|
|
Vote Republican: It's Easier Than Thinking
"I'm George W. Bush, and I approved this message." Every time I hear those words, I cringe at the misinformation that is about to spew forth. Whether it's the Bush-Cheney Campaign trying to portray Kerry as a "flip-flopper" or the spin that the Bushites put on the issues facing the nation (and how the Bush Administration is handling them), the bottom line is this: Bush has nothing to run on except the perceived short-comings of his political opponent. If there were any accomplishments to highlight, he would. Iraq? Can't go there. Anti-terrorism? Nope. The economy? Sorry, no sale. What's worse is that many of the things President Bush and Co. would have you believe about John Kerry are more true about the president himself. Flip-Flopping President Bush would have you believe that when he makes a decision, he means it, according to his recent prime-time press conference. The truth, however, tends to be a little different. The president tends to do a little "flip-flopping" of his own: First, President Bush said he
wouldn't create a cabinet position in regards to homeland security.
Here's what then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer had to say
on March 19, 2002: "So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve
the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government
that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet
post doesn't solve anything."
Here's the flip from the president
himself when he addressed the nation on June 6, 2002: "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me
in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent
mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American
people." And here's what then-Governor
George W. Bush said about regime change and nation building on October
3, 2000: "If
we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in
nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem
coming down the road." The
flop? Obviously nation building and regime change are okay if you
pick the regime to change/nation to build: "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for
the good of the Iraqi people,"
said President Bush on March 6, 2003.
There's a secondary flop
to this one: I thought we were "changing
the regime of Iraq" for the safety of the American
people! At least,
that's what you said, Mr.
President. On more than one
occasion, as I recall. And
you always say what you mean, right?
There are other issues that the
president has flip-flopped on, like whether there are or aren't WMD in
Iraq, free trade, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
You know... trivial stuff. But
there's one more flip-flop that I think needs some attention.
This one involves the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
On September 17, 2001 when he addressed the nation and the world,
6 days after the attacks, Cowboy George said, "I
want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says,
'Wanted: Dead or Alive." But just six months later, on March
13, 2002 during a press conference, President Bush (presumably because
the target had already been switched from Afghanistan to Iraq) said this
about bin Laden: "I
don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not
that important." Huh? Let
me get this straight, Mr. "War-time" President. The person who heads the organization responsible for the
single-most horrific day in American history is now irrelevant? Mr. President, me thinks thou protested a tad bit too much when Richard Clarke said on 60-Minutes, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it." Based on Bush's own words, what was so off base about what Mr. Clarke said? Two and two makes four... Hipbone's connected to the thighbone... Wrong for America? In another of President Bush's attack ads against Senator Kerry, the final line of the ad says, "John Kerry... Wrong for America." Again, this seems to describe George W. Bush rather than John F. Kerry. What is wrong for America is economic policies that only benefit the rich. The tax cuts that President Bush wants to make permanent were supposed to create a wealth of jobs. Still waiting... As someone with personal experience with the benefits of the Bush Administration's economic policies, I find it laughable that they can still make their economic claims with a straight face. If you believe what The Administration tells you, outsourcing is good for America. Tell that to the American employees whose jobs have been outsourced to foreign markets. The Republicans say, "Go out and spend... spend... spend!" Er... With what income? Additionally, the Republicans, namely Bush/Cheney, want you to think that John Kerry would make questionable decisions when it comes to the military and other matters of national defense. What they hope you won't notice or remember is that Cheney did more than his fair share of cutting Defense Department funds during the Reagan years. Questionable decisions? Hasn't the Bush Administration been making questionable decisions all along? Questionable economic decisions. Questionable foreign policy decisions. Questionable military decisions. What's wrong for America is politicians whose economic policies benefit only certain Americans rather than all Americans. What's wrong for America is a president who places his family's financial and diplomatic interests ahead of American interests. Why else would the Bush Administration allow the bin Laden family a free pass out of the country (when no one else could get in or out) to save themselves some major political embarrassment? What's wrong for America is foreign policies that get Americans targeted and killed. What's wrong for America is going to war because you want to, not because you have to. What's wrong for America is concealing the truth about said war. What's wrong in America is Americans NOT questioning authority. We'll tell you what to think The
Republicans in general and the Bush Administration specifically, want an
uninformed public. They
don't want people to show any initiative and they certainly don't want
the news media to sway opinion against their policies - remember, we've
been shipping flag-draped coffins back from Iraq for over a year now and
we've only seen such images recently.
The Defense Department's tells us the reason that the media
should not be allowed to show these images is to protect the privacy of
the families of the fallen military personnel.
In actuality, the Bush Administration fears that if American
people were to see the steady stream of coffins, whatever public support
there was for the war would more than likely evaporate.
Why else was the woman who emailed the photos to the families
fired? What privacy is
being violated when there is no way of knowing the name, gender, ethnic
background, or even branch of service that the person in the coffin
served in? Wake
up America, before we truly end up in an even worse Orwellian Hell! This
administration doesn't want you to know the truth.
Anybody who has dared peel away any of the shroud gets Dixie
Chicked (thanks Bill Maher for that phrase). Joseph Wilson tells the Bush Administration that Iraq doesn't
have uranium. That little
tidbit of truth didn't jibe with what the hawks in the Administration
wanted to hear. Their
response: We can't sell this
war on the truth! Since you
won't play ball and lie, we'll expose your wife as a CIA operative!
And these people want us to trust
them? Paul O'Neill, bravely told about his experience with the Bush
Administration in the book The
Price of Loyalty. O'Neill
detailed his account of how George W. Bush was gearing up for war with
Iraq very early on in his presidency - well before September 11.
The Administration was hell-bent on discrediting O'Neill.
They partially succeeded. Richard
Clarke, who I quoted earlier, experienced the wrath of the Anti-truth
Commission for his book
Against All Enemies and his
subsequent comments. Again
the Bushite response was, "pay no attention to the elephant behind
the curtain!" Now,
President Bush and Vice President Cheney are set to give their joint
testimony to the 9/11 Commission. They
actually seem sincere when they pretend not to understand why this
strikes people as odd to say the least. At
the recent prime-time press conference, President Bush was asked why he
and the vice president were giving testimony jointly rather than
separately. His response
was less than assuring. "It's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them." Yes,
but Mr. President, the Commission wanted to interview you separately
because there are obvious discrepancies in the accounts of what was or
wasn't done prior to the attacks. If you and the vice president are
answering questions together, how can the truth be determined?
"On Sept. 11, the president and vice president were in different locations when these horrific attacks took place, but they were in contact with each other throughout the day," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. "It makes sense, from that standpoint, to pull together as much as possible." You see? There's no man or elephant behind the curtain. You're right. He's not behind the curtain. He's sitting right in front of the commission with the president on his lap. Testing their medal Did John Kerry throw out his war medals or didn't he? What the hell does this have to do with the price of oil in Iraq? Whether Kerry discarded his medals or whether he's erected a shrine for them is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that he earned them in the first place. Both Bush and Cheney declined going to Vietnam - which was their right to do. Remember though, Bill Clinton was branded a draft-dodger for doing so. It seems when it's a prominent Democrat who skipped the war in Vietnam, he should be tarred and feathered but when a Republican does it he should be exonerated. Apparently, even if you're a Democrat with a distinguished service record, you still run the risk of getting tarred and feathered. Ask Max Cleland. The man lost 3 limbs for his country in Viet Nam but that didn't stop Republicans from painting him as a terrorist sympathizer because he dared to question the Bush Administration's policies. Dixie-Chicked... big time! Earlier this year on Meet the Press, President Bush admonished host Tim Russert about denigrating the Guard. Here's what the president said: "I would be careful to not denigrate the Guard. It's fine to go after me, which I expect the other side will do. I wouldn't denigrate service to the Guard, though, and the reason I wouldn't, is because there are a lot of really fine people who have served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National Guard today in Iraq." Absolutely, Mr. President! There are a lot of fine people who serve and have served and died in the National Guard. Unfortunately Mr. President, you're not one of those fine people. Your very existence denigrates the National Guard because (1) you allow/encourage the besmirchment of the reputations of people who did serve in the Guard and other services of the military honorably (Max Cleland) and (2) because there is a very serious distinction between the National Guard you served in and the National Guard that men and women serve in today. The distinction is that there was no way you were going to be put in harms way when you served, however, those serving today are in grave danger of rapid deployment to wherever you see phantom WMD. Our men and women in uniform have joined their respective services with the full knowledge that they may have to fight a war. They joined thinking their commander-in-chief would only put them in harm's way if it were absolutely necessary. John Kerry and Max Cleland are American heroes! Both served their country with honor and distinction. If anyone has earned the right to discard the medals bestowed upon him for such service, John Kerry certainly has. The Bushites want to ask Mr. Kerry where his medals are. Where are your medals, Mr. President? Mr. Vice President? Do nothing That's exactly what the Republican Party wants you to do. Let them inform you. Let them lead you to believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to and that Saudi Arabia had little or nothing to do with the attacks of September 11. Let them tell you that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Let them tell you that they had no prior knowledge about the attacks of 9/11, even when there is so much evidence to the contrary. Let them tell you that outsourcing American jobs to foreign markets is good for the country while at the same time they wonder about the lack of consumer confidence. And finally, let them tell you what a terrible choice the other candidate would be without defining to you why they are the better choice. You know, you may as well let them vote for you, too. |
|
© 2004 CounterBias.com
