Okay, we know the answer to the first question: The U.S. taxpayer is paying for the war. $200 Billion looks like a reasonable lower figure at this point. While this makes some sense, since we have the largest economy in the world, it’s also true that with a better foreign policy a lot of this cost would be shared — as it was when the other Bush was president.
Beyond that, however is the question of how we’re spending our money in Iraq. Turns out that the companies that are supposed to be rebuilding the country (and, by the way, how about letting Iraqis do that?) are spending the lion’s share of it on security — mercenaries, you might say.
So, because Bush didn’t want to send in enough troops, we’re paying for private security firms to protect people who shouldn’t a) be there and b) need protecting.
This has sort of an Arbusto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbusto_Energy) ring to it, but somehow I don’t see the Saudis bailing Bush out on this one. We taxpayers are drawing the short straw this time.
So, George says Kerry’s health care plan will lead to rationing.
And what are we doing with the flu vaccine?
And besides, rationing is something we do with a scarce commodity. To millions of Americans, health care is looking pretty scarce under the current Administration.
Friends,
I am writing to you today to ask you to withdraw your support for George Bush in this election.
I am writing to all my friends, neighbors and acquaintances whom I expect are planning to vote for Bush, not to convince them to become Democrats, but to join other Republicans (see, e.g., this piece by Michael Cudahy - no, not that one) who feel as I do that Bush and his radical allies have hijacked the Republican party and are leading the nation in a terribly wrong direction.
I am asking you to consider just a few points.
(more…)
The Republicans will say Bush won the debate because he managed not to make faces when his errors and inaccuracies were exposed during the debate.
However,his silly grin and hollow rhetoric were no match for the clarity of thought, knowledge,and yes, vision and values exhibited by John Kerry.
I can understand how my Republican friends might disagree with certain aspects of Kerry’s views of government, but I fail to see how they can watch Bush’s feeble arguments in defense of failed policies and conclude that George W. Bush ought to be President of the United States.
As far as I can make out, President Bush’s response to Kerry’s attacks regarding Iraq is, “I should be President because I am Commander-in-Chief.”
The essence of his argument is that it would be disheartening to troops and the Iraqi supporters of Bush’s policies to change the leadership that started the war in Iraq.
Bush advances this argument to immunize himself and his policies against any scrutiny that finds his judgment lacking in either the decision to begin the war or his conduct of the war once it began.
The American public — in particular, the voters — should reject this argument outright, because it is essentially an argument for a dictatorship. After all, why have elections during war if it’s wrong to remove the sitting president from office?
It is a disservice to both suffering American troops and to democracy to accept this idea. First, because American troops deserve a competent commander-in-chief. Second, because one of the fundamental tenets of democracy is that no public official is above reproach.
Bush has been quoted as saying ?Things would be easier if this were a dictatorship ? as long as I?m the dictator.?
Small joke.
What happens when a police officer shoots someone? He or she is suspended, and a thorough investigation is held to make sure the shooting was justified. If the shooting wasn’t justified, the officer is disciplined, possibly even discharged.
But, you might ask, didn’t we give the officer a gun? Didn’t we authorize the use of force?
Of course, but we demand that deadly force only be used when absolutely necessary.
Now imagine the George Bush is your friendly town cop — Barney Fife, if you will — and John Kerry gives him a gun — that is, authorizes the use of force. Imagine further that the town bully has been placed under house arrest. Now suppose Bush barges into the bully’s home and shoots him dead. I think we could expect Kerry to condemn Bush’s action.
Would we say that Kerry voted for the use of force, and then against it? Or would we say that Kerry authorized the use of force and expected it to be used with good judgment, and only if absolutely necessary?
Not even Barney Fife shot anyone. Bush has the blood of tens of thousands on his hands. I’ll be voting to have him discharged.
I supposed the best thing you can say about Dick Cheney’s performance last night was that he did a surprisingly good job trying to defend the indefensible.
The worst thing you can say is that his defense was based on the same litany of distortion —
about the reasons for going to war, the conduct of the war, the current situation in Iraq, and distortions about Kerry’s record on defense.
Meanwhile, John Edwards succeeded in bringing to the debate the abysmal record of the Administration on domestic issues — jobs, health care and the deficit. His self control was evidenced by his ability not to guffaw when Cheney spoke of “putting the U.S. economy on an upward path.”
Sad for the country when the Vice-President is more qualified than the President — and yet shows no
better judgment on matters foreign and domestic.
The most telling aspect of the vice-presidential candidates debate was Cheney’s inconsistency regarding Iran and Iraq. He was perfectly willing to attack Iraq virtually unilaterally — let’s
not kid ourselves — but when there was money to be made he was against unilateral sanctions against Iran. In both cases, Cheney seems to have had his company’s interests before his country’s.
So, the GOP spin masters want me to believe George Bush has heart. I’ll buy that.
Bush said it was tough to send troops into harm’s way. Right, it should be. But this is coming from the macho “bring ‘em on” President, who’s lost thousands of killed and wounded American troops since “mission accomplished.”
Bush said that to call the war in Iraq “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time” would be sending a mixed message. Well, maybe for him.
And that’s the problem. Bush cannot admit that he made a terribly reckless and costly decision to fight an unnecessary, illegal and hence immoral war. And that his administration has conducted it incompetently. For him to admit this would be a mixed message: “I’m right. Whoops, I was terribly wrong.”
But John Kerry has had a consistent, message, not a mixed one. And I believe it would hearten the troops to know they have a new commander-in-chief who has the sense to conduct the war properly and devise a realistic exit strategy.
Which is why we need a new president. John Kerry will not make the foolish, reckless decisions Bush has made.
If your horse is mad, you damned well better change it in midstream.
So, the GOP spin masters want me to believe George Bush has heart. I’ll buy that, at least provisionally.
Bush said it was tough to send troops into harm’s way. Right, it should be. But coming from the “bring ‘em on” President, I have the feeling that he was feeling more macho than concerned about sending in troops.
Bush said that to call the war in Iraq “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time” would be sending a mixed message. Well, maybe for him.
And that’s the problem. Bush cannot admit that he made a terribly reckless and costly decision to fight an unnecessary, illegal and immoral war. And that his administration has conducted it incompetently. For him to admit this would be a mixed message: “I’m right. Whoops, I was terribly wrong.”
But John Kerry has had a consistent message. And I believe it would hearten the troops to know they have a new commander-in-chief who has the sense to conduct the war properly and devise a realistic exit strategy.
Which is why we need a new president. John Kerry will not make the foolish decisions Bush has made.
If your horse is mad, you damned well better change it in midstream.