|
Archive: 3/14/03
When powerful leaders loose touch,
the people need to be on their toes
A very good and
old
friend
( who is incorrectly conservative) and I have been having an
ongoing give-and-take on George Bush's war. At one point I said
to him something like, "Bush is the wrong man to lead this
parade." I'd been thinking that for some time. I'm not a
pacifist --not that there's anything wrong with that-- I believe
WWII was a necessary war, for instance. But I thought that, not
only was this war a bad idea to start with, but George Bush and
his junta made it an even more odious endeavor. If somebody with
a head on his shoulders was at the helm things might be different.
Well, it seems like
Paul Krugman of the NY Times agrees.
Krugamn says
in today's commentary, "There's a long list of pundits who
previously supported Bush's policy on Iraq but have publicly
changed their minds...they are finally realizing that Mr. Bush
is the wrong man to do the job...including a fair number of people
in the Treasury Department, the State Department and, yes, the
Pentagon... (they) don't just question the competence of Mr.
Bush and his inner circle; they believe that America's leadership
has lost touch with reality."
Lost touch with reality. Listen up! Lost touch with reality!
This is not Jacques Chirac saying these things. Consider it at
least.
Bush ambulates
upon a carpet of arrogance, but, Krugman asks, "Wasn't someone
at the State Department allowed to point out that in matters
nonmilitary, the U.S. isn't all that dominant — that Russia
and Turkey need the European market more than they need ours,
that Europe gives more than twice as much foreign aid as we do
and that in much of the world public opinion matters? Apparently
not.
Remember this,
the basic rationale for this war has been that Saddam Hussein
has Al-Qaeda links. But in all this time the Bush administration
has failed to produce proof that this is so. The only "proof
" they have is an appeal to their own credibility, but they
have none. As Krugman says, "The original reasons given
for making Iraq an immediate priority have collapsed. No evidence
has ever surfaced of the supposed link with Al Qaeda, or of an
active nuclear program."
What,
me worry?
"What really has the insiders panicked," says the columnist,
"is the irresponsibility of Mr. Bush and his team, their
almost childish unwillingness to face up to problems that they
don't feel like dealing with right now...(their) eerie passivity
in the face of a stalling economy and an exploding budget deficit:
reality isn't allowed to intrude on the obsession with long-run
tax cuts. That same "don't bother me, I'm busy" attitude
is driving foreign policy experts, inside and outside the government,
to despair"
It's kind of like Saddam doing his cock-a-doodle-dos for the
camera, threatening to waste the U.S.A in a one-on-one. A complete
cleaving of the brain from the bald facts of the situation. In
this case the one who's more dangerous is the one with the greatest
destructive power. Who will he turn his neurotic disconnect upon
next, us?
He's not all here folks... and then there's North Korea...
Krugman again: "Need I point out that North Korea, not Iraq,
is the clear and present danger? Kim Jong Il's nuclear program
isn't a rumor or a forgery; it's an incipient bomb assembly line.
Yet the administration insists that it's a mere "regional"
crisis, and refuses even to talk to Mr. Kim.
Again, READ
THIS ARTICLE! especially if you've been supporting this man.
RETURN
TO TOP
What ignoramus' are beating these drums, anyway? The Chicken
Hawks, that's who.
"It
is interesting to me that many of those who want to rush this
country into war and think it would be so quick and easy don't
know anything about war," observed Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska."
This remark can be found in The
Nelson Report,
a prestigious foreign policy newsletter.
What is a chicken hawk exactly? "According to the New Hampshire
Gazette (online at www.nhgazette.com), which maintains a
database on the subject, this "is a term often applied to
public persons--generally male--who (1) tend to advocate …
military solutions to political problems, and who have personally
(2) declined to take advantage of a significant opportunity to
serve in uniform during wartime." This would include, first
and foremost, George Bush and Dick Cheney...I know, I know, George
wore a uniform at that time, but so did your local postman and
UPS driver, and he was in about as likely to meet up with the
Viet Cong as they were.
It was the kind of dodge from military service that, according
to Secretary of State and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman
Colin Powell's memoirs, was generally reserved for "the
sons of the powerful."
Vice president Cheney actually insisted to one inquiring reporter
that he "had other priorities in the 1960s than military
service." Didn't they all --all 50,000 plus who died an
early death in Viet Nam?
RETURN
TO TOP
Some thoughts on this petulant, adolescent diss-the-French routine
(thanks
The One True b!X http://www.theonetruebix.com)
(1) If one
more person says of the French, "They owe use for saving
their asses in World War II," I'm going to bitchslap them
with a history textbook on the American Revolution.
(2) Enough with
the pansy-ass renaming of "French" to "Freedom"
-- if we were serious about this, we'd be boxing up the Statue
of Liberty and sending it back. It's not as if we deserve it
these days anyway.
(3) When do we
seal our border with Quebec?
And then there's this from Molly Ivins. A
little reminder to help keep your mouth shut if it's foaming
with jingoist machismo.
RETURN
TO TOP
 |
|
