Soapbox

An American Citizen Responds to President Bush’s national address

Mr. Bush:

Last night you spoke to America about your “New Way Forwardâ€? in Iraq and asked us for our support. The war in Iraq troubles all of us, and nothing would make us happier, democrat and republican alike, than for your proposed military strategy to bring a resolution to the conflict that protects American security and offers hope of peace and prosperity returning to Iraq. Forgive us if many of us don’t believe what you propose will do any of that. Here are a few reasons why.

You spoke of sacrifices that will be made to continue the war. I wonder, what sacrifices are you thinking of, and made by whom? Will there be a tax increase on your wealthy friends to help pay for the war and reconstruction efforts that are bankrupting this country? Will there finally be strict oversight of the contracts given to the companies owned by your friends who are making obscene profits in Iraq at the expense of US taxpayers and the Iraqi people? Will you stop sending inexperienced political hacks to do vitally important jobs? Or will there be a military draft, so that the sacrifice of lives doesn’t fall predominantly on the poor, rural and undereducated but is finally shared by the children of wealth and privilege?
I thought not.

The media is giving you credit for finally admitting mistakes after 3 years and 3,000 American lives and countless thousand Iraqi dead. Yet you merely said “Where mistakes have been made”. You could be talking about mistakenly ordering a pastrami sandwich instead of roast beef last week, for all you seem to have learned from your mistakes

Indeed, you tried to make us think that plan was wisely crafted by referring to the generals, senators, veterans and the Iraq study group whom you say you consulted with. But you omit the fact that most, if not all of them advised against this very course of action. I’m not sure it really counts as a consultation when you ignore everything they say.

You warned of the collapse of the Iraqi government and mass killings should the U.S. begin withdrawing from Iraq now. Please turn on the television, Mr. Bush. This is already happening. No one wants to see it continue, but you have not demonstrated any reason to believe that your proposed action will be able to stop it.

In fact, you don’t even expect it to! You assure us that your plan plan will strengthen Iraq and bring peace, and then you tell us that even if everything goes exactly as planned, the violence and bloodshed will continue. So every time another market or mosque blows up, you can claim that your plan is working perfectly? If our success will look exactly like our failure, sir, what’s the use of dieing to succeed?

Frankly, Mr. President, it seems to me that, in a nation the size of Iraq and with the scale of the violence there, 20,000 troops is not a surge- it is a squirt. It is significant to the people being sent over there for a third, and soon perhaps a 4th tour, but on a national scale, I’m not sure what 20,000 troops can accomplish.

Last night you clearly threatened war against, rather than promised dialogue with, Syria and Iran. And in case any of us misunderstood that threat, the Iranian consulate in northern Iraq was raided last night. Since the United States has been unable to handle the fighting in Iraq, what makes you think we are prepared for yet another war?

You say we must send these troops in now because it probably should have been done before. But “better late than never” isn’t always true, Mr. Bush. Your generals and advisors were calling for higher troop strength 3 years ago, to prevent looting, to prevent the blowing up of mosques and police stations, to prevent the interruption of commerce and education and the dragging of people into the street at night to torture and murder them, and the reprisal killings, and the reprisal of the reprisals. It is far too late to prevent any of that!

It is odd that you seem to think that Prime Minister Maliki has it in his power to really crack down and end this violence once and for all. And what, you just forgot to tell him that’s what you want him to do, so that’s why he didn’t do it before? How does saying “And we really mean it this time!” suddenly give him the ability to settle a country that has spun out of control?

Mr. President, last night you told America that we should follow your “New Way Forward” (that doesn’t seem new at all), even if the violence continues unabated and spreads to Iran and Syria. Trust me, you said.
But so far, Sir, you have been proven wrong in absolutely everything you have said and done in Iraq. The WMD’s, the terrorism threat, troop levels, “the war will last 6 weeks”, the “greeted with flowers” thing, “Mission Accomplished”, the “last throes”, the “not a civil war” assertions. You told us that capturing Sadaam would end the violence… that holding elections and ratifying a constitution would bring peace, that trying Sadaam would reunite the country.Let’s not forget “the war will pay for itself” and “the war will cost America only 100 million dollars”.

You have been spectacularly and bloodily wrong in all of it, and your response to this disaster is to insist that a few mistakes may have been made but now, this time, you’ve got it right. Mr. President, for the last 3 years you haven’t had a clue, and you gave every indication last night of ignoring all the advice of all the experts and going ahead with exactly what you wanted to do all along. What possible reason would we have to think that you suddenly know what you’re doing?
A new speech does not a new direction make. This “New Way Forward” seems to be nothing more than the same old way you’ve been headed all along, with a fresh coat of lipstick on the pig.

I wish it would work; I really do. The nation, the middle east and the world needs for you to get this right. But I just don’t believe that you have.

I feel so special!

You know, I write a lot of letters. Letters to my congressmen, letters to television shows that allow professional character assassin Ann Coulter to enrich herself by being interviewed her on their show, and of course, letters to newspapers.

Recently the Columbus Dispatch published one of my letters, written in response to another letter. This is my text:

I respond to the letter of 5/21 telling us all to calm down, because the newest revelation about the Bush administration’s assault on civil liberties is no big deal.

The writer begins by assuring us that Bush is only eavesdropping on our conversations if we are talking to al Qaida. And he bases that assurance on what? On the fact that President Bush says so? George Bush: the same man who said he was not spying without warrants at all when he was? Who told us there was “no doubt” Sadaam had WMD’s when he knew there was doubt? Who signs hundreds of laws he has no intention of following and intimidates government scientists into falsifying data to support his policies? Sorry; this president has been caught lying too many times to get by with “trust me” ever again. We need proof.

The writer then informs us that the governmental data mining operation is completely benign and similar to that engaged in by many corporations. Perhaps he should have read the previous page of that day’s Dispatch, where Attorney General Alberto Gonzales makes it clear that the Bush administration (which doesn’t care what information they leak or whom it hurts) will prosecute any journalist who exposes the truth- excuse me, publishes classified information. Tracking calling patterns enables the government to intimidate reporters by tracking down whom they call and who called the people they called, to stop the flow of information and silence the press. There is nothing benign about this in a so-called democracy!

If president Bush was really concerned about national security he would be actually securing our nation: inspecting cargo, not selling off America’s debt to hostile foreign powers and not threatening war with Iran and cold war with Russia when he can’t even handle the two wars he has already started, etc. While a certain amount of spying is indeed necessary, his behavior to date makes it clear that the Bush administration is more concerned with “administration security” than national security.

If that’s not worth being upset about, I don’t know what is.

T.L. Meisky

Columbus, OH

By my standards, that’s pretty benign. I got a couple of phone calls the day after it ran from a few friends and a stranger who apparently looked me up in the phone book and congratulated me on countering some of the Republican spin that allows them to twist our democracy into something unrecognizable.

So yesterday, I got a postcard in the mail. Well, it was addressed to Ted, but it was clearly meant for me. With no opening salutation and no closing or signature, it read as follows:

You forget the part about the stolen elections and big, bad Carl (sic) Rove. You have to be an idiot (already obvious) to believe there were no WMD’s. You probably think there are no IED’s. Did you serve in the military? I doubt it. Every morning I thank GOD we have Bush and not Gore or Kerry. My only fault with Bush is that he didn’t nominate Kennedy for the Supreme Court. Bush or any democratic president can tap my phones, read my mail or do anything else they please.

At first I thought this was a fake, and skipped to the bottom to see if it was signed by my friend Marj (who works investigating voting fraud in Ohio) or someone else, because it just seemed too pat: too textbook, knee-jerk Republican to be real. I mean, do people really talk this way?

Also the reference to Kennedy on the Supreme Court leaves me puzzled: first of all, because there already IS a Kennedy on the Supreme Court…and he’s a pretty liberal judge. Clearly the writer is confused about more than a few things.

I was finally convinced of the authenticity of this missive by the fact that it was addressed to the wrong person. Apparently this crank (I’m guessing man, but who knows) also pulled out the phone book and wrote to the only Meisky he found there, assuming his poison arrow was on target.

I found this to be just precious! Some scared little conservobot got angry enough at my humble letter to write an anonymous piece of hate mail… to the wrong person. I guess that means I am doing something right…?

Ted was disappointed that it wasn’t signed. He wanted to track this guy down and say something to the effect of: “I’m sorry that some letter got you so upset that you spent 24 cents to bitch about it . Bad news though: I didn’t write it. Does it make you feel better to insult a stranger who had nothing to do with what made you angry? .”
I guess he doesn’t find it quite as funny as I do. I was only disappointed that it wasn’t written in crayon and wasn’t even more stupid. I’ve written some really liberal stuff in my time, and I think I deserve truely high-quality hate mail~ but i suppose this will do.

I was particularly touched, though, by the reference to being fine with intrusions on privacy from a person who insisted on the anonymity of a plain postcard with no signature. So apparently this man is a hypocrite as well as a coward.

Here’s a little heads up for those of you who don’t read the Boston Globe, because otherwise, you might have missed it.

Something has been going on in America while the media was “out”,(which has been most of the last 5 years.) The rule of law- the idea that no one is beyond the reach of justice- has been destroyed. Oh, and congress has been declared quaint and unnecessary. What- did you miss it? Maybe that’s because the Columbus Dispatch and FOX News have been busy reporting Natalie Holloway.

Our President, who put his hand on the Bible (twice) and swore before God to uphold the laws passed by congress, broke that vow, hundreds and hundreds of times. The Boston Globe reports that President George Bush has deliberately and willfully ignored over 750 laws, simply by declaring that he has the right to set aside any statute passed by congress if it conflicts with his interpretation of the law.  Remember the ban on torture John McCain got through congress, which Bush signed but later revealed that his fingers were crossed? Multiply that little stunt by 750.
Bush does not veto the statutes he has problems with and ask Congress to try again- in fact he signs them, often with much fanfare and praise for the authors. Then he quietly issues a “signing Statement”, in effect saying, “Yeah, not so much” which he believes gives him the power to ignore any law that he doesn’t agree with. Oh you and I still have to follow the law, but he doesn’t.

It works out that 1 out of 10 bills that he has signed, he has ignored. In effect, he has given himself a line-item veto; something that the Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional during the Clinton administration. So I guess he’s also saying that the Supreme Court is irrelevant! But the media doesn’t talk about it.

Bruce Fein, deputy Attorney General for Ronald Reagan says that the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch “to exercise some self-restraint”, but that George Bush has declared himself the sole judge of what is within the scope of his own powers, and then ruled for himself every time.
“This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep this country a democracy.” Fein said.

Um…does this not bother anybody? Do the evangelicals not care that their hero lied to God? Do the so-called “strict constructionists” not care that George W. Bush is de-constructing our democracy? With all the fuss about “activist judges”, why doesn’t anyone care about an activist president? If nothing else, you’d think the civics teachers of America would be up in arms, because Bush is making a lie out of everything they teach! Imagine if Bill Clinton had smiled and waved and signed hundreds of bills he then ignored because they crimped his style.

President Bush also signed and implemented a budget bill that he knew had not yet been approved by the House of Representatives– apparently because he does not think that body is necessary for his vision of America. Was he ever going to let us know that he has declared the constitution null and void?

This should not be a liberal or conservative issue: the importance of upholding the constitution should be an issue that all Americans agree on. Perhaps we should take a few moments off from freaking out about who wants to get married or who burned the flag a decade ago, and think about whether we want a president to be allowed to set fire to the Constitution and fiddles while it burns.

Douglas Adams created a creature in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy�? that he described as “…so mind-boggling stupid that it thinks that if you can’t see it, it can’t see you.�? Well that fellow has nothing on the people running this country! George Bush apparently thinks that if he doesn’t call it a war- it won’t BE one! I guess this is no surprise coming from a man who believes that if he says that he’s balanced the budget often enough, he has.

Yesterday President George Bush marked the third anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war, a date that weighs heavily in the mands of many Americans, with a speech that lasted 2 whole minutes and did not once use the word "war".

Remember when we were all supposed to call the Iraq war the "global war on terror" and then the "Struggle against people with extremist ideologies-" or some such ridiculous thing? Well it turns out that what is taking place in Iraq right now- including the largest air campaign since the invasion- is not even a war at all! According to the president, after three years of anguish, it is simply "the Liberation of Iraq" and all the dead and injured are merely "sacrifices made".

Oh, well, that makes it alright then.

Over 2,300 Americans dead and tens of thousands wounded, a nation and an entire region in shambles, bombs going off every day killing children on their way to school, U. S. forces under fire every time they step outside their compounds, religious and political leaders assassinated whenever they speak out… and the President has decided that the real enemy is the English language! It’s not a war at all, see: it’s a lib-er-a-tion.
Donald Rumseld was asked this weekend if he could define what a civil war is, since he assures us daily that Iraq is not in the midst of one. He hemmed and hawed but couldn’t do it. Maybe it depends on what your definition of "civil" is. Or maybe it’s like pornography: he’ll know it when he sees it.

This cowardly bunch does not even have the moral courage to stand up and own what they have wrought, what they bullied and lied and cheated to create: a deadly and escalating WAR.

Sorry; I’m not buying. A war is a war is a war…and a war by any other name still makes people dead.

There is a fundamental truth that George Bush and his dictator-apologists in the media hope the American people don’t see:

It’s not about the spying.

Because it’s not about the terrorists- it’s about the law. In America, the idea that no one is above the law is the absolute bedrock of American democracy. If the president doesn’t have to follow the law just like evryone else, it isn’t a law, and we have no democracy.

It is insulting in the extreme for the right-wing spin machine to flap their arms and shriek that if the president were to bother to get retro-active warrants, we would all be murdered in our beds. It is not an either/or situation: we can have surveillance of suspects AND civil liberties. But they don’t want you to know that.

President Bush was in fantasy-land yesterday when he snippily chastised the press and the democrats for caring about illegal white house wiretaps, saying that by breaking and discussing the story, they had alerted the terrorists to this vital program. Is he kidding? Hello! The terrorists already KNOW that the U.S. spies on suspected criminals! The only revelation is that Bush thinks the Constitution says that he can break laws at will. Maybe he should wander across the mall there in Washington and take another look at the thing.

The problem isn’t spying, it is that the government didn’t inform the courts AT ALL about whom they are spying on. If they don’t have to tell, what’s to stop them from listening in on anyone- congressional democrats, peace activists or whomever they consider to be their political enemy? (These days that would have to include anyone with 3 functioning brain cells!)

And if you don’t think a president would stoop to this sort of behavior, you need to read up on a little thing called “Watergate”.