Monday, April 30, 2007

Bush "Co-operating" With Democrats Just Another Mistake

I really do wonder if any president in the history of the United States will go down as having more totally underestimated or overestimated everything than George W. Bush.

Now, I'm not ordinarily a Bush-basher. The guy was put in a tough spot when, barely eight months into his presidency, a bunch of psychotic arab fucks killed 3,000 Americans while striking the worst ever blow against the country on its own soil. It wasn't Bush's fault that 9/11 occurred; in fact, the Democrats knew damn well Osama bin Laden was a major threat and allowed him to more or less dance merrily around flipping them the finger for quite some time.

But since the events of 9/11, Bush has managed to have an administration that has cocked up pretty much every damn thing it tried.

- They couldn't find bin Laden and, six years later, still can't confirm whether he's alive or dead.

- They got rid of the Taliban but the Taliban still exists.

- They've depended on Pakistan to help in the war on terror while Pakistan allows a free-flowing border situation to become a major transit point for terrorists.

- They embarked on an ill-advised war in Iraq.

- They easily won the war in Iraq but have had no concept for four years on how to get the hell out of there while the country slips further and further into a morass and the Bush administration backs an ineffective government.

- They've allowed Moqtada al-Sadr to continue to breathe despite numerous opportunities to send him to Allah.

- They found Saddam Hussein and then allowed him to be turned into a cause celebre, ending in an execution that could only be described as comic if it weren't so grotesque.

- They've claimed on numerous occasions that the goal is to spread democracy and freedom in the Middle East but refuse to really support Israel, the only free and democratic country in the Middle East.

- Meanwhile, they've tolerated Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt and a host of other non-democratic arab shitholes.

- They've burned bridges with pretty much every country in Europe which isn't necessarily a bad thing except that it has emboldened Vladimir Putin who's little more than a Soviet-style communist despite Bush's claims that he is a good man (Bush's silliest statement of all, IMO).

- They've continued to increase the economy of China, another deplorable dictatorship, and emboldened its military at the expense of Taiwan - a functioning, vital democracy.

- They wrangled a deal with North Korea over nuclear arms, only the North Koreans have shown zero commitment to actually live up to the deal.

- They've allowed Iran to continue on their nuclear program because they can't get the aforementioned Chinese or Russians (not to mention several European countries) to play ball with them.

- They've had a series of moronic heads of various crucial departments including Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez and Michael Brown, all of whom Bush seemed to back out of allegiance rather than intelligence. And, we won't even get into Colin Powell's run as Secretary of State.

- They couldn't get their best appointment, John Bolton, named as permanent ambassador to the UN. He was maybe the one chance to clean up the corrupt and decrepit halls of that ridiculous institution.

- And, today comes word that Bush, who bragged after the 2004 election that he had built up lots of political capital and was going to spend it, was preparing to cooperate with such farcical characters as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid because Bush not only spent his political capital, he's gone further into debt than a college student with a VISA card and a gambling habit.

In summation, Bush has managed to claim he's a principled man without living up to his principles and has invited people into his administration that seem to more belong pedalling kiddy cars at the Ringling Brothers Circus. He's president today only because of Katherine Harris in 2000 and the utter and extreme ineptitude of John Kerry and the Democrats in 2004.

That, in itself, is not a bad thing. It says quite a bit that Bush was a better option than both Gore and Kerry. But, it's simply not good enough.

Perhaps, in 50 years we'll look back at the Bush administration and his legacy will be somewhat better than it appears to be today. And, sadly, that will probably be because the Democratic President who followed him (if such a thing comes to pass) will be even worse.

Those of us who really do believe in spreading freedom and democracy are shaking our heads in anger and frustration and shaking in our boots out of concern for what the future might very well hold.

3 comments:

shlemazl said...

Democratic President? No way. Rudi rules.

southfield_2001 said...

He's my choice, too, shlemazl...right-wing on foreign affairs, fairly liberal on social/domestic issues, right in line with my own beliefs.

Michael said...

Southfield:
You don't have to post this comment; I just don't have an email for you, so I'm sending you your five questions this way. Some are fun, and some are serious. Here goes:

1) You have kids. What do you love most about them, and what is the one thing they do that really just makes you want to sell the to the lowest bidder?

2) You live in Canada. Is hockey really genetic for Canadians?

3) If you could change one major world event from the last 100 years, what would it be, and why?

4) If you could have the ear of a one world leader for 10 minutes, with a garauntee that your advice would be heeded, who would it be, what would you say, and why?

5) Who are the 3 most important people in your life?