HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Nov. 29, 2005 Ken Hughes is drooling about Bush again. The real question is, does Ken actually believe what he says? Sometimes I think he does, and, folks, that ain't a good thing. Anyway, I claim that there isn't nearly enough Bush bashing going on! Lets up the tempo, fellow liberals! Should we give Bush credit for those aspects of the economy that are better? Maybe, but then lets give Clinton credit for the US economy during the 1990's, the strongest economy ever. I used to hear this argument from conservatives during the Clinton administration, "The president has very little control over the economy [therefore, the GREAT economy can't be his doing]". Bush's economy isn't all roses, however. The gap between rich and poor is widening. We already have working poor, soon we predict working homeless. France, Germany and the other European economies with twice the unemployment rates we have are doing far better in many areas with far less. Homelessness is a joke compared to our numbers, ditto for crime and other social indicators. They have transferable, cradle to grave health care, more or less, so as they can adapt to the global economy (as people need to find new careers more often in life, for example), a change to the world as big and fundamental as the industrial revolution; their citizens will be able to cope better in the long run. They have sound (excellent for the most part) infrastructure, and a highly educated work force. And that's just those European countries that are doing “bad” at the moment, it doesn't address most of them, which are doing well. And what about Carter? Conservatives are sensitive types, and when Carter spoke out against Bush, they took it as a personal affront. We shouldn't forget that Carter passed more of his own legislation than all other modern presidents, and on that point alone, he was one of the most successful we've ever had. He also started the foundation of the Reagan economy. Now lets talk about lies! How often I hear that liberals are liars. Bush said he was a uniter, that's a rather obvious lie. In the world community, Bush rejected and pulled us out of all manner of global treaties and initiatives. By sheer blind luck, we got back some of our love from other nations thanks to 9/11. Bush couldn't squander this support any faster, however – is there a record for 'enemy making' - something in the Guinness Book Of World Records, maybe? On the home-front, at every turn, Bush made choices which sharply split the country, and I don't mean just the "wedge" issues. He picked the worst possible choice for the UN (at least in terms of being a uniter). He picked former timber industry lobbyist to head up his forestry post under the EPA. This isn't mere cronyism, it's blatant, in your face, “eat this, liberals” policy making. His tune only started to change a tad when he started to tank in the polls. A normal reaction to be sure, but some on the Right, Ken Hughes for example, told us in post after post after post how the high-horse Right-wing doesn't look at polls. That is, of course, a lie. Now, I'm not arguing that Bush should act like a liberal – of course I understand he won't, but he's gone above and beyond to be a divider. Bush couldn't unite magnets with metal. Remember, he claimed to be a uniter; this isn't some liberal straw-man argument, in other words. When Bush said that Miers was the best in the nation for the post, that was a lie. When Bush and the Right claimed that religion doesn't matter, or that abortion isn't a litmus test, they lied. When Bush and the Right tell us that conservative judges will not legislate from the bench, they lie. The conservatives on the bench shoot congressional legislation down just as the liberals do. “Strict constructionist” is just a code word for “conservative activist”. See the hypocrisy? Legislating from the bench is “wrong”, unless it goes against the righteous conservative philosophy - “higher ideals” override all else, I'm told. “All judges are entitled to an up or down vote!” - unless the president is a Democrat, then committee tactics are just fine, it seems, to block them. The idea that judges have this “right” and that Republicans and Bush somehow champion this is a lie. The same can be said for state's rights. Conservatives are all for state's rights, until the issue goes against the conservative ideal, pot for example, or the right to die. I'm sure if I looked, I could find a quote of Bush praising state's rights, but since I don't have one handy, I'll just say that this is a lie in general from the Right-wing to middle America. Those “higher” ideals are very important, and deserving of their own article. I've been told by several conservatives that when Reagan and North illegally supported terrorists in South America and then lied about it, it was fine. It was fine because a higher ideal was at stake – higher according to some, anyway. Yet, I seem to hear that a lie is a lie is a lie from that same side all the time. I also hear that morality is absolute from many of the same crowd. Deception and hypocrisy, folks, ya gotta love it... I also find it rather amusing at the reaction of Ken Hughes and other conservatives about France. How very Christian it is to revel in the chaos they recently underwent! We could probably look up the number of cars vandalized or broken into or stolen in the US for a single day and have higher numbers than the total cars torched in France during their entire riot, not to mention if we add in the number of murders and assaults; sad facts that I don't enjoy. Oh sure, we have many more people and many more cars, but even if we take only the physically destructive crimes per capita it would be enough for the French to laugh at us over a fine bottle of wine. But, they won't – the French said that they like Americans, at least the last time I checked. Anyway, given that the Right claims to be pro-family values, pro-integrity and so forth, I'd call the reaction to France a lie - it would be sort of like catching Richard Simmons eating a whole isle of twinkies, or catching that nearly-bald, "stop the insanity!" woman eating lard. The Vietnam bait and switch is another lie. Conservatives try and tell us that since some Democrats are opposed to the war, they are “anti-troops”. What a silly thing to say. The left learned its Vietnam lessons – is there any American alive today that doesn't have the utmost respect for our armed forces? Did the Right learn lessons from Vietnam? Apparently not... That liberals or Democrats give aid to terrorists is of course another lie. That those opposed to the war are unpatriotic is another lie. Perhaps these types of statements serve “higher” red-meat purposes, but they are lies just the same. What about this "war"? Is calling the "war on terror" a real war a lie? Can you have a war on a tactic instead of a nation-state? If this is a real war, why don't Geneva conventions apply? There are at least several different lies in and around that, depending on how you read it, and listening to anyone from the Right try to explain this makes them sound like something between a used car salesman and a faith-healer. The reasons for going to war are riddled with lies and deception. The big lie is the clever way that 9/11 was merged with Saddam. Most Republicans polled during the last election believed that Saddam had his hands directly in 9/11. Contrary to 9/11 Commission findings, Cheney proceeded to lie about this connection. The suggestion that oil wasn't a factor at all in the war is a lie. Citing the brutality of Saddam as a major reason for going to war is another lie. If we cared about suffering, we would be in Africa in force right now. But being in Africa serves no immediate strategic purpose, nor does it protect and ensure the supply of a key resource. After all, we cared not for Saddam's treatment of his fellow country men when we supported him against Iran. The suggestion that we can fight them in Iraq instead of here is another lie. Saddam didn't much like religious extremists. Now that we've removed him, we've not only helped Al Qaeda recruit more loons, we've given them a new stomping ground. The attacks in Spain, England and Jordan happened after the invasion, folks, after we took out Saddam. Everyone agrees that another hit on the US is just a matter of time and given the weaknesses that Katrina exposed, I'm saddened by the potential [obvious?] results. Iraq in no way dents Al Qaeda's operations – to suggest otherwise given the current information is a lie. For example, lets say Iraq just vanished tomorrow – what effect would this have on the many Al Qaeda cells all over the world, each operating with a large degree of independence? This is a different issue than bringing change to the Middle East. Bush seems to be making some positive change, and I for one hope that Democracy and secularism does spread there. This doesn't change the fact that his administration lied to us about the reasons for going to war, however, not to mention those pesky related issues like torture. Bush lied about evolution, saying that the “jury is still out” as to its validity. If that's not a lie, then it's ignorance of an unprecedented scale. Given that Bush has smart people around him, I can't imagine it's just ignorance. Surely it's an attempt to appeal to a certain segment of our religious community by lying. The same can be said for global warming. Like WMD, the evidence is in, folks. The final consensus of US scientists was reached under none other than under Bush-ee-boy himself. Lets say the global body of scientists is wrong about global warming. For my point about lies, it matters not – the consensus is obvious. The Pentagon takes it seriously, as do most heads of state. To deny global warming given the current evidence is a lie. Or is it? Is being convinced by a loony-fringe that the opposite is true, considered a lie? Do we consider people that do not believe in germs or that we never reached the moon, liars? It's a tricky call, I admit. We do, however, have this little nugget of evidence, which exposed the Bush administration as they tried to censor and tone down global warming warnings from its own scientists. Oops! – yes, Bush lied about global warming and its dangers. I could go on and on, but I'm already over two pages in my word processor – my clue that I need to conclude. I'd say that even if we gloss over some of the more “political” lies, he's still lied enough to warrant impeachment, or at the very least, serious, non-stop, bashing. Sorry, Ken, the bashing will justifiably continue. ------------ About the author Frederick Smith: I enjoy writing about the positive virtues of humanism - humanists are the good guys. I now have a blog that I will start to increasingly maintain and update. Here is the link: fredsuberview.blogspot.com/ This is my second foray into the UK writing discordia. This time around, I want to be a tad more raw - maybe a bit edgier (does that sound "art-see"?) Maybe I'll address even more issues that most Americans consider taboo... About my personal background and life: I was born, I got some education, worked, ate, and had some kids. It seems I like to write � something that was unknown to me until relatively recently...How's that for detail? ;) Hate mail is welcome unless you are from the Army Of God. Please! It's not that I mind seeing pictures of aborted fetuses in my inbox, but once you've seen one you've pretty much seen them all... Email: dahlek65@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
