Jesse Jackson’s Real Events And Relevance

April 26, 2004

David Almasi, President of Project 21 in Washington D.C., is preparing a press release on the latest of reckless remarks made by the Reverend Jesse Jackson. As a member of its National Advisory Council, Almasi asked me to contribute a few sentences but considering those comments, I felt a thousand or more words was more apropos.

Jackson was in Boston, on the eve of the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination, for a series of events including a speech to the annual 21st Century Black Massachusetts Conference at the Hynes Convention Center. The speech, according to the Boston Herald, emphasized the elimination of the Electoral College.”

But before taking the stage, Jackson spoke to reporters and suggested the United Nations consider sanctioning the United States for its decision to "murder all these people on faulty information" by waging war in Iraq. Jackson said the word "murder" was appropriate, especially if would be considered inflammatory.

It’s more suitable to devote time to each point individually, so I’ll comment on those before moving on to the next words of wisdom.

Jackson, parroting what he must feel the DNC wants to hear in a presidential year, is one of the many liberals who’ll be replaying the 2000 election. After Gore “officially” lost, Hillary too said the Electoral College was antiquated and needed to go bye-bye.

Simply put, the purpose of the Electoral College is to give each state equal status and weight. By going only by the popular vote, presidential candidates need only spend time in the large metropolitan centers and blow off the suburbs and the sticks. And that’s essentially what Senator Clinton and the Reverend Jackson would like. They’d spend all their time drooling over the big money of New York City, Los Angeles, Hollywood (oops! Federal investigation pending. Sorry Hillary), Chicago, and wouldn’t need to address what they affectionately refer to as “fly-over country”

Isn’t it ironic that while speaking on the war, Jackson now seeks the credibility-damaged U.N. to investigate what he calls the "murder all these people on faulty information”? Besides being the best global governing body money can buy, which is something Jackson can appreciate, why is he only now so concerned about the murder of people?

Jackson flashback: "I hate to admit it, but I have reached a stage in my life that if I am walking down a dark street late at night and I see that the person behind me is white, I subconsciously feel relieved."

How is it Jesse Jackson can find the time to denounce the killings in Iraq but won’t lift one finger to address the thousands who have been killed in gang violence in American’s urban battlegrounds? Did I miss the comments he’s obviously made on liberal media’s presentation of black males as armed basketball-playing, hip-hop dancing, gang sign-flashing rapists, robbers, and murderers? I know Jackson has the highest regard for black women (like those who are light-skinned and thus most desirable in pop culture) displayed as scantily clad housings for young male organs.

Then Jackson told reporters, "When you kill people outside of international law, I'm not sure what you should call it." He then referred to the U.S. invasion of Iraq "a crime against humanity. Iraqis are human beings, too. We killed them… we executed people on this flawed policy."

I don’t recall Reverend Jackson going to Iraq and holding a press conference denouncing Saddam for killing the Kurds with those chemical weapons that people on his side say don’t exist. I don’t remember Jackson speaking out against the “rape rooms” Hussein and his cronies used for intimidation as well as their personal entertainment. In order for Jackson to be happy, things would have to be as they were before Saddam was removed.

New mass graves would be currently in the process of being filled. Now maybe that isn’t as much of a crime against humanity as far as Jackson is concerned, but like he said, Iraqis are human beings, too. Despite those who seek to destabilize the new independent government, many Iraqis are experiencing a free press, elections, women’s rights, and self-determination as a people.

To Jackson, this is a bad thing…?

By the way, it seems the only people doing the executing today are the terrorists sneaking into Iraq and killing policemen, coalition troops, and as many civilians as possible. Any words for them, Reverend?

Again, the only words of condemnation Jackson has is for the United States he claimed was acting as "our own referee, judge and jury in this action. I'm not sure the U.N. has the power to act against us in a military way, but they have a right to make a moral judgment.”

Does Jackson want the United Nations to try and invade us?

"As when other nations violate the law, we should have hearings. Then, actions are determined”, Jackson said.

Obviously the Reverend Jackson was busy doing his usual good-will thing while Saddam Hussein continually stalled, diverted, and denied weapons inspectors access to his hidden stockpiles. The United Nations, seeking new and interesting ways to say “or else” to Saddam with toothless resolutions, did nothing but give him time (this is my guess) to quietly transport and hide banned weapons in Syria.

Saddam was issued a deadline to disarm that really expired many years ago. Key U.N. Security Council members, privately cashing-in on the “Oil For Food” program, ran blocks for Hussein and it was the United States (and George Bush) who said enough was enough. Saddam didn’t flinch because he probably figured he paid off the right U.N. people needed to derail corrective measures.

Now Jackson wants fellow thieves to conduct hearings….

"To whom are we accountable for engaging in such atrocities?", said Jackson.

Is liberating a nation from the stranglehold of an evil old man and his sadistic sons an atrocity? Obviously, if Saddam just up and left simply because we asked him to, things would be a whole lot less complicated today.

Jackson left the press with the opinion that the United States need apologize to the survivors of the Iraqi and American war dead, and the Congress should impeach President Bush for making a false case for war.

If Jackson wants us to apologize to the war dead today, he’d probably still have us apologizing today if Saddam was still in power torturing his people and we did nothing.

As far as impeachment goes, this is what happens when an opportunist makes proclamations. When values are compromised, so are facts.

Senate and congressional Intelligence committees on Capitol Hill reviewed the same briefs the Bush Administration used as rationale to take out the Saddam regime. If Jesse wants to have George Bush removed from office for acting on faulty information, then several dozen lawmakers would thereby need be removed as well. Note to Jackson: some on those committees are Democrats!

"Congress gave him the option. It was his judgment."

Unlike his predecessor, there was no finger stuck in the wind, weighing options while Saddam issued his middle one back to the United Nations. Unlike his predecessor, George Bush sent in troops who succeeded in removing Saddam, not lobbing cruise missiles that killed more civilians while sparing the tyrant. I don’t remember Jackson criticizing Clinton’s drive-by diplomacy.

So to David Almasi and Project 21, is Jackson’s comments worthy of response? Sure, but Jesse Jackson seeks relevance. Real events take finesse.

Something Jesse Jackson does not have.

Bob Parks