Buffalo Bush and the Road To Ruin

May 14 2004
Counterbias.com
Dennis Jones
D E M O C R A T I C   V I E W

We Democrats finally have our nominee for president. It is time to start focusing our efforts on retiring George W. Bush to that patch of dirt in Texas that he refers to as a ranch. The political season is on ... let the lying and distortion begin!

The main Republican argument for a continuation of the Bush administration is that he is a strong leader for our times. On that point I believe any fair minded person would have to agree. He has been resolute and single-minded in his leadership of our country in the last three years. I would even argue that he has been just a wee bit stubborn. I accept that George Bush wants what is best for the American people and he believes that by following his leadership we will all get there with him. May I suggest that he is slightly out of his mind in thinking that this is the best we can do?

You ever hear of a buffalo jump? In ancient times, before they had sophisticated weapons and techniques, some original Americans figured out that by driving the lead buffalo over a cliff, the rest of the herd would follow and there would be plenty of meat and hides for everyone. To be sure, there was strong single-minded and resolute leadership. The lead buffalo knew exactly where he wanted to take the herd. But as they all lay in one giant pile of hamburger at the bottom of the ravine, don't you think that at least some of the herd might have wanted to question the wisdom of that leadership?

Let's start with foreign policy, especially with the war in Iraq. After 9/11, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Canadians - damn near everybody stood with us as we smacked Al Queda and their sponsors, the Taliban. Even an overwhelming percentage of Democrats supported the president on the war in Afghanistan. If anything, we Democrats fault him for not doing enough to combat the Taliban and Al Queda. So much for that bleeding-heart-dove crap. Iraq is another matter. If Iraq deserved the prominent place in the War on Terror you would think that by now we would have seen at least some evidence to support that position. We are still waiting. Instead, what we got was a shooting gallery on top of a potential civil war.

I do not pretend to know what is in the president's heart and I have no way of knowing what motivated him to undertake the war in Iraq. But it appears to humble little old me that the boy had his mind made up long before he said that he did. If I was a radio talk show host I could tell you categorically about the motives and methods of every Republican within 7500 miles. Because I am not, I will give Bush the benefit of the doubt and consider only what he said before he made the decision to go to war. Trust me, that will be enough.

Mr. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein had huge quantities of weapons of mass destruction and had shown his willingness to use them in the past. He claimed that Hussein was a supporter of terrorists and that he had had contacts with members of Al Queda. He claimed that Hussein was a threat, imminent or not, to the security of the American people. The specter of mushroom clouds was held over the heads of the American people by every administration spokesperson, including the president. We couldn't take the chance that he would sell his weapons to an Al Queda operative. This was to be the next step in the war on terror. He was willing to give Saddam Hussein one more chance to avoid war.

For starters, it appears that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are the only people on the face of the earth who actually believe that we will still find those weapons somewhere in the sands of Iraq. Only a moron or Dick Cheney really believed that mushroom clouds from Uncle Saddam were in the offing anytime in the near future. The Bush boys are also the leading cheerleaders for the idea that Al Queda had ties to Saddam Hussein. How about a little evidence? People who innocently believe in Santa Claus may be charming, but I get a little queasy when I think about having them in charge of the army. These things just ain't so boys!

OK, Hussein was at least a little bit of a threat to the United States, but certainly not directly and certainly not anywhere near imminent. So what about that one more chance thing? The real question that we should be asking Team Bush is what Hussein could have done to have avoided war. How about letting inspectors in and allowing them to inspect? Nope, we tried that and we were told that they would never find anything because it was too big a country and he wouldn't help us look. How about turning his weapons over to us for destruction? This might have worked but he didn't have anything to turn over. Whoops! Even if he had sent us boatloads I am betting that Bush would have reminded us that Saddam was a liar not to be trusted and that there was a lot more hidden away somewhere. How do you prove a negative, especially if you are a serial liar like Hussein? Fellow Democrats, may I humbly suggest that the correct answer is that there was nothing that Hussein could have done to have satisfied our glorious leader. Bush wanted to get rid of old Saddam well before he got around to it -- probably from about 1991 on! Gotta clean up daddy's mess and smite the guy who tried to smite our guy!

So what we have here is a Texas tough guy who saw the same intelligence that everybody else saw (surprise, there  wasn't any hoard of secret stuff that only he knew but couldn't share with us) and concluded in the face of serious opposition at home and overwhelming opposition around the rest of the world that we were going to be chewing on mushroom clouds if we didn't take this guy out right away, now, today. Then he deceived us about the costs, both human and monetary. He managed to piss off most of the rest of the world where we might have gotten some meaningful support. In this year's State of the Union address the Magician of Diplomacy said, "For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible -- and no one can now doubt the word of America." You have got to be kidding!

The Crawford Cowboy is your man if you like stubborn people who refuse to allow facts to stand in the way of preconceived notions. He spins a wonderful story about freedom and democracy and rape rooms and torture chambers. The Mean Machine is going to try to subtly convince us that a vote for Kerry is a vote for appeasement to the evildoers. If the weapons ain't there then this war just ain't fair!

Next we come to another shining spot in the Wonderful World of Dubya - the economy. GWB says that his trifecta was an inherited recession, 9/11 and fighting a war. True - all had an adverse affect on the economy. Thus endeth the truth! He also claims that his tax cuts have resulted in one of the shallowest recessions in recent times, but that he can't be held accountable for the poor employment situation that we face. He'll take credit for the good, but no blame for the bad. El Presidente believes that thanks to his economic policies we have turned the corner and we are on our way to prosperity. Unfortunately the facts don't always tend to support his argument.

Every time he cut taxes Great Leader said that those cuts would result in a large increase in new jobs. Bzzzzzzt - wrong answer! The pitiful few jobs that the economy has created are mostly in the government sector and low wage service jobs. People who used to make middle class incomes manufacturing things can now be happy making minimum wage flipping hamburgers at McDonald's. The truth is that Mr. Bush is going to be the first president since Herbert Hoover (You've heard about the Great Depression haven't you?) to oversee an economy that has a net loss in jobs. This great economic recovery has resulted in an actual decline in real wages for the hard working middle classes who make the economy work; unique in any recovery since the end of World War II. When was the last time you had a meaningful raise? If Bush really has no power to affect the jobs picture then what say we take back a chunk of those tax cuts and start working on the deficit for which he is responsible?

The minimum wage has not increased since 1997. In that same time Congress has managed to increase the pay of its members six times for a total of $24,500! While Bush has been in charge the number of Americans living under the poverty line has increased. Bush's policy on an increase in the federal minimum wage is . . . nothing -- no time for the working poor. Don't you just love how earnestly economists who make six figure incomes can deftly attempt to persuade you that the country will go to hell in a hand basket if we pay people a decent wage? Republicans argue that raising the minimum wage will result in fewer jobs and more business bankruptcies. Both of those arguments are demonstrably false. In actuality the economy gets better because people with little or no money spend it when they do get it and voila, growth!

Bush claims that a vote for Kerry will result in an increase in your taxes. Unless you make over $200,000 a year or derive a part of your income from stock dividends that is a blatant distortion. He claims that Democrats are engaging in class warfare because they want to unfairly punish the wealthy. That is absurd! Millionaires still receive a tax cut because the first $200,000 of their income is taxed at the same rate as yours; they just won't receive tax refunds on anything over $200,000. The real class warfare is being conducted by the Republicans because they want stock dividends and capital gains to receive lower tax rates than wages. In other words we are going to value wealth over work! Guys who sit on their butts in air conditioned offices and who earn their money betting on how well you do your job will pay fewer taxes than you do after you finish doing the real work. How does that taste?

Health care costs are spiraling out of sight at seven times the rate of inflation. 43 million Americans have no health insurance at all. Both of these trends are accelerating. Before long, most small companies may not be able to provide their employees with any health coverage at all. Bush's solution is to give you a tax credit to pay for your own insurance. Well, yeah ... a check from the government. Actually, that's not really correct. If you have the money to pay for insurance you might get to deduct a part of that payment from your taxes. How does that sound to those of you making $5.15 an hour? Bush blames frivolous lawsuits for the high cost of health care. This argument deserves to stand up there with that mushroom cloud bullshit. The real reason is that the American worker is subsidizing the health care of the entire rest of the world because we have no way of controlling any of those costs. Why is that you ask? I would bet that the guy who gets millions of dollars from the doctors, drug companies, HMOs and insurance companies might have an idea. That would be George W. Bush.

If you like the way that things are going vote for Bush. If you believe that HMOs and pharmaceutical companies should make health care policy vote for Bush. If you trust oil companies, power companies and chemical companies to do the right thing on environmental policy vote for Bush. If you think that massive deficits don't make any difference vote for Bush. If you like the fact that companies have no real oversight and can avoid paying taxes with sham offices overseas vote for Bush. The commander-in-chief will stand in front of snappy banners and five billion flags and offer unrealistic enthusiasm, but if you look over you will notice the ground rushing up to meet us as we plummet over the edge! If you want a change, vote for Kerry.

Finally, it appears that our fearless leader has sent our sons and daughters to die in a faraway place in order to protect the bias against a minority group of Americans. I understand all of the problems that most of us have with gay marriage. Because it is deeply rooted in religious beliefs it isn't going to be easy to overcome. It doesn't affect you and me in any real way so what is the harm?

Our country has a wonderful history of trying to face up to wrongs and righting them. We wrote slavery into our Constitution and it took a Civil War to get rid of it. We wrote laws against discrimination into that same Constitution and then promptly forgot to enforce them until a preacher from Atlanta pointed us in the right direction. We took 140 years to overcome the idea that women should be treated as property and gave them the right to vote. The list goes on and on. It is the best chapter of American history and the struggle continues.

For most of my life I have, much to my shame, made fun of gays and been as, intolerant as anyone. Like most people, I know people who are gay. I have come to know them as decent people who are just trying to get through life on a different path from mine. Who am I to say that I am right and they are wrong? The current flap over gay marriage is bringing out a lot of stupidity, stubbornness and arrogance in the guise of "protecting" something. What we are really protecting is the ability of some to deny equality to others and in America that can never be right.

President George W. Bush believes that we should write that "protection" into the Constitution. He wants to codify discrimination. I know that the reason that he wants to lead us in this direction is to pander to a part of his base for political purposes. I don't know Mr. Bush, so I cannot say that I don't like him, although I can say that I despise his political agenda. Since he came out in support of this stupid amendment I can also say that I am ashamed of him.