The Democrats and Mogadishu

In the wake of the Natural Disaster called, Katrina, the Democrats and co-horts in the MSM are throwing around the term, "Another Mogadishu", referring mainly to the fiasco at the Superdome.

It's amazing that no one talks about race until the Democrats (Howard Dean) and the MSM make their usual comparisons.

Evidently, the only reason the Democrats put Mogadishu on their "talking points", is because the people in the dome happen to be black and for the most part poor, because aside from that there is no other correlation between the two events.

This along with the MSM use of the word "Refugees" - at least intially, until they were called on it, shows again how there is a difference in reporting the news vs. "creating a story", One is fact, the other illusion. During this disaster the MSM has perfected the latter. The creation of the "racial chasm" is exactly that, a creation.

But even more, I find it amazing that they would even want to why Democrats would want to use Mogadishu, which by all accounts was one of the darkest moments of the Clinton years.

Ltc. Rick Erickson, back in 2003 wrote this article of the debacle in Mogadishu for World Net Daily. Here is a bit of it:

"Ten years ago today, U.S. Army Rangers and Delta Force commandos loaded up their helicopters to execute an unorthodox daylight mission deep within the terrorist-controlled city of Mogadishu, Somalia. Although the Clinton administration snubbed Army requests for reinforcements, the soldiers duly answered political orders to capture the clansman leader most responsible for disrupting the peace and humanitarian aid we were providing to starving Somali people.

The next day, 18 soldiers were dead, 73 were wounded and the disastrous mission would become a political scourge for Clinton and his Defense Department. Clinton's fall guy would be Defense Secretary Les Aspin, who resigned in shame for disregarding the Army's assessment of the enemy's strength and for rejecting a corresponding demand for armor, artillery and tanks. Memorializing Clinton's refusal to reinforce the Army in Mogadishu, the disgusted father of a fallen Delta Force soldier would publicly refuse Clinton's handshake at a White House Medal of Honor ceremony.

Despite the best-selling book "Black Hawk Down" (Mark Bowden, 1999) and the blockbuster movie, today's anniversary of the Battle for Mogadishu is not front-page news, because the story remains unpopular with the mainstream media. The story was, after all, the first indication that the elected Democrat would allow his obvious rift with the military to become a deadly one. The story further demonstrated Clinton's audacity for putting helpless causes for peace ahead of firsthand reports from in-theater military commanders, who assured the president that our troops were at war."

Again, not Clinton's finest hour.

For the Democrats to use this as a sort of 'proof' of 'racism' by the Bush administration is laughable, if not sad. While Senators' Nancy Pelosi, Chuch Schumer, Patrick Leahy and especially Harry Reid, headed to the microphones yesterday, and probably will today as well, I am struck by the fact of their particular absence in at the Shelters of La, Alabama, Texas, and elsewhere. Where are these self-decribed "defenders of the poor"? Where is Senator Pelosi hugging victims, where is Hillary handing out water?

I think their absence is more telling that words.

While I digress a bit, the story of the poor of New Orleans is yet another example of the utter failure of the "Welfare state" and an indictment of the Democratic Party in New Orleans. As if we needed to have a Hurricane to know these poor and infirmed existed in a City, while it's leaders enriched themselves through corruption.

Then when the chips were down, the Democratic leadership in the State failed to protect them, failed to feed them and to give them comfort.

Yet even more disturbing, instead of accepting the blame, they shifted it to the Federal Government. Heck, they're even blaming one another.

The Democrats will no doubt try to use this in 2006 and 2008, indeed as Howard Fineman of Newsweek already has in presenting Hillary Clinton as the "Savior" for the country in 2008.

But as recent polls have shown, the American public isn't buying the MSM slant, nor the rhetoric of the Democratic Party, or even the rantings of hacks like Tina Brown. They are smart enough to see the truth of where the blame properly should be placed. They also see who is helping now, and who is just trying to get a "talking point" in.

Filed under