Some writers have suggested that the experience of ten years of continuing conflict under fluctuating levels of direction, support and leadership within the military and civilian chains of command have created, at the least, impatience and frustration, more often disgust and, within a relative minority, reckless disdain within the military officer corps. I find the suggestions persuasive. I recall my own attitude, one shared and frequently discussed among many, about military and civilian leadership as Viet Nam continued.
I would also suggest another possible basis for the reckless expressions of opinions in the McChrystal episode. The U.S. military continues to draw from the broader polis. The officer corps and the volunteers in the military constitute, to an extent, a special breed of citizen-force, to be sure. However, they are still the product of our culture and with modern technology providing generally unfettered access remain significantly influenced by that culture. Beginning during the latter years of the Bush administration and substantially increasing during the Obama presidency, the rhetoric of politics has encompassed and encouraged open and repeated expressions of disdain, insult and antagonism directed at the highest levels of civilian control to a level unprecedented in its reach if not its vitriol. It seems to me that this environment may well have relaxed the professionalism and good sense of those actors in the McChrystal affair.
I had said it early in this and other forums that the vitriolic rhetoric and permissiveness of the highest level of elected officials in this country could eventually create a force destructive of our political institutions. I would now add the military as another unintended victim.
Showing posts with label President Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Bush. Show all posts
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Thursday, October 09, 2008
A Response
A friend today sent around an email, apparently in support of the Iraq Invasion by George W. Bush, referring to an "Associated Press article this summer [that] revealed that our troops found 550 metric tons of yellowcake a few miles south of Baghdad in 2003 and kept it secret until recently. See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ " I replied as follows:
Interesting but fundamentally irrelevant when considering the manner in which the Bush/Cheney Administration cherry-picked and fabricated intelligence, failed to follow fundamental intelligence procedures of verification (For example: "Curveball") and, when necessary to support its preordained intention to invade Iraq, lied to the American people. The more egregious of these, in my opinion, were the statements, primarily by Cheney, asserting existence of unquestionable evidence of a direct and nefarious connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.
This "yellow cake" referred to in the article was stock existing in Iraq prior to 1991. The Bush Administration's repeated dire warnings were of then "current and continuing efforts" by Saddam to obtain uranium. Independent expert conclusions following the invasion and based upon evidence within Iraq (documents, interrogations and interviews) seem to be in agreement that Saddam had stopped efforts to build a WMD program in at least 1991.
We must beat the forces opposing us in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in a joint effort with nation-building assets from within our own government and from NATO countries, assist in establishing an allied front with the resulting governments against terrorism. When this is completed it will be almost solely the achievement of the United States military command and the military and intelligence forces on the ground. The decision to invade Iraq by Bush was the stupidest decision of any president in my lifetime. The fact that the proffered rationale for the necessity of invasion was false is wholly reprehensible and worthy of continuing condemnation whatever the outcome of the wars. But, that's just my humble opinion.
Interesting but fundamentally irrelevant when considering the manner in which the Bush/Cheney Administration cherry-picked and fabricated intelligence, failed to follow fundamental intelligence procedures of verification (For example: "Curveball") and, when necessary to support its preordained intention to invade Iraq, lied to the American people. The more egregious of these, in my opinion, were the statements, primarily by Cheney, asserting existence of unquestionable evidence of a direct and nefarious connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.
This "yellow cake" referred to in the article was stock existing in Iraq prior to 1991. The Bush Administration's repeated dire warnings were of then "current and continuing efforts" by Saddam to obtain uranium. Independent expert conclusions following the invasion and based upon evidence within Iraq (documents, interrogations and interviews) seem to be in agreement that Saddam had stopped efforts to build a WMD program in at least 1991.
We must beat the forces opposing us in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in a joint effort with nation-building assets from within our own government and from NATO countries, assist in establishing an allied front with the resulting governments against terrorism. When this is completed it will be almost solely the achievement of the United States military command and the military and intelligence forces on the ground. The decision to invade Iraq by Bush was the stupidest decision of any president in my lifetime. The fact that the proffered rationale for the necessity of invasion was false is wholly reprehensible and worthy of continuing condemnation whatever the outcome of the wars. But, that's just my humble opinion.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Trust me. Again.
Today, President Bush spoke of the economic instability on Wall Street and his approach to Congress for immediate implementation of his proposed response. "The whole world is watching to see if we can act quickly to shore up our markets and prevent damage to our capital markets, businesses, our housing sector, and retirement accounts," Bush said Monday. "Failure to act would have broad consequences far beyond Wall Street. It would threaten small business owners and homeowners on Main Street."
On Monday October 07 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio President Bush also stressed the need for immediate, unquestioning approval of his policy initiative. Our President said then: "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud....Understanding the threats of our time, ..., we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring."
The current situation calls to mind another quote from this president "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Well, actually, he screwed that up too. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to approach proffered solutions to this mess with intelligence and a real concern for the common good. Congressional Republicans have an opportunity to salvage their honor lost in blind approvals of Bush's policies and Democrats, in control of Congress, have an opportunity to focus their oversight in a credible, timely manner for the common good as they have repeatedly said was their intention. All beware the lobbyists bearing gifts and draft proposals.
On Monday October 07 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio President Bush also stressed the need for immediate, unquestioning approval of his policy initiative. Our President said then: "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud....Understanding the threats of our time, ..., we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring."
The current situation calls to mind another quote from this president "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Well, actually, he screwed that up too. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to approach proffered solutions to this mess with intelligence and a real concern for the common good. Congressional Republicans have an opportunity to salvage their honor lost in blind approvals of Bush's policies and Democrats, in control of Congress, have an opportunity to focus their oversight in a credible, timely manner for the common good as they have repeatedly said was their intention. All beware the lobbyists bearing gifts and draft proposals.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Decision
I believe that John McCain is the best candidate for the office of the President of the United States. I believe that the Republican Party during the administration of George W. Bush has actively pursued and passively permitted policies contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States and the best interests of this country.
So I sit here angry and try to find something to give me comfort in deciding whether to vote for the best candidate or against his party. The media is of no help. In fact, the cable coverage of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox has been ludicrous in the respective bias of each. The coverage of the old networks has been insignificant. I think that I am a fairly intelligent, educated and well read citizen yet I haven't reached a decision. Assuredly there are differences in the stated proposals “for reform” between the candidates. The party platforms, the candidate speeches, the spin of their talking-heads and the point-counterpoint of the arguments, however, are all mostly hollow when considered in the historic viability of “candidate promises.” The “soul” of each party used to be apparent. I don’t recognize either one now.
I would unhesitatingly support the John McCain of 2000. I am angered that the best the opposition could come up with is Senator Obama. I cannot at this point actively support either one. But, how will I vote? For the moment, I am deeply angered by a statement made tonight by Rep. Eric Cantor of my state of Virginia, the Republican Chief Deputy Majority Whip, on an MSNBC cable talk show. When challenged to affirm or disavow the conduct of the Bush administration, Cantor said that fingers should not be pointed nor blame assessed for past conduct. He argued that the only relevant questions relate to the future and how the candidates would approach the present situations. Cantor’s protest of accountability is only the latest restatement of the position of a substantial number of Republican office holders over the last five to six years. It is obvious that their position is to avoid any accounting or review. It is not an unqualified support for the actions of the administration because such a position would be untenable and they understand that. This failure of the Republican Party is a decision to place their party over principle, over their oath of office and a dereliction of their responsibility as a co-equal branch of our government.
McCain is still the best candidate but his baggage is ugly.
So I sit here angry and try to find something to give me comfort in deciding whether to vote for the best candidate or against his party. The media is of no help. In fact, the cable coverage of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox has been ludicrous in the respective bias of each. The coverage of the old networks has been insignificant. I think that I am a fairly intelligent, educated and well read citizen yet I haven't reached a decision. Assuredly there are differences in the stated proposals “for reform” between the candidates. The party platforms, the candidate speeches, the spin of their talking-heads and the point-counterpoint of the arguments, however, are all mostly hollow when considered in the historic viability of “candidate promises.” The “soul” of each party used to be apparent. I don’t recognize either one now.
I would unhesitatingly support the John McCain of 2000. I am angered that the best the opposition could come up with is Senator Obama. I cannot at this point actively support either one. But, how will I vote? For the moment, I am deeply angered by a statement made tonight by Rep. Eric Cantor of my state of Virginia, the Republican Chief Deputy Majority Whip, on an MSNBC cable talk show. When challenged to affirm or disavow the conduct of the Bush administration, Cantor said that fingers should not be pointed nor blame assessed for past conduct. He argued that the only relevant questions relate to the future and how the candidates would approach the present situations. Cantor’s protest of accountability is only the latest restatement of the position of a substantial number of Republican office holders over the last five to six years. It is obvious that their position is to avoid any accounting or review. It is not an unqualified support for the actions of the administration because such a position would be untenable and they understand that. This failure of the Republican Party is a decision to place their party over principle, over their oath of office and a dereliction of their responsibility as a co-equal branch of our government.
McCain is still the best candidate but his baggage is ugly.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
In the News 3/4/08 and Beyond
"Venezuela and Ecuador sent troops to the Colombian border on Sunday in response to Colombia’s military raid on a rebel encampment in the jungle about a mile inside Ecuador. Colombian forces killed 21 guerrillas belonging to ... FARC, Colombia’s largest rebel group." In an announcement from the White House, President Bush announces his support for Columbia.
So the scenario develops:
1. Venezuela sends a substantial armed force into Columbia "to secure its own borders."
2. U.S. advisors currently in Columbia caught up in the fight.
3. Venezuela cuts off oil to U.S.
4. U.S. sends aircraft in support of U.S. advisors and Columbian forces. President Bush declares NAFTA Treaty authorizes use of force
5. U.S. states threat to Panama Canal requires significant increase in U.S. ground forces in South America. Shortage of available troops necessitates President Bush federalizing all ROTC (college and high school) and graduating all military academy cadets. Civil Air patrol is also federalized and provided with F-100 Super Sabre jets being recovered and reassembled in various locations throughout South Korea. All training and command responsibilities given to Blackwater in multibillion dollar contract.
6. All illegal entries into U.S. from Mexico cease as Halibuton begins massive hiring for no-bid contracts for U.S. troop support facilities to be built along the Amazon River in Brazil. Congress begins inquiry asking "Brazil?" A Haliburton subsidiary admits an undocumented agreement to use the removed lumber in construction of Bush's Presidential Library and Cheney's Great Pyramid.
7. Bush orders surprise flanking attack by US forces on Venezuela from Brazil along the Amazon citing already existing facilities built by Haliburton.
8. In a press conference, President Bush says that the C.I.A. had failed to inform him of the existence of heavy jungle along the Amazon but says forces will surge on with an expected arrival at the Venezuelan border within the year. The President declines further comment citing the need for secrecy to insure surprise.
9. In a move said to be necessary to protect U.S. civilian population, the president orders the internment of all Legal Aid attorneys of Hispanic ancestry. "Sesame Street" writers arrested in alleged plot to promote terrorist activities using Spanish alphabet codes.
10. U.S. Congress abdicates. Bush declaration of his Dynasty by Divine Right supported by Republican right wing, Fox News, Mike Huckabee and United Fruit Board of Directors.
11. In a move said by Viceroy Cheney necessary to protect rear echelons of U.S. forces fighting in Columbia, the U.S. invades Canada. The Japanese surrender documents signed following World War II are cited as authority for the invasion. Haliburton begins construction in Canada of eight NFL stadiums for troop moral.
12. All hostilities end abruptly as China calls in all U.S. debt.
So the scenario develops:
1. Venezuela sends a substantial armed force into Columbia "to secure its own borders."
2. U.S. advisors currently in Columbia caught up in the fight.
3. Venezuela cuts off oil to U.S.
4. U.S. sends aircraft in support of U.S. advisors and Columbian forces. President Bush declares NAFTA Treaty authorizes use of force
5. U.S. states threat to Panama Canal requires significant increase in U.S. ground forces in South America. Shortage of available troops necessitates President Bush federalizing all ROTC (college and high school) and graduating all military academy cadets. Civil Air patrol is also federalized and provided with F-100 Super Sabre jets being recovered and reassembled in various locations throughout South Korea. All training and command responsibilities given to Blackwater in multibillion dollar contract.
6. All illegal entries into U.S. from Mexico cease as Halibuton begins massive hiring for no-bid contracts for U.S. troop support facilities to be built along the Amazon River in Brazil. Congress begins inquiry asking "Brazil?" A Haliburton subsidiary admits an undocumented agreement to use the removed lumber in construction of Bush's Presidential Library and Cheney's Great Pyramid.
7. Bush orders surprise flanking attack by US forces on Venezuela from Brazil along the Amazon citing already existing facilities built by Haliburton.
8. In a press conference, President Bush says that the C.I.A. had failed to inform him of the existence of heavy jungle along the Amazon but says forces will surge on with an expected arrival at the Venezuelan border within the year. The President declines further comment citing the need for secrecy to insure surprise.
9. In a move said to be necessary to protect U.S. civilian population, the president orders the internment of all Legal Aid attorneys of Hispanic ancestry. "Sesame Street" writers arrested in alleged plot to promote terrorist activities using Spanish alphabet codes.
10. U.S. Congress abdicates. Bush declaration of his Dynasty by Divine Right supported by Republican right wing, Fox News, Mike Huckabee and United Fruit Board of Directors.
11. In a move said by Viceroy Cheney necessary to protect rear echelons of U.S. forces fighting in Columbia, the U.S. invades Canada. The Japanese surrender documents signed following World War II are cited as authority for the invasion. Haliburton begins construction in Canada of eight NFL stadiums for troop moral.
12. All hostilities end abruptly as China calls in all U.S. debt.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Defund State
The United States Senate has begun again to debate the Iraq debacle. The preliminary speeches and sound bites have focused on our continuing military commitment. The President asks that we wait for the September assessment by General Patraeus. His opposition demands immediate planning for troop withdrawals. There had been talk about the congressional exercise of its control of funding to force a military closure. Our men and women in uniform are performing heroically and successfully. The generals now commanding them and commanding media attention are rightly driven by a sense of duty to accomplish the assigned mission. The tragedy within Iraq is not of their doing nor within their capability to correct. To focus on the military is to walk head long into the tree in a pine forest.
All emphasis should now be focused on forcing this President to implement recommendations of the Baker/Hamilton Report and begin immediately a strategic political initiative. This initiative must be open and direct, drawing in all concerned nations. This initiative must acknowledge the willingness of the United States to accept a reasoned and equitable resolution. If only implicitly, this President must acknowledge his administration's inability to command the respect of the other nations in reaching a diplomatic resolution and work to assemble a coalition of nations. The world is aware of the political climate within this country and would recognize the voice of our Congress as an assertion of the long-term will of the Nation. Congress is, frankly, out of its league in directing military matters but, if it can put aside partisan politics, it can speak forcefully both to this President and to the world.
Should the President fail to immediately act to begin such a strategic approach Congress might consider cutting funding for the Department of State. It is clear that the President, during the reign of Rumsfeld, had little if any use for the State Department. It is also clear now that the Department has no functional responsibility regarding this country's single most important international crisis. If Congress shuns the real issue and needs a plaything let it be State and not Defense.
All emphasis should now be focused on forcing this President to implement recommendations of the Baker/Hamilton Report and begin immediately a strategic political initiative. This initiative must be open and direct, drawing in all concerned nations. This initiative must acknowledge the willingness of the United States to accept a reasoned and equitable resolution. If only implicitly, this President must acknowledge his administration's inability to command the respect of the other nations in reaching a diplomatic resolution and work to assemble a coalition of nations. The world is aware of the political climate within this country and would recognize the voice of our Congress as an assertion of the long-term will of the Nation. Congress is, frankly, out of its league in directing military matters but, if it can put aside partisan politics, it can speak forcefully both to this President and to the world.
Should the President fail to immediately act to begin such a strategic approach Congress might consider cutting funding for the Department of State. It is clear that the President, during the reign of Rumsfeld, had little if any use for the State Department. It is also clear now that the Department has no functional responsibility regarding this country's single most important international crisis. If Congress shuns the real issue and needs a plaything let it be State and not Defense.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Accountability
Maybe, just maybe Congress will follow through with its responsibility to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062701325.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062701325.html?hpid=topnews
Sunday, May 13, 2007
What Are They Saying, Mr. President?
"In today's Afghanistan, people are free to speak their minds...."
Remarks by the President on the Global War on Terror to the American Enterprise Institute, February 15, 2007.
The New York Times website today published a front page report on the United States/NATO effort in Afghanistan. "Civilian Deaths Undermine War on Taliban" By Carlotta Gall and David E. Sanger. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/world/asia/13AFGHAN.html?hp There are many issues that are raised in this article but for now only one has pushed my button.
The report begins "Scores of civilian deaths over the past months from heavy American and allied reliance on airstrikes to battle Taliban insurgents are threatening popular support for the Afghan government and creating severe strains within the NATO alliance." American and NATO military sources as reported in the article contend that the airstrikes are necessary because there are not enough ground forces. The article quotes a senior NATO official as saying "without air, we'd need hundreds of thousands of troops" in Afghanistan.
The President in his speech to the AEI in February (see below) spoke proudly that "Just two weeks ago, NATO launched an air strike against Taliban fighters who had seized the town of Musa Qala in Helmand province--a key Taliban commander was brought to justice. " Todays report in the Times points to "reports [having] surfaced of at least 21 civilians killed in an airstrike in Helmand Province, though residents reached by phone said the toll could be as high as 80."
Gen Patraeus in Iraq is exercising counter-insurgency dogma that purposefully attempts to avoid the use of air and artillery that could cause unnecessary civilian casualties. The well-founded rationale is intended to avoid the precise reaction from the indigenous population that we are apparently causing in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a war that America and most of the world agreed had legitimately targeted Bin Laden, his al Qaeda band and the Taliban that gave them refuge. United States forces were given a mission that had a high probability of success if adequate military resources had been committed to the effort. President Bush, encouraged by his neo's, pulled the plug on war against a real and now growing threat. President Bush allowed Bin Laden to live on.
I doubt that NATO will substantially add to the forces now in Afghanistan in large measure because of the lack of leadership from our government. Bush, by his continuous exercise of gross judgement in and about Iraq and the wrongly named "war" on terror, has abdicated a leadership role in the conduct of world affairs. To be sure, NATO countries should see the need to crush the Taliban as their own national priority. The United States had led NATO for decades, primarily by example and credible, persuasive leadership from the White House. No NATO country has the credibility or leadership necessary to respond to the force demands now in Afghanistan. They must be looking over their shoulder at England to see what happened to a follower of Bush's policies.
No matter how critical the needs in Afghanistan Bush does not have the political credibility in the United States to be able to correct his error and reinforce the troops in Afghanistan. We lack the forces to maintain adequate ground force levels in both countries. American lives will continue to be lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has taken Bush and our military command almost four years to bring about a reasoned, credible strategy in Iraq. It appears that they need more time to apply one in Afghanistan. And that is part of the continuing tragedy of his Presidency.
A brief discussion of "hearts and minds" in Afghanistan: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9164957
A view of Afghanistan as only President Bush can articulate in one of the few remaining venues receptive to his perspectives:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25630,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
Remarks by the President on the Global War on Terror to the American Enterprise Institute, February 15, 2007.
The New York Times website today published a front page report on the United States/NATO effort in Afghanistan. "Civilian Deaths Undermine War on Taliban" By Carlotta Gall and David E. Sanger. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/world/asia/13AFGHAN.html?hp There are many issues that are raised in this article but for now only one has pushed my button.
The report begins "Scores of civilian deaths over the past months from heavy American and allied reliance on airstrikes to battle Taliban insurgents are threatening popular support for the Afghan government and creating severe strains within the NATO alliance." American and NATO military sources as reported in the article contend that the airstrikes are necessary because there are not enough ground forces. The article quotes a senior NATO official as saying "without air, we'd need hundreds of thousands of troops" in Afghanistan.
The President in his speech to the AEI in February (see below) spoke proudly that "Just two weeks ago, NATO launched an air strike against Taliban fighters who had seized the town of Musa Qala in Helmand province--a key Taliban commander was brought to justice. " Todays report in the Times points to "reports [having] surfaced of at least 21 civilians killed in an airstrike in Helmand Province, though residents reached by phone said the toll could be as high as 80."
Gen Patraeus in Iraq is exercising counter-insurgency dogma that purposefully attempts to avoid the use of air and artillery that could cause unnecessary civilian casualties. The well-founded rationale is intended to avoid the precise reaction from the indigenous population that we are apparently causing in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a war that America and most of the world agreed had legitimately targeted Bin Laden, his al Qaeda band and the Taliban that gave them refuge. United States forces were given a mission that had a high probability of success if adequate military resources had been committed to the effort. President Bush, encouraged by his neo's, pulled the plug on war against a real and now growing threat. President Bush allowed Bin Laden to live on.
I doubt that NATO will substantially add to the forces now in Afghanistan in large measure because of the lack of leadership from our government. Bush, by his continuous exercise of gross judgement in and about Iraq and the wrongly named "war" on terror, has abdicated a leadership role in the conduct of world affairs. To be sure, NATO countries should see the need to crush the Taliban as their own national priority. The United States had led NATO for decades, primarily by example and credible, persuasive leadership from the White House. No NATO country has the credibility or leadership necessary to respond to the force demands now in Afghanistan. They must be looking over their shoulder at England to see what happened to a follower of Bush's policies.
No matter how critical the needs in Afghanistan Bush does not have the political credibility in the United States to be able to correct his error and reinforce the troops in Afghanistan. We lack the forces to maintain adequate ground force levels in both countries. American lives will continue to be lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has taken Bush and our military command almost four years to bring about a reasoned, credible strategy in Iraq. It appears that they need more time to apply one in Afghanistan. And that is part of the continuing tragedy of his Presidency.
A brief discussion of "hearts and minds" in Afghanistan: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9164957
A view of Afghanistan as only President Bush can articulate in one of the few remaining venues receptive to his perspectives:
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25630,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
Thursday, May 10, 2007
"Gee, Mr. President, help us keep our jobs."
The front page heading on the New York Times websight reads "GOP Moderates warn Bush Iraq Must Show Gains." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/washington/10cong.html?hp
"Moderate Republicans gave President Bush a blunt warning on his Iraq policy at a private White House meeting this week, telling the president that conditions needed to improve markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war."
Now after four years of obvious, escalating, gross negligence in the Bush administration's orchestration of the war in Iraq and the complicity of a neutered military command structure, do "moderate" Republican Congressmen tell the President that "conditions need to improve." Only now, in fear of the personal loss of political power, patronage and notoriety, do these hypocrites confront the President with a call for "improvements." During the Republican control of both houses of Congress they sat back as our efforts in Iraq and in the region were melded into the fiasco we now face. While over three thousand of our finest young women and men were dying, they sat back and repeated the same inane characterizations our President had memorized. They sat back when the Administration used blatantly unfounded fear tactics to win a national election. When the President took illegal actions against American citizens "to defend our American freedoms," they sat back because the Rove/Bush efforts were good for the Party. While the prestige, influence and power of the United States in the world were dangerously diminished, they sat back and memorized Bush's rhetoric; a rhetoric that was at times simply vacuous and at times blatantly and knowingly false. They sat back and never questioned.
These, "our representatives," have not shown themselves to be worthy of the office we have bestowed on them. They deserve no credit for confronting the President to save votes for their Party. When their time comes and they solicit votes in their district or beyond, I sincerely pray that the voters follow their lead and sit back and ignore their set of lies.
I do not suggest by silence that the Democratic Party is without comparable fault, however, I am sure that there will be ample opportunity to address their hypocrisy in the near future.
"Moderate Republicans gave President Bush a blunt warning on his Iraq policy at a private White House meeting this week, telling the president that conditions needed to improve markedly by fall or more Republicans would desert him on the war."
Now after four years of obvious, escalating, gross negligence in the Bush administration's orchestration of the war in Iraq and the complicity of a neutered military command structure, do "moderate" Republican Congressmen tell the President that "conditions need to improve." Only now, in fear of the personal loss of political power, patronage and notoriety, do these hypocrites confront the President with a call for "improvements." During the Republican control of both houses of Congress they sat back as our efforts in Iraq and in the region were melded into the fiasco we now face. While over three thousand of our finest young women and men were dying, they sat back and repeated the same inane characterizations our President had memorized. They sat back when the Administration used blatantly unfounded fear tactics to win a national election. When the President took illegal actions against American citizens "to defend our American freedoms," they sat back because the Rove/Bush efforts were good for the Party. While the prestige, influence and power of the United States in the world were dangerously diminished, they sat back and memorized Bush's rhetoric; a rhetoric that was at times simply vacuous and at times blatantly and knowingly false. They sat back and never questioned.
These, "our representatives," have not shown themselves to be worthy of the office we have bestowed on them. They deserve no credit for confronting the President to save votes for their Party. When their time comes and they solicit votes in their district or beyond, I sincerely pray that the voters follow their lead and sit back and ignore their set of lies.
I do not suggest by silence that the Democratic Party is without comparable fault, however, I am sure that there will be ample opportunity to address their hypocrisy in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)