By Anthony Wade
As the glow of the convention fades, we are left with the promise of help being on the way, but the reality of the Bush spin machine working overtime for the next few months. Unfortunately for the spin machine, Bush has assured it will not be compensated for actually working overtime, but I digress. The only issue Bush has, which he calls his signature issue, is the war on terror. We must be vigilant to not allow the mainstream media to continue the disinformation that Bush is anything resembling steady leadership, in times of change.
George W. Bush fancies himself a world leader. He wants you to consider him as a steady leader, in changing times. It is sad though that when you really look at his legacy, it is one of utter failure. Bush was handed worldwide solidarity after 911. Everyone considered themselves Americans that day and wanted to help us recover. What did Bush do with that goodwill? He squandered it. He thumbed his nose at the world and essentially said the United States will blow up whom we want, when we want. He withdrew from worldwide agreements and treaties that we had crafted and been supportive of for decades. He pretended to have a "coalition", when in reality all the risk was burdened by England and us. The remainder of the "coalition" is made up of countries that agreed so they could get a piece of the post-war contractual pie. That is why they are affectionately referred to as the "coalition of the bribed".
Bush started his "war on terror" by deciding to blow up Afghanistan. The reason was because that is where Osama bin Laden was. These are the facts you need to remember when thinking about Afghanistan:
Bush waited two months before actually deciding to go after bin Laden.
Bush had given the Taliban 43 million dollars in aid just a few years ago, even though at the time, bin Laden was reportedly supported by the Taliban. Don't let Bush lie to you about the great work he did in this country. As soon as it began, he left to go to Iraq. The truth about life in Afghanistan today can be found here: http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?pid=1477 We have 4-5 bases set up in Afghanistan now, and they are all along the route of a pipeline. The deal was struck to construct this pipeline, as soon as Bush blew up the country and put his puppet and former Unocal consultant, Karzi in as leader.
Bush's next target was Iraq. Iraq had a very visible bad guy for all of us to loathe. Saddam was after all the guy who tried to kill his father. Bush of course had a problem. Most experts knew that Saddam actually had nothing to do with bin Laden, since Iraq is a secular Islamic regime, the sworn enemy of al Qaeda. The excuse that they all came up with, to convince the country for support, was weapons of mass destruction. I know that Bush is now a history revisionist, who wants us to believe that he said that Saddam had the capability to eventually, possibly, obtain the schematics, or maybe a vague plan or allusion, to begin to set up weapons of mass destruction programs, that in due course may lead to the distant prospect of having a weapon. If you don't believe that, he would have us believe that he is the victim of poor intelligence. Never mind that he set up his own cell within the Pentagon to cook up Iraq intelligence that could justify a war. Never mind that immediately after 911, after being told that Saddam had nothing to do with it, he essentially ordered his people to link him to it. These are the facts you need to remember when thinking about Iraq:
Bush lied, repeatedly, incessantly, obviously. Iraq had nothing to do with 911, no matter how much Dick Cheney wants to lie repeatedly, incessantly, and obviously. Cheney is left to saying that the debunked Atta meeting in Czechoslovakia has "never been proven to not have happened." OK Dick, the rumor I hear is that you personally deliver the billions of dollars to Halliburton in unmarked bills contained in silver suitcases. Now, this may sound preposterous, but it has "never been proven to not have happened." Bush is still lying, habitually, unwaveringly, and perpetually. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, certainly not to the ridiculous levels purported by Bush and company. How many liters of anthrax, ricin, nuclear tubes, and yellowcake did you say he had? Now, did they ever have WMD? Sure, we sold them to Iraq. Do you like being lied to so brazenly, insolently, and audaciously? The fact that the world is better of without Saddam is NOT an acceptable defense for lying to the American people and to Congress. Bush has already made it known that his feelings on this subject are "so what's the difference?" See this link: http://www.moderateindependent.com/v1i18bush.htm
So, George W. Bush will have us believe over the next few months that we cannot turn over this "war on terror" in mid-stream. I ask what should be the obvious question, why not? He will have you believe that he is the stronger candidate on terror, and again I must ask, how so? Lets take a look at both candidates up close on this issue:
Bush: Never served in any active duty for his country. Cannot even prove that he ever finished his tour of duty in the National Guard. Mysteriously, records disappear, and then reappear, but in the end, we know he opted out of Vietnam, and then did not complete his responsibility to this country. As for the war on terror, he has blown up two third world countries that had nothing to do with 911, caught virtually no one of significance, and wants to trumpet these results for another four years? Kerry: Could have avoided Vietnam, as he was a child of privilege as well. He believed in duty and responsibility and not only volunteered for service, but also volunteered to go to Vietnam, go into hostile fire, and serve on a dangerous swiftboat. Won the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts. Since returning from the war, all he has done is serve his country in public service. He supported the President initially on the war, because Bush had promised to seek international agreement and use war only as a last resort. Upon realizing that Bush lied, he could not support it any longer.
Who would you rather have in your foxhole? Which one of these men would you want protecting you? The man who couldn't finish his tour of duty, or the man who took the fire, saved lives and has done nothing but serve his country? Bush wants you to believe that he is a tough guy, who cares about protecting you but all he has done is blow up two third world countries that had nothing to do with 911. Kerry on the other hand is a proven tough guy, who also understands that as Clinton said this week, strength and wisdom are not opposing values.
Anthony Wade is co-administrator of a website devoted to educating the populace to the ongoing lies of President George W. Bush and seeking his removal from office. He is a 36-year-old independent writer from New York with political commentary articles seen on multiple websites. A Christian progressive, and professional counselor, Mr. Wade believes that you can have faith and hold elected officials accountable for lies and excess.
Anthony Wade's Archive: http://www.opednews.com/archiveswadeanthony.htm
Email Anthony: takebacktheus@gmail.com
