It has been a little while since I last wrote. Nevertheless, I wanted to add my two cents on the dissenting situation that seems to be unfolding in Iraq, even as I write. For those of you who have been hiding under a rock, here's a random URL pertaining to what I plan on writing about: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-13-democrats_x.htm
You might have guessed it, but this blog entry is devoted to one George W. Bush. Having gone to an extremely liberal college where "Impeach Bush" and "Go Green" bumper stickers seemed to outnumber all else, I have been programmed to hate this man that blatantly stole the White House in 2000, and followed by a close election, to which we can attribute his victory to the ineptitude of the Kerry Campaign in 2004. Yet, I don't hate him, and for the most part, I can see why he would do the things that he does, based on his character alone.
From the very beginning, his presidency has been defined by the attacks of September 11, 2001. Without this single most heinous act on American soil, there would be no doubt in my mind that his presidency would have simply been characterized as the most in-effective term out of any presidency (and that rhetoric may still hold true). Since the attacks, he has used the fear of terrorism as a means to win his re-election (based on the false assumption that he was a war-time president), and has turned his global war on terrorism on Iraq - justifying this war by linking Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
When that connection failed to materialize, he began echoing calls for a global fight on terrorism, with Iraq planted firmly in the middle. Since then, the American army - long regarded as the strongest in the world - has been inadvertently placed in harm's way - for a cause that is ambiguously buried in a sea of bureaucratic mishaps that has leaked into the general mainstream. They are fighting a war where the enemy is not readily apparent - and the goal ambiguously defined.
What started as a simple invasion to tout American superiority in the Middle East, has resulted in a quagmire that mirrors the mistakes of the Vietnam War - long heralded as the worst foreign policy blunder in American history. I guess that is what happens when you have Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney- two Foreign Policy Vulcans left over from the Nixon era - initiating the Iraq war. The plethora of mistakes initiated by these two men have resulted in over 3000 soldier deaths, a deficit that will surely be detrimental to our grandchildren, and a loss of credibility with our allies.
Notice how I haven't exactly placed any blame on Mr. President. That is because I am a firm believer that he is merely a puppet president - with the puppet master being the strongly conservative corporate base of the Republican Party. The puppet master has managed to exert their influence by flooding Congress with a plethora of lobbyists, whose sole purpose was to coerce the Republicans to vote on the side of big businesses - thus resulting in the fantastic gains that Wall Street has experienced - despite declining confidence in the housing market, remarkably high oil prices (at least up until a few months ago), and a ballooning budget deficit that was the result of massive tax cuts for the wealthy. I mean, how can one justify the $10 billion dollar profits of Exxon/Mobil (of course, my numbers could be wrong, but it is at least somewhere in the ballpark) while middle class Americans are struggling to heat their homes? Why does it take a borderline leftist dictator from Venezuela to help the lower class heat their homes, yet our president sits idly by and watches as his corporate masters make unimaginable sums of money?
Nevertheless, I do not dislike Bush because like I said, he has virtually zero power when it comes to politics. One needs only to take a look at Dick Cheaney to realize that his strong personality and quiet demeanor demonstrates the power struggle at the top of American Politics. The only problem that I have with Bush these days, is the afore-mentioned link that I posted above.
The Iraq war has gone on for nearly four years, with no end in sight. As I mentioned earlier, the U.S. Army is fighting an un-assuming enemy, and quite frankly, lack the man power to fight the growing insurgence among the Sunni's, Shiite's, and Kurds - who, some have speculated, are in the middle of a Civil War. To protect his own Hubris, Bush has elected to send an additional 20000 troops - something that Rumsfeld disregarded in the beginning of this struggle - in hopes of stabilizing Iraq - so that the Iraq's can stand up and fight for their own country. This, as speculated by many, is a last attempt of the Bush administration to quell the insurgency. If it works (highly doubtful), Bush will be regarded as a savior. If it fails (most likely), he will leave the resulting turmoil to the next president, which all signs point to will be from the Democratic Party.
Mr. Bush has long disregarded the will of the American people, and the Checks and Balances of the United States government that our founding fathers have put in place to assure a fair and just governing process. In electing to send more troops without the support of the majority of Congress, House of Representatives, and the American people, he is effectively demonstrating his dictatorial powers that Saddam Hussein was once shunned for possessing. Rather than openly sending his troops to, for example, execute Kurds in his own country, Bush is sending troops with the intent of "hunting down and killing the terrorists" in another country, as he outlined in his recent speech in the White House Library. Are we so blind as a country to not be able to draw this parallel? Probably not - but we do lack the mobilization power to stop this president from dissenting into a last ditch attempt in saving his hubris.
Allow me to put this into perspective: The president and his administration manipulated CIA intelligence to allow for the invasion of Iraq - citing weapons of mass destruction. When that failed, we turned to the ever-reliable trope of fighting a global war on terrorism. We invaded a sovereign country under false pretenses, imprisoned their leader, and brutally turned a cheek when he was executed in disgusting fashion. Now, we are stuck in Iraq, fighting an enemy that didn't exist before the invasion. If I were an ordinary Iraqi citizen, and all I hear on the (presumably) Al-Jazeera network that there is a foreign presence invading my country, wouldn't I be inclined to take up arms to fight for my own country? Killing terrorists without addressing the root of the problem, is akin to cutting grass - it will eventually grow back. The Bush administration may be far-sighted when it comes to America's foreign policy, but they are extremely short-sighted when dealing with terrorists and potential terrorists.
Like I said, I don't dislike Bush. He is a man that has run out of options, and wishes to have one last attempt at saving his face - and the fate of the Republican party. The result, though, is a global struggle for American to remain dominant in their military- and a future that is uncertain with regard to our foreign policy, growing debt crisis, and and economy that is waiting to crumble under the weight of the deficit, and international conflicts of ideology.
You might have guessed it, but this blog entry is devoted to one George W. Bush. Having gone to an extremely liberal college where "Impeach Bush" and "Go Green" bumper stickers seemed to outnumber all else, I have been programmed to hate this man that blatantly stole the White House in 2000, and followed by a close election, to which we can attribute his victory to the ineptitude of the Kerry Campaign in 2004. Yet, I don't hate him, and for the most part, I can see why he would do the things that he does, based on his character alone.
From the very beginning, his presidency has been defined by the attacks of September 11, 2001. Without this single most heinous act on American soil, there would be no doubt in my mind that his presidency would have simply been characterized as the most in-effective term out of any presidency (and that rhetoric may still hold true). Since the attacks, he has used the fear of terrorism as a means to win his re-election (based on the false assumption that he was a war-time president), and has turned his global war on terrorism on Iraq - justifying this war by linking Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
When that connection failed to materialize, he began echoing calls for a global fight on terrorism, with Iraq planted firmly in the middle. Since then, the American army - long regarded as the strongest in the world - has been inadvertently placed in harm's way - for a cause that is ambiguously buried in a sea of bureaucratic mishaps that has leaked into the general mainstream. They are fighting a war where the enemy is not readily apparent - and the goal ambiguously defined.
What started as a simple invasion to tout American superiority in the Middle East, has resulted in a quagmire that mirrors the mistakes of the Vietnam War - long heralded as the worst foreign policy blunder in American history. I guess that is what happens when you have Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney- two Foreign Policy Vulcans left over from the Nixon era - initiating the Iraq war. The plethora of mistakes initiated by these two men have resulted in over 3000 soldier deaths, a deficit that will surely be detrimental to our grandchildren, and a loss of credibility with our allies.
Notice how I haven't exactly placed any blame on Mr. President. That is because I am a firm believer that he is merely a puppet president - with the puppet master being the strongly conservative corporate base of the Republican Party. The puppet master has managed to exert their influence by flooding Congress with a plethora of lobbyists, whose sole purpose was to coerce the Republicans to vote on the side of big businesses - thus resulting in the fantastic gains that Wall Street has experienced - despite declining confidence in the housing market, remarkably high oil prices (at least up until a few months ago), and a ballooning budget deficit that was the result of massive tax cuts for the wealthy. I mean, how can one justify the $10 billion dollar profits of Exxon/Mobil (of course, my numbers could be wrong, but it is at least somewhere in the ballpark) while middle class Americans are struggling to heat their homes? Why does it take a borderline leftist dictator from Venezuela to help the lower class heat their homes, yet our president sits idly by and watches as his corporate masters make unimaginable sums of money?
Nevertheless, I do not dislike Bush because like I said, he has virtually zero power when it comes to politics. One needs only to take a look at Dick Cheaney to realize that his strong personality and quiet demeanor demonstrates the power struggle at the top of American Politics. The only problem that I have with Bush these days, is the afore-mentioned link that I posted above.
The Iraq war has gone on for nearly four years, with no end in sight. As I mentioned earlier, the U.S. Army is fighting an un-assuming enemy, and quite frankly, lack the man power to fight the growing insurgence among the Sunni's, Shiite's, and Kurds - who, some have speculated, are in the middle of a Civil War. To protect his own Hubris, Bush has elected to send an additional 20000 troops - something that Rumsfeld disregarded in the beginning of this struggle - in hopes of stabilizing Iraq - so that the Iraq's can stand up and fight for their own country. This, as speculated by many, is a last attempt of the Bush administration to quell the insurgency. If it works (highly doubtful), Bush will be regarded as a savior. If it fails (most likely), he will leave the resulting turmoil to the next president, which all signs point to will be from the Democratic Party.
Mr. Bush has long disregarded the will of the American people, and the Checks and Balances of the United States government that our founding fathers have put in place to assure a fair and just governing process. In electing to send more troops without the support of the majority of Congress, House of Representatives, and the American people, he is effectively demonstrating his dictatorial powers that Saddam Hussein was once shunned for possessing. Rather than openly sending his troops to, for example, execute Kurds in his own country, Bush is sending troops with the intent of "hunting down and killing the terrorists" in another country, as he outlined in his recent speech in the White House Library. Are we so blind as a country to not be able to draw this parallel? Probably not - but we do lack the mobilization power to stop this president from dissenting into a last ditch attempt in saving his hubris.
Allow me to put this into perspective: The president and his administration manipulated CIA intelligence to allow for the invasion of Iraq - citing weapons of mass destruction. When that failed, we turned to the ever-reliable trope of fighting a global war on terrorism. We invaded a sovereign country under false pretenses, imprisoned their leader, and brutally turned a cheek when he was executed in disgusting fashion. Now, we are stuck in Iraq, fighting an enemy that didn't exist before the invasion. If I were an ordinary Iraqi citizen, and all I hear on the (presumably) Al-Jazeera network that there is a foreign presence invading my country, wouldn't I be inclined to take up arms to fight for my own country? Killing terrorists without addressing the root of the problem, is akin to cutting grass - it will eventually grow back. The Bush administration may be far-sighted when it comes to America's foreign policy, but they are extremely short-sighted when dealing with terrorists and potential terrorists.
Like I said, I don't dislike Bush. He is a man that has run out of options, and wishes to have one last attempt at saving his face - and the fate of the Republican party. The result, though, is a global struggle for American to remain dominant in their military- and a future that is uncertain with regard to our foreign policy, growing debt crisis, and and economy that is waiting to crumble under the weight of the deficit, and international conflicts of ideology.
No comments:
Post a Comment