just insurance. It is a shame that all that "internal"turmoil in Iran, the mere saber rattling of North Korea testing nukes and imprisoning U.S. Citizens, or the mischaracterization of terrorists being released from Gitmo to take up snorkeling in the tropics might distract us. But these are not the priorities on Mr. Obama's agenda who tells us that the real "ticking time bomb" is healthcare. He is so determined to scare us into believing that there is a crisis in healthcare rather than insurance that he has convinced ABC to broadcast infomercials selling his agenda. Our shepherd-in-chief has gotten very good at crying wolf. Much of what he and the Congressional Democrats are saying is illusory or misleading at best and outright wrong at worst. The rush is on not to fix the problems in existing systems but to write in a whole new one - with no evidence or assurances that it won't face the same shortcomings. Taxpayers need to ask three questions:

1. Is there a true crisis regarding the quality and delivery of health care? No doubt our insurance system is cumbersome, costly and flawed but people are not being turned away from our hospitals. We have the best medicine in the world and foreigners come here to get what their national systems cannot provide. There is a difference between being uninsured and not having access to care and this is what should be closely examined. Even by the Administration's own accounts, a new plan would only cover a third of those currently uninsured.

2. Isn't it cheaper and easier to examine and fix the problems of the variety of existing (private, federal employee, Medicare/Medicaid) insurance systems? Obama is trying to "sell" his plan by alleging that his plan will make private plans more "competitive" and will be "free" to become more efficient and provide better options. I find it amusing that he of all people is using national healthcare as a tutorial on free market principles. It is a simple fact that when the government enters into an industry where it is not bound by market prices and has unlimited tax funds to provide subsidies, it actually squelches competition. Just this week, here in Chicago at the AMA, Obama tried to sell his plan to the very folks who will live and work by its terms and they remain unconvinced. It did not help that Obama was unwilling to discuss one of the single most stifling costs to healthcare, medical malpractice caps and liability insurance. It will be his plan on his terms appeasing those interests that provide him support.

3. Are Congressional Democrats and this Administration the ones to rewrite healthcare? These are the folks that brought us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or currently oversee Medicare and Medicaid. What makes us think that government bureaucrats are good at running these things, although if a 31 year old law student can run a car company...at least Hillary had meetings and a task force. Speaking of which, I realize that having the First Lady involved can be damaging, but currently Obama's only experience with healthcare seems to be having his wife earn $300K a year for a hospital system which has yet to be an example of reform and efficiency.

Our President has made it clear that he is determined to stay on track with his ambitious domestic agenda and nothing, not even the threat of a destabled Iran, will derail him. We all saw how he crushed the fly that got in the way of his CNBC interview. Earlier today, he just announced a revamping of the finance industry, with the typical claim that it is in the direst of straits. What is next? What I don't understand is how he can cry wolf about every domestic policy and downplay the only genuine crises to which he is constitutionally obligated. I guess it's his party and gets to cry wolf when he wants to.