Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Bush meets the press ...

Today has been the deadliest day so far for American occupiers of Iraq, 37 dying in Operation Blood for Oil. The total death toll for soldiers killed is now pushed past 1400, and a quick poll up at the cnn web site querying whether you would be willing to give your life for Iraq's "freedom" is currently skewed 10/90 (the nays have it, as they say). I only wish that the war criminals that planned & put this insane war into action had asked themselves that question 22 months ago. (Putting them on the front lines is an appealing vision, too.)

So, what happens? Bush gives a press conference and says that today was "a very discouraging day." I'm sure that the parents of those killed appreciates Bush's sorrow and that they feel that their children have died in the glorious fight for freedom. (Yes, that is sarcasm dripping down your screen. How many more parents have to lose their children for no good reason before this country wakes up? It's bad enough when you lose a child -- imagine losing a child for nothing. Does anyone in Washington even care? No, I don't think so either.)

Of course, we can take comfort in how well things are going in Iraq (Our Leader's point of view, certainly not mine). From an AP article:
Unwavering in the course he has set, Bush pledged: "We'll have the troop levels necessary to complete the mission. And that mission is to enable Iraq to defend herself from terrorists -- homegrown or terrorists that come in from outside of the country."
Wow, so that's why we went to war! Man, I was thinking it was those non-existent WMD! Memo to Bush: most Iraqis think we're the terrorists, having invaded their country, destroyed its infrastructure, killed thousands of Iraqis (to free them, you know), tortured who knows how many more, and leveled whole cities. Gosh, the nerve of them not to understand that we're doing this for them, darn it!

"I've heard talk that we are occupiers," he [Bush] said. "No, the United States and our troops and our coalition are there to help the Iraqi citizens."
Huh? We're not occupying Iraq? Have the soldiers moved next door to Iran already?

The general populace misses the good old days under Saddam -- that should give us some little clue what the Iraqis think of us. "Occupiers" is probably one of the nicer words they use.

Finally, facing damage control front & center like the manly man he is, Bush says that, not to worry, the vote this weekend in Iraq is already a success! Never mind that, according to Time magazine, most Iraqis are too scared to vote and have no idea who is running anyway -- the candidates can't campaign, since they're threatened with being be-headed if they do. Boy, I'd say freedom is on the march, all right.

From the same AP article is a quick paragraph about Social Security:

He recognizes that some people are worried about the political risks and financial costs of overhauling Social Security by creating private investment accounts -- a step that could cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion in transition costs. "What you're hearing a little bit is whether or not it is worth the political price. I think it is," he said. He pledged to lead a battle in Congress and travel across the country to convince Americans the system is in trouble.
I haven't thought much of the collective intelligence of my countrymen since they voted Bush back in office, but I'm hoping that where their own futures are concerned, they'll be a little smarter and realize that Bush is trying to pull a con just like he did with the WMD in Iraq. The simple truth is that Social Security will need some fixing, at some point, say 30 years from now. Bush is against Social Security on ideological grounds. He's not trying to fix it, he's trying to ruin it for good. And we must not let this happen -- the elected officials in the Senate & House need to know that we're not buying what Bush is selling. They were elected to represent us, and if they don't, they should not be re-elected, not even as dog catcher.

Leave Social Security alone until there is a fiscally responsible president in office.

There are genuine crises in this country -- the widening gap between rich and poor, income not rising in step with the cost of living, medicare, an election system that is mired in controversy, if not outright dishonesty (ask yourself this: if Diebold can make ATM machines that are accurate, shouldn't they have done just a bit better with voting machines? not to mention the lack of paper trail (something else ATMs manage just fine)). The fiscal infrastructure of our country is a mess -- the deficit is ballooning out of all control, the dollar is falling, our trade deficit is colossal ... these things should be addressed by a governing body that is fiscally responsible and not asleep at the wheel. I've been very disappointed in the elected officials, both Republican and Democrat, because they don't seem to be interested in doing what is right and good and best for the majority of Americans. The Democrats have slouched along not really trying to put the brakes on an out-of-control fascistic agenda promulgated by the Republicans.

Everybody has a lot to answer for.

No comments: