Why I will never support Bush

[Cloud9]

This guy sums it up for me more eloquently than I can in my current state of anger...



Dubya's Profound Double Standard
An Open Letter To The President

New York-based Russ Baker is an award-winning journalist who covers politics and media.


Mr. President, in the 2000 Presidential election you promised to enact policies of "compassionate conservatism," but you have failed to honor the classical definition of either term. Recently, some commentators have begun labeling the discrepancy between your professed policies and your actions a "credibility gap." But when promises and actions are so shockingly in conflict, a stronger term is warranted. On the objective evidence, Mr. President, we are forced to conclude that you are, put simply, a liar -- and, given the particulars of the moment, a dangerous one at that. Many of our allies understand this better than we, and that is why they are facing you down.

You yourself have constantly (and justifiably) criticized Saddam Hussein for saying one thing but doing another. The time has come to hold you to the same standard.

How can you condemn the role of one brutal totalitarian Arab regime in fostering terrorism but ignore the more obvious role of another such regime? Saudi Arabia's historic relationship to Islamist terrorism is far more clear-cut than Iraq's. Families of 9/11 victims have filed suit against the Saudis based on long and deep ties with terrorists, yet these ties don't seem to rouse you to indignation, much less corrective military action. Do you not find it noteworthy that 15 of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis? Can you assure us that strong Bush family business ties to Saudi Arabia don't have anything to do with this willful blindness?

Why do you challenge "axis of evil" countries that constitute weak threats while accommodating the strong ones? North Korea has long been a grave danger to its neighbors. Yet you work to avoid antagonizing that country's leadership, while hastening to war against Iraq. Could this be because you believe that you can attack Iraq with some hope of success but are afraid of the consequences if you take on North Korea? What does this say about your ability to defend our country and our friends around the world against real threats to our security?

How can you decry the threat of Iraq to our energy supply, yet advocate domestic policies that threaten that same energy supply? Your administration encourages waste of fuel on a scale unequaled in human history. Americans make up about 4.5 percent of world population, but use 25 percent of the world's energy. Despite the availability of a wide range of more efficient, cleaner burning technologies, the U.S. accounts for about 25 percent of carbon dioxide emissions causing global warming. At the same time, the United States refuses to sign treaties adopted by most other major nations to counteract global warming. You even oppose sensible steps to improve the gas mileage of the cars Americans drive, including monstrously gas-guzzling SUVs.

How can you insist that your goal is to introduce democracy into the lives of Iraqis while you move steadily to erode democracy in the United States? Even some conservative Republican legislators now consider your Patriot Act a terrible and dangerous mistake. Broadly expanded wiretap and surveillance provisions and a new proposal to check the criminal record and credit histories of passengers before they board planes don't sound very democratic.

How can you criticize Iraq for its weaponry without explaining the role of the United States as one of that country's chief arms suppliers and ardent associate in its war with Iran? This make-and-break cycle is surely good for the defense industry, but what is the cost for the rest of us?

Why does the United States move to punish only some violators of U.N. resolutions? You cite Iraqi noncompliance as cause for war, yet you do nothing about the main violators of U.N. resolutions -- Morocco, Israel and Turkey, all of which are our close strategic allies.

How can you support the notion of institutional legitimacy only when the institution in question backs administration policy? You call for U.N. action on Iraq as a demonstration of the legitimacy of the institution, yet say that if it does not agree, the United States will act anyway.

Why do you oppose compulsory jurisdiction of international courts when the court could rule against the United States, but recognize that authority when you need it? You support the international trials of Slobodan Milosevic and others accused of war crimes, yet insist these courts won't have jurisdiction over Americans facing similar charges.

Why are some occupations more problematic than others? You correctly cite Iraq's 1991 seizure of Kuwait as a dangerous, destabilizing move, yet refuse to recognize how Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank foster global instability, ethnic hatreds, and feed directly into terrorist activity, including the 9/11 attacks.

Why are some targeted killings okay, but not others? Why is Israel condemned by your administration for "targeted killings" against terrorists specifically seeking to kill civilians, while you adopt targeted killings of Al Qaeda members? Shouldn't there be a standard for this? After 9/11, members of the House International Relations Committee criticized this, but you never did explain the distinction.

Why do you consider it unpatriotic to oppose a poorly-justified war, but not unpatriotic for you to have skipped out on your own military responsibilities during a war you did not oppose? You did not report for National Guard service during the Vietnam conflict.

How can you decry fundamentalist attitudes abroad while promoting them at home? You take every opportunity to foster a fundamentalist view of the world that distinguishes between correct and incorrect beliefs. Religious groups that preach an Armageddon in which all nonmembers of their faith will be slaughtered are entitled to federal funds, and Israeli religious extremists in the occupied territories of Palestine get a warm reception, while fundamentalists elsewhere are condemned.

Why do you argue that the U.S. government should have access to the secrets of ordinary citizens while preventing the American public from learning about the actions of our own leaders? You support new invasive surveillance measures, but decline to release historical presidential materials that were expected to enter the public domain, including many documents relating to your father's presidency.

Finally, you say you are troubled by the existence of a leader who was not elected by a plurality of voters, who exhibits warlike behavior and advocates the right of preemptive attack, who threatens the energy future of the United States and who operates as an international bully and ignores the desperate needs of his own citizens. Has it ever occurred to you that this characterization may be a self-portrait?

[Kevlar281]

I quit reading after I saw that the author spelt the presidents name as “Dubya.”

[Cloud9]

I quit reading after I saw that the author spelt the presidents name as “Dubya.”

What a shame, you might have learned something.

[Kevlar281]

Originally posted by Cloud9
What a shame, you might have learned something.

I doubt it I don’t put to much stock in liberal rhetoric.

[Cloud9]

I doubt it I don’t put to much stock in liberal rhetoric.

Well, if you put it all into Bush, all I can do is pity you.

Moving on with my life, I find it interesting that we put so much blind faith in our leader. I was talking to my Irish professor, and he had a very interesting observation. There is a fundamental cultural difference between us and other nations in that our national leader is still tied up in symbol as a figurehead. In Britain for example, the symbolic figureheads would be the King/Queen, but now the Prime Minister is the executive political leader, and it is much more accepted for British citizens to vocally oppose and denounce him. Do not let pride in your country blind your judgement of a temporarily elected leader. He is there to serve US, not the other way around, and in my opinion he's done a poor job of it so far.

[AlphaSigOU]

Originally posted by Cloud9
What a shame, you might have learned something.

I did read it all the way through. And I learned something I knew all along: Thank the framers of the United States Constitution for freedom of speech and of the press. Try even writing that in Iraq or Saudi Arabia or any other country that does not have such protections... Russ Baker would soon find himself in some jail cell or facing execution for his beliefs and opinions.

I may violently disagree with Mr. Baker's feelings against the foreign policy of the United States, but I respect his right to express his opinion without fear of reprisal.

That's my two cents' worth... before taxes take it all away!

[Cloud9]

Try even writing that in Iraq or Saudi Arabia or any other country that does not have such protections... Russ Baker would soon find himself in some jail cell or facing execution for his beliefs and opinions.

Ah yes, but unless people like him continue to rally out against administrations like this, how long is it until there is a new addition to the "Homeland Security Act" censuring the media? It seems a long shot (although there is a certain degree of censurship that already occurs - for example, we probably won't know any details of what happens during the war until years after - just smiling soldiers saluting flags), but without people to protest, the whole country would just be following Bush over a cliff like lemmings. America was founded on the waves of dissent, and it is those who are not afraid to speak out against the poor decisions of our President now who are the true patriots. Administrations like this feed on fear and paranoia to control the people, which is precisely why it is important for protest to not only thrive, but paid attention (to an extent, it's not good to become paranoid on the other extreme either)

*edited because I cannot spell while eating

[MTSUGURL]

Originally posted by Cloud9
Ah yes, but unless people like him continue to rally out against administrations like this, how long is it until there is a new addition to the "Homeland Security Act" censuring the media? It seems a long shot (although there is a certain degree of censurship that already occurs - for example, we probably won't know any details of what happens during the war until years after - just smiling soldiers saluting flags), but without people to protest, the whole country would just be following Bush over a cliff like lemmings. America was founded on the waves of dissent, and it is those who are not afraid to speak out against the poor decisions of our President now who are the true patriots. Administrations like this feed on fear and paranoia to control the people, which is precisely why it is important for protest to not only thrive, but paid attention (to an extent, it's not good to become paranoid on the other extreme either)

First of all, I don't want to know ALL the details of any war. Not that I want to be clueless and ignorant, but nor do I feel that we need to know everything for security reasons. I do agree that America was founded on the waves of dissent, but I do not believe that the President is making poor decisions, quite the contrary, and I am no less patriotic because I believe in him. Nor am I a mindless lemming. Your statement argues that differing opinions are a mark of Americans (obviously paraphrased) but then you call those who do not support the president the "true patriots". Am I the only one seeing the inconsistency here?

Crystal

[Cloud9]

No, no inconsistency. With something this important, with so much anger against us by the WORLD...the WORLD mind you, and yes, there is one out there, and it's pretty important, despite our country's overwhelming dismissal of it...with so many obvious bad signs about this decision, with so many POOR reasons for the decision itself. Oppression? Ok, why aren't we eliminating it in the other 50 countries around the world? Weapons? HELLO North Korea...and in case you haven't noticed, the US only goes after countries it believes pose no threat...why the hell do you think the Cold War lasted so long without us running in to disarm Russia? Iraq aggression against the US? That's a good one, I want to know exactly when Iraq troops came marching into America and shooting missles at us. If anyone mentions 9/11 I think I'll scream, it's Osama Bin Laden not Osama Hussein for the love of God!
So. With all of these things, I don't just think opinions supporting the war are just different, they're downright wrong. As obviously wrong as organizations signing up for MTV sorority/fraternity life(for EX-AM-PLE, obviously it's not the same thing). Everyone around them knows it's a stupid decision, but they can't see it, all they can see is the immediate action, like tunnel vision. And that's it. All I hope is to plant some seed of awareness in the minds of people who read this thread, whether or not you argue, just that somewhere in your subconscious you begin to question the situation. Maybe if our citizens wake up and speak out soon enough Bush will be forced to end this foolishness, before it escalates into years of death, hatred, and revenge on America's arrogance.

[Sistermadly]

I could hug you right now. I really could.

When I think of why America was founded -- when I think of the patriots who had the courage to stand up to the ruling party and say "We won't take it anymore" -- that's what makes me proud.

I'm all for supporting the troops who are in the unenviable position of having to carry out this grudge match. My heart goes out to each and every one of them. But I do not support this president, and I do not support this war. I consider dissent a part of my proud American heritage.

[Munchkin03]

Originally posted by Kevlar281
I doubt it. I don’t put too much stock in liberal rhetoric.

I'd consider myself pretty liberal, but I do read things on both sides of the political spectrum. I'm just as likely to peruse a copy of the National Review as I am Utne Reader. It's part of being open-minded and a well-educated person in this country.

I will support the troops. Like I've mentioned before here so many times, I grew up in a military town, and have family members that are affected by this. But I will not, never have and never will, support George W. Bush. There is a difference.

I am infinitely grateful for the freedoms we have here. Bush's presence or absence has no impact on my First Amendment Rights--why should I bite my tongue if I don't like him?

[alfuzzxi]

As far as the whole media thing goes, I don't think it would be too bad if the media was told to take a hike. I'm so tired of seeing a bunch of liberal journalist give away military tactics to the enemy just so they can be the first to scoop a story.

Ok, so Iraq is more of a threat than North Korea. Think about it geogrpahically. It would be easier for Iraq to uses weapons of mass destruction on the countires it's around than North Korea. Do you seriously think that North Korea would do something as foolish as actually using those weapons when they are surrounded by China, Russia, and Japan. The U.S. does not have to keep as strong of a focus on North Korea because these other countries can and will protect themselves. North Korea is using those weapons to gain attention. They want to be listened to and respected the only way they know how to do it is to flash around their "dangerous" weapons.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally posted by Munchkin03
I'd consider myself pretty liberal, but I do read things on both sides of the political spectrum. I'm just as likely to peruse a copy of the National Review as I am Utne Reader. It's part of being open-minded and a well-educated person in this country.

I will support the troops. Like I've mentioned before here so many times, I grew up in a military town, and have family members that are affected by this. But I will not, never have and never will, support George W. Bush. There is a difference.

I am infinitely grateful for the freedoms we have here. Bush's presence or absence has no impact on my First Amendment Rights--why should I bite my tongue if I don't like him?

You took the words right out of my mouth!

[Cloud9]

They want to be listened to and respected the only way they know how to do it is to flash around their "dangerous" weapons.

And here you have the crux of the problem. Here's North Korea, waving around its nuclear weapons, and there's Iraq, in which, as all of the war supporters keep repeating, over 12 YEARS there has been no evidence of any such weapons. I mean, it's not like a nuclear weapon is a really difficult thing to hide either, they don't come in pocket sizes. Think about it. Trust me, we have alot more important things to worry about than Iraq, but don't worry, thanks to the war we'll all forget about it until it's too late.

[alfuzzxi]

It's all a political game. There is no telling how it will end. There is no way to tell who in the end poses more problems- Iraq or North Korea. It's a guessing game. I personally believe that North Korea doesn't really want to take action- they just want attention. Iraq is a bully towards other countries- they have taken more action than North Korea. Atleast North Korea can say they have nuclear weapons, how long did it take for Hussein to finally admit they had them.

That is why we have to trust our government. They know and have so much more information about these two countries. If they feel that it is more necessary to go after Iraq than North Korea, then that is what we have to do.