George W's Values
George W. Bush has criticized the Democratic candidates for President on the basis that they are not aligned with the values of the American people, unlike himself and his puppeteer, Dick "**ck you" Cheney.
Let's see, George. What values would that be?
Are you talking about conservative, small government, fiscally responsibile, support the working man, non-interventionist values?
Can't be that, because you have expanded government and its ability to interfere in the lives of American citizens in the name of protecting us from shadowy "terrists", who have not made a move in this country since 2001, when you received a clear warning and went on the longest vacation in American Presidential History.
In order to finance a huge giveaway to your millionaire and billionaire buddies, you borrowed a record amount of money from our posterity, and want to make those giveaways permanent, even though your own Fed chairman warns that you endanger our economy and the health of our currency. You have supported policies that steadily export the jobs of ordinary Americans, and reassure India and China that you will do nothing to stop the steady migration of jobs their way. You have conducted the most unilateral, interventionist foreign policy in our history, breaking the long-held tradition of this country by waging a preemptive war on a weak and almost defenseless country, who were described by your Secretary of State as being "in a box". I don't see a lot of signs of those values in the way you have run your government.
Are you talking about the values of personal responsibility and integrity, respect for the truth, and equal justice?
Can't be that one either. Personal responsibility is hardly the hallmark of your group. Given the most collossal intelligence failure in American history, and a whole series of missteps that has so far cost over 1000 dead coalition soldiers and countless Iraqis dead and wounded, NOBODY HAS BEEN FIRED! In fact, all your guys have been praised as having done a superb job. George Tenent, who headed the primary intelligence agency, after leaving his job was praised as having done a "superb job". That means you endorse the "slam dunk" case he made for going to war.
Even though you thought to ask your Justice department, hey, would it be OK for me to authorize torture for our prisoners in the war on terrism? When they twisted the logic around to reach the conclusion you were looking for, and Rummy sent out word to "take the gloves off" and you transferred the General from Gitmo to Gitmo-ize the Abu Ghraib prison, and you allowed civilian contractors (who you, by executive order relieved from any accountability and placed outside the reach of any court) to conduct the interrogations of prisoners, and you placed slightly trained Guardsmen under those contractors, and then you incentivized the contractors to get more material which led to more contracts, which led to more pursuasive means, which led to more coerced information... well, you get the idea. It was just a few grunts that caused all the problems.
What would it take to get someone fired? Oh, wait. I know! Telling the truth about the deceptions and double dealings of your administration will get your butt out the door in a heartbeat. The chief Medicaid actuary was threatened with firing if he told Congress the real cost of the gigantic giveaway to pharmaceutical corporations - some of your largest financial backers - otherwise known as the Medicaid Reform bill. Paul O'Neill would surely have been fired if he had written his book about your lack of any form of policy process in the White House. In fact, an unusual volume of former "superb" players on your staff or in government have, after exposing inconvenient truths about pre-9/11, your tax cut policies, or any number of embarrassing flubs by your crowd, been publically and loudly denounced by your political hit men on Faux news and as many other outlets as you can find. I suppose that you know that a firing would probably lead to another embarrassing book.
Well, does that bring us down to religion and family values?
On this one, I have to say that you have framed the argument so that if we take you at your word, you appear to be a genuine religionist - if there is such a word. You go through the motions, attend the prayer breakfasts, pray quite openly, suck up to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and Bob Jones University. You invoke the name of God often, but then it gets a little scary. If one of my neighbors confided in me that he was ordered by God to kill the guy two doors down, I think he would be picked up for observation and likely subjected to a psychiatric exam, at the very least. Yet when you told the Prime Minister of Israel that God told you to strike Afghanistan, and you did, and then he told you to go after Sadaam, and you struck him, nobody much batted an eye. It was not widely reported in the press.
Then there was the matter of consultation with end-days experts before forming the policy of the U. S. toward Israel. Elliot Abrams assured you, after checking, that Gaza had no biblical significance, so sacrifice of that strip of land would not have to be undone before the rapture. The fact that you believe that end times are approaching is also alleged to have helped form your environmental policies and accounts for your lack of heed to the rate at which we are using up the earth's natural resources - particularly oil. We won't need it!
To me, that is just scary. I don't have any issues with people in Government having a personal faith. It is a little comforting to me to have them at least acquainted with the teachings of Jesus, or even Buddha, or even Mohammad, as long as it is tempered by at least retaining touch with and a secular understanding of the world we live in. I would want their experience to be wide and deep, which I understand yours is not. When the President of all the people of America starts talking about receiving instructions from God directly and personally, I want them to undergo a medical and psychiatric workup, at the very least, since they hold the trigger for Armageddon - literally.
I won't speak for Jesus, but I really doubt that he would have a) set records for the number of people executed under his watch while governor, or b) make jokes about signing a death warrant, as you did about Carla Faye Tucker on the eve of her execution. He might also have had some problems with executing mentally defective people and juveniles - unlike yourself.
You have cynically positioned yourself on the wedge issues on the side of the religious right. Marriage is defined as a union between man and woman and it says so in the bible, so you gays just sit down and shut up, and I will change the constitution if I need to to set it in concrete. If you succeed, you will be the first modern President successfully to sponsor writing discrimination INTO the Constitution. You have scoured the countryside for the most cynically neanterthal right-wingers to appoint to the judiciary. Jurists with the most bizarre understanding of the role of government and the duty of courts to protect the rights guaranteed us in the Constitution have been sought out for the Federal bench - giving you a rich field of knuckle-draggers to choose from for your next Supreme Court nominee. This is the most frightful thing about the prospects of your next term. Overturning Rowe v. Wade will just be a starter. John Ashcroft will run amok with the Patriot act with nothing to stop him. The establishment of one-party, one-viewpoint, one philosophy rule will be complete, and it will last for the next ten years. And you will do this while your hired shills of right-wing radio shriek to the heavens about "activist" liberal judges making law.
If you want to see activist judges, just wait until the Bush appointees truly dominate the Supreme Court.
These values you point to don't seem to be those of the America I know, based on the way they reflect in the actions of your administration and your party. Those that John Kerry and John Edwards talk about are more in line with what I want my country to be. You can take yours back to Texas with you when you leave in January.
Let's see, George. What values would that be?
Are you talking about conservative, small government, fiscally responsibile, support the working man, non-interventionist values?
Can't be that, because you have expanded government and its ability to interfere in the lives of American citizens in the name of protecting us from shadowy "terrists", who have not made a move in this country since 2001, when you received a clear warning and went on the longest vacation in American Presidential History.
In order to finance a huge giveaway to your millionaire and billionaire buddies, you borrowed a record amount of money from our posterity, and want to make those giveaways permanent, even though your own Fed chairman warns that you endanger our economy and the health of our currency. You have supported policies that steadily export the jobs of ordinary Americans, and reassure India and China that you will do nothing to stop the steady migration of jobs their way. You have conducted the most unilateral, interventionist foreign policy in our history, breaking the long-held tradition of this country by waging a preemptive war on a weak and almost defenseless country, who were described by your Secretary of State as being "in a box". I don't see a lot of signs of those values in the way you have run your government.
Are you talking about the values of personal responsibility and integrity, respect for the truth, and equal justice?
Can't be that one either. Personal responsibility is hardly the hallmark of your group. Given the most collossal intelligence failure in American history, and a whole series of missteps that has so far cost over 1000 dead coalition soldiers and countless Iraqis dead and wounded, NOBODY HAS BEEN FIRED! In fact, all your guys have been praised as having done a superb job. George Tenent, who headed the primary intelligence agency, after leaving his job was praised as having done a "superb job". That means you endorse the "slam dunk" case he made for going to war.
Even though you thought to ask your Justice department, hey, would it be OK for me to authorize torture for our prisoners in the war on terrism? When they twisted the logic around to reach the conclusion you were looking for, and Rummy sent out word to "take the gloves off" and you transferred the General from Gitmo to Gitmo-ize the Abu Ghraib prison, and you allowed civilian contractors (who you, by executive order relieved from any accountability and placed outside the reach of any court) to conduct the interrogations of prisoners, and you placed slightly trained Guardsmen under those contractors, and then you incentivized the contractors to get more material which led to more contracts, which led to more pursuasive means, which led to more coerced information... well, you get the idea. It was just a few grunts that caused all the problems.
What would it take to get someone fired? Oh, wait. I know! Telling the truth about the deceptions and double dealings of your administration will get your butt out the door in a heartbeat. The chief Medicaid actuary was threatened with firing if he told Congress the real cost of the gigantic giveaway to pharmaceutical corporations - some of your largest financial backers - otherwise known as the Medicaid Reform bill. Paul O'Neill would surely have been fired if he had written his book about your lack of any form of policy process in the White House. In fact, an unusual volume of former "superb" players on your staff or in government have, after exposing inconvenient truths about pre-9/11, your tax cut policies, or any number of embarrassing flubs by your crowd, been publically and loudly denounced by your political hit men on Faux news and as many other outlets as you can find. I suppose that you know that a firing would probably lead to another embarrassing book.
Well, does that bring us down to religion and family values?
On this one, I have to say that you have framed the argument so that if we take you at your word, you appear to be a genuine religionist - if there is such a word. You go through the motions, attend the prayer breakfasts, pray quite openly, suck up to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and Bob Jones University. You invoke the name of God often, but then it gets a little scary. If one of my neighbors confided in me that he was ordered by God to kill the guy two doors down, I think he would be picked up for observation and likely subjected to a psychiatric exam, at the very least. Yet when you told the Prime Minister of Israel that God told you to strike Afghanistan, and you did, and then he told you to go after Sadaam, and you struck him, nobody much batted an eye. It was not widely reported in the press.
Then there was the matter of consultation with end-days experts before forming the policy of the U. S. toward Israel. Elliot Abrams assured you, after checking, that Gaza had no biblical significance, so sacrifice of that strip of land would not have to be undone before the rapture. The fact that you believe that end times are approaching is also alleged to have helped form your environmental policies and accounts for your lack of heed to the rate at which we are using up the earth's natural resources - particularly oil. We won't need it!
To me, that is just scary. I don't have any issues with people in Government having a personal faith. It is a little comforting to me to have them at least acquainted with the teachings of Jesus, or even Buddha, or even Mohammad, as long as it is tempered by at least retaining touch with and a secular understanding of the world we live in. I would want their experience to be wide and deep, which I understand yours is not. When the President of all the people of America starts talking about receiving instructions from God directly and personally, I want them to undergo a medical and psychiatric workup, at the very least, since they hold the trigger for Armageddon - literally.
I won't speak for Jesus, but I really doubt that he would have a) set records for the number of people executed under his watch while governor, or b) make jokes about signing a death warrant, as you did about Carla Faye Tucker on the eve of her execution. He might also have had some problems with executing mentally defective people and juveniles - unlike yourself.
You have cynically positioned yourself on the wedge issues on the side of the religious right. Marriage is defined as a union between man and woman and it says so in the bible, so you gays just sit down and shut up, and I will change the constitution if I need to to set it in concrete. If you succeed, you will be the first modern President successfully to sponsor writing discrimination INTO the Constitution. You have scoured the countryside for the most cynically neanterthal right-wingers to appoint to the judiciary. Jurists with the most bizarre understanding of the role of government and the duty of courts to protect the rights guaranteed us in the Constitution have been sought out for the Federal bench - giving you a rich field of knuckle-draggers to choose from for your next Supreme Court nominee. This is the most frightful thing about the prospects of your next term. Overturning Rowe v. Wade will just be a starter. John Ashcroft will run amok with the Patriot act with nothing to stop him. The establishment of one-party, one-viewpoint, one philosophy rule will be complete, and it will last for the next ten years. And you will do this while your hired shills of right-wing radio shriek to the heavens about "activist" liberal judges making law.
If you want to see activist judges, just wait until the Bush appointees truly dominate the Supreme Court.
These values you point to don't seem to be those of the America I know, based on the way they reflect in the actions of your administration and your party. Those that John Kerry and John Edwards talk about are more in line with what I want my country to be. You can take yours back to Texas with you when you leave in January.
posted by Maturin42 at
9:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home