Bush should really learn to keep his mouth shut. In hindsight at least when Reagan fumbled around for something to say, we now know it was probably Alzheimers. Bush probably wishes he had Alzheimers. When asked about what he knew about Iran-Contra, Reagan simply answered that he didn't remember. When Bush is asked about Iraq, he conveniently updates history as if we all had Alzheimers and don't remember. Such as, when asked "where are the weapons of mass destruction?" he replies that "we found them." And claiming that we went to war because "We gave [Saddam] a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." Then again maybe Bush is right and maybe we don't really remember anything. Maybe it's not 2003 at all but really 1984 where history is updated daily as enemies are declared friends and our friends were really our enemies all along.
Or maybe our mission in Iraq and Bush's "War on Terrorism" is really Heller's "Catch-22" where just when we think we're winning we're really losing and just when it's time to declare victory the mission gets extended. Kevin Phillips recently pointed out in an L.A. Times article how entwined the Bush family's business interests in the Middle East are with the politics of the region and this alone would seem to make it impossible to get a straight answer from this Administration as to what its true goals are for the region. Along with Bush financial interests in Afghanistan pre 9-11 and Cheney's past and present dealings with Iraq, is it any wonder the conspiracy theorists are having a field day about what Bush knew or didn't know about the 9-11 attacks?
I found this interesting. Another Kevin Phillips article back in January, 2001, points out that " ...the Republicans ... have had a Bush or a Dole on every ticket since 1976. ..."
and he goes on to point out about the 2000 presidential election, that
"The Bush administration is the first in many years to be elected in the face of a loose ideological majority--the more than 50 percent that supported Al Gore or Ralph Nader--that favors moving the nation's policies and politics in a direction largely different from what the nominally victorious regime represents. Even the George Wallace vote of 1968 and the Ross Perot vote of 1992 did not represent comparable polarities against the new administrations, since in many ways the policies favored by these third-party candidates did not cut against the ideological grain of the winning candidates (Richard Nixon in 1968, Bill Clinton in 1992)."
Much talk has been made in right wing circles since the bush ascendancy to the throne how much trouble the Democratic party is going to have in the next election forging a majority to reclaim the White House, and how out of touch the current Democratic presidential contenders are with the mainstream American voter. The more I think about it, the more I believe that this kind of right wing analysis is little more than political spin designed to keep the liberal/progressive wing of American politics off balance and off message. If I were a Republican, I would be even more worried about Bush getting reelected-- or should I say elected in '04. With his shady business dealings and incoherent foreign and domestic policy, Dubya may do more long term harm to Republican and conservative interests than a thousand Paul Wellstones ever could.
Or maybe our mission in Iraq and Bush's "War on Terrorism" is really Heller's "Catch-22" where just when we think we're winning we're really losing and just when it's time to declare victory the mission gets extended. Kevin Phillips recently pointed out in an L.A. Times article how entwined the Bush family's business interests in the Middle East are with the politics of the region and this alone would seem to make it impossible to get a straight answer from this Administration as to what its true goals are for the region. Along with Bush financial interests in Afghanistan pre 9-11 and Cheney's past and present dealings with Iraq, is it any wonder the conspiracy theorists are having a field day about what Bush knew or didn't know about the 9-11 attacks?
I found this interesting. Another Kevin Phillips article back in January, 2001, points out that " ...the Republicans ... have had a Bush or a Dole on every ticket since 1976. ..."
and he goes on to point out about the 2000 presidential election, that
"The Bush administration is the first in many years to be elected in the face of a loose ideological majority--the more than 50 percent that supported Al Gore or Ralph Nader--that favors moving the nation's policies and politics in a direction largely different from what the nominally victorious regime represents. Even the George Wallace vote of 1968 and the Ross Perot vote of 1992 did not represent comparable polarities against the new administrations, since in many ways the policies favored by these third-party candidates did not cut against the ideological grain of the winning candidates (Richard Nixon in 1968, Bill Clinton in 1992)."
Much talk has been made in right wing circles since the bush ascendancy to the throne how much trouble the Democratic party is going to have in the next election forging a majority to reclaim the White House, and how out of touch the current Democratic presidential contenders are with the mainstream American voter. The more I think about it, the more I believe that this kind of right wing analysis is little more than political spin designed to keep the liberal/progressive wing of American politics off balance and off message. If I were a Republican, I would be even more worried about Bush getting reelected-- or should I say elected in '04. With his shady business dealings and incoherent foreign and domestic policy, Dubya may do more long term harm to Republican and conservative interests than a thousand Paul Wellstones ever could.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home