Poor Mr. Bush
Just when most of the world was lambasting our poor president with disdain and contempt, accusing him of everything from bumbling incompetence to sublime ignorance, the poor guy suffers yet another defeat in his democratization program for the Middle East. Iraq. The threat of civil war looms in a failed country, one that our beloved leaders not so long ago told us was full of people who would welcome American troops with open arms and bouquets of flowers, the way Europeans welcomed their liberators. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen. The Pandora’s Box that many predicted would result from America’s invasion of that country based on false intelligence – if one is to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt, which in itself is a stretch for many – seems to be opening.
In any case, it is happening and because it's happening it simply adds to the mess the world is in – from Al Qaeda terrorists operating at will in Iraq to abuses of prisoners at Guantanimo to torture at Abu Graib and seemingly dozens of other detention centers in Afghanistan and, apparently, in “new” Europe. Not to mention the poor people of Iraq.
Meanwhile, the jobless recovery of the American economy continues sluggishly and the dollar still hovers below the euro. The poverty gap widens in America and around the world and poor Mr. Bush has to admit that the government even got things wrong in the aftermath of Katrina. It’s not a very pleasant picture, this state of the union – and not one that Mr. Bush cared to talk about in “his” state of the union message.
Tilting at those Middle East windmills is not helping the situation very much, Sir. The enemy is still on the loose, wanted dead or alive. The clash of civilizations is drawing closer by the day. American credibility is sinking faster than the dollar.
Let's face it, Mr. President, the state of the union sucks!
No wonder many returning vets are looking to the Democrats to save them.
So here we are three years later and what has the Bush adventure in the Middle East contributed to the world – peace, stability, increased admiration for American intervention in the affairs of others, generosity in the face of disaster, words of wisdom to those who have lost the way or serious progress against those who wish America harm?
The true believer screams, “Just wait. Things are bound to improve.” The realist answers, “The world is a much more dangerous place than it was after 9/11.”
But the question remains, why? Can we simply put it down to ignorance of the world or incompetence? Most people recognize that Bush is probably the most unsuitable leader the Free World has ever had. He has failed at everything he has tried so far, including the presidency. Apart from his own fantasies about having a direct line to God, everything he touches turns to stone. The man is the archetypical loser and everyone knows it.
If anyone doubts it, just look at his latest proposal – to let entrepreneurs from the Middle East run American ports! He has to be kidding! Free trade, he calls it! How about freeing the people of the UAE, especially the women, while we’re at it? What does Bush have to say about that – and why, by the way, is he willing to defy even his own supporters to push this issue to its conclusion in spite of heavy opposition on both sides of the aisle?
Here’s some information that might shed some light on this issue. Could it be that there is something more important to Mr. Bush than the security of the United States, consistency of principle and a belief in freedom, democracy and justice (something that the UAE cannot lay claim to under any circumstances)?
What a mess! It’s enough to make one feel sorry for him, to shed a tear of support for this much-maligned master of political intrigue. Clearly, he’s starting to feel the pain. Poor Mr. Bush.
Tags:
Bush, terrorism, UAE, U.S._Ports, Katrina, Middle_East
In any case, it is happening and because it's happening it simply adds to the mess the world is in – from Al Qaeda terrorists operating at will in Iraq to abuses of prisoners at Guantanimo to torture at Abu Graib and seemingly dozens of other detention centers in Afghanistan and, apparently, in “new” Europe. Not to mention the poor people of Iraq.
Meanwhile, the jobless recovery of the American economy continues sluggishly and the dollar still hovers below the euro. The poverty gap widens in America and around the world and poor Mr. Bush has to admit that the government even got things wrong in the aftermath of Katrina. It’s not a very pleasant picture, this state of the union – and not one that Mr. Bush cared to talk about in “his” state of the union message.
Tilting at those Middle East windmills is not helping the situation very much, Sir. The enemy is still on the loose, wanted dead or alive. The clash of civilizations is drawing closer by the day. American credibility is sinking faster than the dollar.
Let's face it, Mr. President, the state of the union sucks!
No wonder many returning vets are looking to the Democrats to save them.
Now running for office: an army of Iraq war vets. All but one of these 50 or so House hopefuls are in the Democratic Party.
So here we are three years later and what has the Bush adventure in the Middle East contributed to the world – peace, stability, increased admiration for American intervention in the affairs of others, generosity in the face of disaster, words of wisdom to those who have lost the way or serious progress against those who wish America harm?
The true believer screams, “Just wait. Things are bound to improve.” The realist answers, “The world is a much more dangerous place than it was after 9/11.”
But the question remains, why? Can we simply put it down to ignorance of the world or incompetence? Most people recognize that Bush is probably the most unsuitable leader the Free World has ever had. He has failed at everything he has tried so far, including the presidency. Apart from his own fantasies about having a direct line to God, everything he touches turns to stone. The man is the archetypical loser and everyone knows it.
If anyone doubts it, just look at his latest proposal – to let entrepreneurs from the Middle East run American ports! He has to be kidding! Free trade, he calls it! How about freeing the people of the UAE, especially the women, while we’re at it? What does Bush have to say about that – and why, by the way, is he willing to defy even his own supporters to push this issue to its conclusion in spite of heavy opposition on both sides of the aisle?
Here’s some information that might shed some light on this issue. Could it be that there is something more important to Mr. Bush than the security of the United States, consistency of principle and a belief in freedom, democracy and justice (something that the UAE cannot lay claim to under any circumstances)?
How much does "free" trade have to do with this? How about a lot. The Bush administration is in the middle of a two-year push to ink a corporate-backed "free" trade accord with the UAE. At the end of 2004, in fact, it was Bush Trade Representative Robert Zoellick who proudly boasted of his trip to the UAE to begin negotiating the trade accord. Rejecting this port security deal might have set back that trade pact. Accepting the port security deal - regardless of the security consequences - likely greases the wheels for the pact. That's probably why instead of backing off the deal, President Bush - supposedly Mr. Tough on National Secuirty - took the extraordinary step of threatening to use the first veto of his entire presidency to protect the UAE's interests. Because he knows protecting those interetsts - regardless of the security implications for America - is integral to the "free" trade agenda all of his corporate supporters are demanding.
What a mess! It’s enough to make one feel sorry for him, to shed a tear of support for this much-maligned master of political intrigue. Clearly, he’s starting to feel the pain. Poor Mr. Bush.
Tags:
Bush, terrorism, UAE, U.S._Ports, Katrina, Middle_East
posted by J. DeVincent at 10:47 AM
2 Comments:
Ok. Maybe you're right about the Emerites. But one has to wonder whether, objectively, it was not the right thing to do.
The point is, it seems to me, that the Bush administration has done little to castigate those Bush supporters who are intent on seeing the Clash of Civilizations become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Suddenly opening the free-market flood gates to "Islamic devils" does not go down well in most political circles. Added to that, Bush's reputation as a big-spending conservative and a Joe Lieberman Democrat doesn't do much to boost his image on the political right or left.
Bush may do better with hydrogen, but most of the real research and development has been done in "Old Europe". That could be a problem, depending on whether Rumsfeld goes or stays.
Post a Comment
<< Home