| |
I Have Questions...
Posted 3-17-2006
Who are the 34%, 38%, or 44%
that still support George W. Bush and his failed Presidency? I don't care
what the polling numbers are, he's been wrong about Iraq, caught on tape
lying about relief for Hurricane Katrina, and presented budget after budget
that has added to the national debt. I could go on and on but you get the
picture.
What are Lynn Swann's
qualifications for Governor? I know we already live in a country where
Arnold Schwarzenegger could get elected governor in a state bigger than
Pennsylvania. But at least he had married into the Kennedy family, and maybe
through osmosis, something good rubbed off. Though that isn't evident yet.
But Swannie, c'mon. He hasn't progressed from sideline reporter to the press
box in twenty-five years of broadcasting. Ed Rendell has had his ups and
downs as governor with the opposing party controlling both Houses of the
Legislature for his first term, but his grasp of issues versus Swann's, is
like Swann against the Cowboys' cornerbacks in Super Bowl X, no competition.
Why doesn't the national
media hold the Bush Administration accountable for Iraq? Things have gotten
so sad that the Bush people are claiming things are looking up because
full-scale civil war DIDN'T break out a few weeks ago after a rash of mosque
bombings. What about the claims that Cheney made that "we would be welcomed
with open arms" and "it will take six weeks or maybe six months to clean up
the Saddam loyalists and a few other dead-enders"? We are years removed from
the initial invasion, and there is no real sign that stability is setting
in. Please don't talk about the Iraqi constitution or elections. Unless
there is a functioning government and a society that accepts the
constitution, Bush's effort to "spread democracy" isn't happening anytime
soon. The centuries old divisions between Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds aren't
going to be settled because Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, and some neocons say so.
Modern Iraq was nothing more than the creation of former imperialistic power
Great Britain, and maybe no one is going to make the various groups
peacefully coexist.
If the Bush Administration
really wanted to start democracy in the Middle East, why didn't they start
with their friends in Saudi Arabia? Heck, that is where most of the
terrorists came from, and with a friendly "royal family" we shouldn't have
had the problems that have happened in Iraq. And while Bush parrots the idea
that we are "spreading democracy", when Hamas wins elections in Palestine,
we attempt to shut off resources that would allow a Palestinian government
to operate. We can't have it both ways; saying we support democracy, but
when a group wins that this administration doesn't like, it tries to subvert
the group's ability to govern.
Are we doomed to repeat
errors in foreign policy in our own hemisphere again? If not, why can't we
accept the election of a socialist like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela? This
administration tried to subvert Chavez's election (one recognized by
international groups as fair) (and who are these guys to call anyone's
election tainted?) and now is still trying to pick a fight with Chavez.
These right-wingers here better wake up soon and recognize people in other
nations are free to choose their own leaders. Socialists have recently been
elected in Bolivia (Evo Morales) and Chile (Michelle Bachelet), and people
that align themselves with this administration are likely to lose popular
support rather than gain it. Our country never learned its lesson that our
policy toward Castro kept him in power. It hasn't removed a communist
seventy miles off our coast in forty-six years. So now we are going to fight
with Chavez and make him more of a hero. And unlike Castro who really had
little resources at his disposal, Hugo Chavez has oil profits, and he's
spreading them around. Why not accept the will of the Venezuelan people and
try to forge a positive relationship? No, that is too rational of an idea
for people still fearful of the idea that socialism can be accepted over
unbridled, corporate-driven capitalism.
Do you think that Bush
economic policies have been good for ordinary Americans? Within days of Bush
crowing about new jobs being created, the Federal Reserve reported that
adjusted for inflation, average incomes had fallen between 2001 and 2004. A
Bureau of Labor Statistics report showed that for 2005 real wages fell 0.9%,
the lowest annual result on record. Compensation for 2005 (wages plus
benefits) remained unchanged from 2004 making it the worst year on record as
well. Rising household debt and stagnant wages adversely affected median net
worth (the measurement of assets and liabilities). It grew only 1.5% between
2001 and 2004 after growing 10.5% between 1998 and 2001. And finally, the
gap between rich and poor continues to grow according to the Federal
Reserve. America's wealthiest 10% saw their net worth rise by 6.1% to an
average of $3.1 million in 2004, while the bottom 10% saw theirs fall from
zero in 2001 to minus $1,400. That means they owed that much more than the
value of their assets in 2004. So other than blind loyalty, what does that
group of Americans that still defends Bush see in the guy?
|
