“In some of these countries where they are having some Islamic presence, is it better to have a constitutional monarchy, with a very strong, powerful king, and maybe a dictator who is trying to move a little bit to democratic principles, versus just throwing the door open and pushing full-blown democratic principles, which could destabilize the country?” Shimkus said during a discussion with the editorial board of The State Journal-Register.I have to give Shimkus some credit. There are a lot of people with paternalistic attitudes about government who would rather not bother with the messy nature of democracy. They think involving the public and contentious debates are unpleasantries that are occasionally necessary but that everyone would be better off if the people in charge were allowed to make decisions without being hassled by Joe Voter. Most people who hold elected office won't publicly admit to having that attitude but Shimkus came right out and said it.
“When I taught government and history,” Shimkus added, “by definition, what is the best form of government, the most simple, is a compassionate monarchy - a monarchy that loves and respects its citizens and … is able to make easy decisions without the weight of a bureaucracy we’d have to fund.”
Shimkus did us the favor of letting us know that every public rationalization given for the war in Iraq is a lie.
First, Bush deliberately mislead the public into believing that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 by talking about that national tragedy every time he attempted to explain why the Iraq invasion was necessary.
When too many people started pointing out his first claim wasn't true, Bush started mentioning Al-Qaeda, Hussein and Bin-Laden in the same sentence to imply a connection. It turns out that the Reagan administration had closer ties to Hussein than Bin-Laden did.
When people started catching on to that deception the new justification became weapons of mass destruction. Most of the media ignored the three former chief weapons inspectors in Iraq who said before the invasion that Bush was distorting the evidence. Since then, more people closely involved in the process came forward to say that the evidence was manipulated by the Bush administration to fit their agenda in Iraq.
When no WMD's were found, the fourth, and I thought final, excuse given for the invasion was to remove a dictator and bring democracy to the Middle East. Shimkus, who is one of Bush's most loyal supporters in Congress, just told us that rationale was a lie as well. Apparently, a benevolent dictatorship that provides stability and protects our interests in the region is just fine. In other words, he wants a slightly less violent Saddam Hussein of the 1980's when he was still an ally.
What an astounding message to deliver right before Independence Day. Shimkus is telling us that America no longer needs to be a beacon of democracy to the world but rather an aggressor nation that will install puppet dictators in order to protect our strategic interests.
I want John Shimkus to stand in front of the troops and tell them why they're in Iraq. What is it for? Why did he vote for it? Why does he continue to support a President who told lie after to lie to our troops about why they're risking their lives on a daily basis?
I've never been more ashamed to have this man represent my district in Congress. I say my "district" because he has most certainly never represented me.