Thursday, May 11, 2006


So, according to todays Times, everybody who has written about Bush (and there's been a wave of new books) both pro and con puts him down as making decisions based on ideals and beliefs--gut feelings--as opposed to analyzing, debating, and thinking about a problem, and details how he ignores normal decision making and policy aparatus in favor of his own pre-conceived notions. His boosters call this his biggest strength, his detractors a sign of hubris.

Me, I call it exactly what I expected when this bozo was elected back in 2000. It is sad when someone lives down to expectations that are so low. Bush has proven himself to be every aweful thing Liberals were afraid he would be: arrogant, competent, stuborn, and autocratic. Without the spector of Nixon hanging over him, I'd say he's the worst president ever. He is every evil, venal, vile thing the conservatives have been accused of being. He is a modern day Musolini, a neo-fascist disguised as a neo-conservative, a shoot from the hip cowboy who doesn't care who gets caught in the crossfire, a pro business, pro war, bully who has made the world a vastly more dangerous place in his six years in office, and who is destroying not only American freedoms, but the economy and our world standing in the process.

But we know all that.

Today he came out in defense of domestic sppying once again. It seems, according to USA today, that the NSA has been colecting a huge database on calls made by citizens within the United States. Now, me, I assume every call I make is being monitored, but most people seem to get irate about that sort of thing. Bush claims everything he does is legal. And it might be--is it illegal to collect info on who called whom? I mean, so long as you don't actually listen to the conversation? I don't know.

I do know that the president is still rolling out 9/11 as though it justifies his burning the constitution. How can someone who wants to tap Americans' phones, who thinks congress is a body of 400 yes men, who openly despises the courts, who denies due process to Americans, who condones torture, who keeeps people locked up for years in military prisons with no access to either lawyers, their own government, or the Red Cross, with no trials and no hope of reprieve, who signs off on extraordinary rendition, who unilaterally decides to invade a sovereign nation that did not attack us, who believes America should be a Judeo-Christian theocracy, and who tries to undermine democratically elected governments in Venezuela, Iran, Bolivia, and Palestine, be considered a defender of freedom?

I mean, I'm just asking.


Post a Comment

<< Home