Thursday, March 13, 2003

We've been enduring the Bush II Era for just over two years now. I'd just be repeating myself and a thousand other bloggers if I rehashed all the things that have pissed me off in that time span. But there is something more that troubles me, and I have seen scant info about from other sources. Has anyone noticed how quickly and easily this President gets rid of disagreement and dissent within his own party and rank?

After Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court to be President, the common response from the right to Bush's "intellectual short comings" and inexperience was that he would have the best staff around him to guide him. What fucking good is a top notch staff if you keep kicking out those so called experts that you appointed the first time they disagree with you.

The only time I've seen the legislative body put up a fight is in regards to the HMO battle very early on in Bush's presidency. Everything else has been a rubber stamp.

Larry Lindsey the former Finance Adm. in the Bush Administration said the war would be more costly, something like 60-80 Billion, which was way more than the Bushies wanted it to be. His days were numbered after that.

Treasury Secretary O'Neil was considered to be "off message" (in other words telling the truth) and not towing the party line hard enough - Gone - he even recently criticized the tax cuts Bush recently proposed to solve our ever growing economic problems.

There is word that the White House is still pissed at Mr Greenspan's criticism that additional tax cuts are a bad idea. This after he agreed the first time and everyone in the White House said "Well, if Alan says it's good idea, then it must be right for the economy!" He disagrees with the President once and they're alreayd looking to ax him. There is talk that he will not be renewed for the position of Fed Chairman, just because he disagrees with the White House.

Understand I'm not making a judgement on Greenspan and ONeil ideas or polices, and I really don't know that much about Economic Policy in general. I just can't stand the fact that when Greenspan agreed with the White House on the first round of tax cuts, they praised him and said he was the authority about this stuff. Then the first time he gets out of line, the Bush Administration wants him wacked. Someone in the administration says something I can agree with finally, like O'Neil about the tax cuts being a bad idea, and he's gone already.

The Bush administration is even said the be fumming about the Pope's opposition to the war. The Fucking Pope! How arrogant and self righteous do you have to be in order to fume about one of your most supported international allies! The Pope has supported Bush in many instances, like his anti abortion stance among others, but the Pope disagrees with The White House on the war and instantly he's on Bush's shitlist. The Pope isn't necessarily an expert, but for God's sakes doesn't that tell you something, like you need therapy for your egocentricism or arrogance, when you find one of your biggest allies opposes you on one issue, and your throwing a hissy fit? The Fucking Pope for Chistsakes!!!!!! Not only is the President an idiot, he's stubborn sonofabitch.

However of all the things that has raised my eyebrows, this has to be the most worrisome and even disturbing - I heard this commentary on NPR (but you can click here to read the written transcripition instead of enduring the NPR audio report). Retired Col. Mike Turner gave an editorial on Morning Edition 03.11.03. Did anyone know that the Joint Cheifs of Staff at first UNANIMOUSLY vetoed the proposal in regards the current campaign against Iraq - Bush ignored them and instead did what he wanted. The people that are making the most aggressive decisions on War have never saw any wartime service let alone served a day in their life, like Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld (he did serve, but in peacetime in the Navy) while the people who actually saw bullets (Powell, Joint Chiefs of Staff) are being ignored or held back or kept in the background. I have a very bad feeling about this war after reading this from the editorial;

Now we've firmly committed ourselves to war with Iraq, and our political objective? To get Saddam. The uniformed Joint Staff in the Pentagon strongly opposed this plan early on. It requires an attack with a force half that of Desert Storm against an entrenched urban enemy renowned for its ruthlessness in defending its own survival. The uniformed Joint Staff was overridden, yet in so many horrifying ways this operation resembles Somalia, not Desert Storm, only with nerve gas and biological weapons. And without Turkey as a base to launch a northern assault, a dual-pronged attack will be all but impossible.

Aristotle first believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and then retro fit all the planet's orbits around that one very wrong belief because of his egocentricism, even though his model of the universe looked totally fucked up. Seems pretty silly now when you look back at it. This President works the same way - he stakes his position first and then tries to retro fit it using the facts that support his case and ignoring the facts that contradict them. I really hope we are not totally fucked. I have a terrible feeling that we are going to brings home a lot of body bags from Iraq........ I truly hope I'm wrong.


Post a Comment

<< Home