Letters to the Editor
-
Roll-over-and-play-dead Democrats and the MSM
The MSM has been worse than useless to Americans for years and the Democrats have been complicit in allowing Bush43 to continue his occupation of Iraq.
Those two facts are why candidates like Gravel, Kucinich and Paul stand out from the more-of-the-same pack.
GK's article reminds me of excuses offered up by a battered wife as to why she cannot leave the marriage. Bush43 isn't a bad President, he's the worst President in US history by an enormous margin.
The Bush43 Presidential library ought to be an American version of Spandau prison, with Bush43 its sole occupant.
-
The coasts
I really find this article funny. Mostly because I don't live on the west or the east coast but rather because I'm spending time currently in the deepest pit of the South.
People still write letters to the Editor screaming about how the "liberal media" is unfairly targeting George Bush; or how evil/godless/satanic/ the Democrats are, and how the mainstream news organizations never say anything good about Bush.
The funniest thing I heard was my friends who said that liberal news media used the Virginia Tech Shooting as a smokescreen so they didn't have to report on what was going on in Iraq. Though, why liberals wouldn't be more than happy to play up the failings of war started by a Conservative president is beyond me. I tried to explain that to him, but there was real disconnect. Liberals evil. Conservatives good.
Even conservatives who beleive Bush might have been wrong about invading Iraq, the ones who are pissed at him and lower his approval ratings, would never back an initiative from Democrats to impeach a Republican president. They hate us. That's the real reason, at least in my opinion, why it won't happen. Unless his own party turns on him ( really turns on him.)
-
A Mystery
Believe it or not, this was written last week:
By now most Americans, as well as the large majority of the rest of the world, find themselves confronting a mystery. Why is George Bush still tolerated?
The list of the administration’s perfidies and failures gets longer every day. The least of them seemingly offers a more worthy basis for removing Bush and Co. from office than the (relative) trivia that occasioned an impeachment for Bill Clinton.
I propose an explanation: America as the victim of Spousal Abuse - Battered Spouse syndrome.
Now I know that seems way o-u-t - t-h-e-r-e, but . . . . .
I have long contended that after 9/11 the country desperately wanted to believe in its leadership. More critically, we (and the world) needed to be led well. Initially, and through the first phase in Afghanistan, Bush and Co. fulfilled our hopes (the honeymoon?). After that, the administration has been (quite literally) horrific, and this country has been in denial.
With 9/11 the need for good, even great, leadership was clear, and our history legitimately gave us confidence we would find it. Instead we have been actively pressured to remain creatures of our fears by leaders who have chosen reckless and dangerous paths. In a great confrontation with a complex and difficult reality, logically calling for a response as rich and varied as provided throughout the (‘long’) Cold War, we have established armed conflict as a defining response, and pursued it at great cost in blood, trauma and treasure. In executing their plans, Bush and Co. proceeded to bungle nearly everything beyond belief. Throughout, they conveyed the notion that failing to back them amounted to treason; rejecting their courses, and proposing anything but what they chose, would be Munich all over again. (Battering enough?)
In 2004 we had an opportunity to end this, and strike out anew. But Kerry chose not to insist upon confronting the reality of our situation and the administration’s failures. Nor did he offer a clear and substantive alternative - a grand ‘Cold War’ strategy - for a way forward, in what we understood to be the defining conflict of a new century. So we returned to the psychosis we knew.
To this point, discovering almost daily more and more about how badly we have been served, we still see neither an individual nor a plan which excites our confidence - yielding hope. We remain in denial, and in thrall.
Lincoln: . . . ‘we must disenthrall ourselves and then we will save our country.’
This could end here, but there is something else lurking at the back of what is, after all, a rather strange conjecture.
If we are, in fact, ensorcelled, as proposed, the manner of our breaking out could hold significant dangers. If we come out fast, suddenly stripped what was, till that moment, a mind clouding malaise, our reaction could be violent and perilous. The perception of a betrayal of such breadth and depth, seen - as it well might - to be actively connived, could sweep and shake us as nothing before in our history.
“Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;”
[William Butler Yeats: The Second Coming]
Am I being a creature of my fears? I fear so, but I feel a need to attest to a cold, nagging something at the back of my mind.
-
Impeachment for incompetence?
Fact of the matter is, there's still a solid 30% core population following of George Bush that will support him regardless of his extraordinary failures, and will simply accuse his distractors of appeasement. At least the terrorists are preoccupied in Iraq and not here, so to speak. Plus, isn't impeachment intended for criminal offense, not simply utter incompetence. I think there may also be reservations on the ability to prove Bush invaded Iraq for ulterior motives other than its "neutralization", no matter how misguided and impetuous. After all, even Bill Clinton was quoted as saying he thought Iraq "probably" did have WMD's.
No, there's little chance of impeachment. Kamiya, however, is dead on in his expectation that the Dem's will let Bush bleed a slow agonizing demise, taking the Republican party down with him. They won't want to stand accused of beating up the sad-faced dummy that will plead that he meant well.