| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
26 Sep 2004 11:40:18 AM |
| Object: |
Karl Rove tries to sell Bush's failures as "achievements" |
Under George W. Bush, the United States has become a government of the
corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation, to paraphrase
Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.
From The Seattle Post-Inelligence, 9/26/04:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/192327_williams26.html
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Bush's dismal policy failures in tax cuts and Iraq are being sold as
achievements
By WALTER WILLIAMS
During his first term, George W. Bush has inflicted more damage on the
nation's people than any other president in the post-World War II era.
Not only has the Bush administration failed, it has been far and away
the most dangerous presidency in this period.
No other administration has seen itself above the law or so
disregarded the Constitution by attacking the venerable institutions
created to uphold democracy.
In addition, the Bush presidency pushed through its policies by
employing a calculated lawlessness that featured both deception and
secrecy.
A couple of examples help illustrate the administration's use of
subterfuge.
The wanton level of deception became clear early on when the first tax
cut was sold with the claim that those with the lowest earnings did
better than the highest-income families.
As data and analysis became available, however, it was clear that
claim depended on statistical trickery.
The biggest beneficiaries were the top 1 percent of the population,
who received more than twice as much from the total amount of tax
reductions as the bottom 60 percent.
Another example involves the Medicare bill.
To pass the legislation, the administration promised reluctant
conservatives that the legislation would cost less than $400 billion
over 10 years.
After enactment, the administration admitted that Medicare would cost
$530 billion.
It also came out that the Medicare actuary, a career civil servant,
had earlier projected the cost at around $550 billion.
After Congress requested the actuary's numbers, the administration
threatened to fire him if he turned over his projection.
He did not.
Later the administration's threats that blocked the actuary were
adjudged illegal.
Yet the lawless behavior won the day, with the legislation acclaimed
as a great triumph for the president.
Deception became the administration's primary weapon.
The Bush administration's two most important policy thrusts -- the
three tax cuts and the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq -- were sold with
similar tactics, including the withholding of critical information
needed by Congress and the public to make informed judgments.
The nation thereby was duped into buying two flawed policies that
quickly resulted in devastating failures.
Tax cuts disproportionately benefited the rich, turned a budget
surplus into the largest deficits in history, produced weak economic
and job growth, and brought the worse income disparities since the
'20s.
Invading Iraq was a questionable call from the beginning because that
country had become a mere shell after the Gulf War.
In contrast, North Korea and Iran, the other two members of the
president's "axis of evil," posed much greater nuclear threats.
Even more incomprehensibly, the administration turned its attention
away from Afghanistan before capturing Osama bin Laden, the architect
of 9/11.
The shift in policy generated a frightening rise in Muslim hatred of
the United States, caused incalculable harm to America's reputation as
the world's moral leader and increased the threat of world terrorism.
Why did these disastrous policies come on George W. Bush's watch?
The answer is the administration's gross mismanagement stemming from
ideologically driven incompetence and lawlessness.
The lawlessness of this administration far exceeds that of any postwar
presidency, including that of Richard Nixon.
Two dogmas drove the Bush administration.
The first involved the return to Ronald Reagan's embrace of
anti-governmental market fundamentalism.
The second was the unshakeable neoconservative belief that Iraq was
the epicenter of worldwide terrorism.
Not even Reagan was as ideological as Bush has been in his holding so
unswervingly to the two dogmas in the face of strong contradictory
evidence.
In a direct comparison, no Reagan policy had a higher place on his
agenda than deep reductions in the top tax brackets.
He threw all his political power into pushing through by far the
largest tax cut in history at that time, with the biggest gains going
to the wealthiest citizens.
But the consequent reality of surging budget deficits then persuaded
the administration to raise taxes three times, albeit, not enough to
stop the flow of red ink.
Bush, like Reagan, forced through a huge first-year tax cut mainly
benefiting those with high incomes.
It too exploded into massive budget deficits.
But unlike the Reagan administration, the response of Bush and his
close advisers has been to cling to their ideological beliefs.
They have ignored the overwhelming evidence that the first tax cut had
been too deep and repeated the error with more tax cuts the next two
years.
Bush's tax policy turned a budget surplus in 2000 of $236 billion, or
2.4 percent of GDP, into a Congressional Budget Office-projected
deficit of $477 billion, or 4.2 percent of GDP in 2004.
In their April 2004 report "Tax Returns," Isaac Shapiro and Joel
Friedman, senior fellows at the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, wrote:
"The swing of 6.6 percentage points of GDP is the sharpest
deterioration in the nation's fiscal balance since World War II."
Together with an almost total lack of spending restraints, the tax
cuts have created a gaping imbalance between federal revenues and
expenditures, and thus massive budget deficits.
Even so, Bush chose not to follow his three predecessors -- Reagan,
George H.W. Bush and Clinton -- in increasing income taxes, or the
latter two in working with Congress to develop and maintain strong
expenditure controls.
Turning to Iraq, two costly errors exemplify and summarize myriad
other mistakes.
First, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld decided to field a
relatively small invading force in order to demonstrate the
superiority of the more mobile army he saw as the wave of the future.
This decision ignored strong warnings from experts, such as the former
head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, that far more
troops would be needed in the occupation stage.
Even when the problem of insufficient troops became clear, Rumsfeld
refused to abandon his concept.
Second, Rumsfeld invaded Iraq without a strategy for stabilizing that
nation, dismissing completely a well-thought-through State Department
plan developed in the Future of Iraq project.
The State Department effort spelled out many of the difficulties that
would arise and that likely could have been avoided or mitigated had
the administration followed it.
Rumsfeld's unwillingness to change direction proved to be particularly
costly.
The occupation continues to be plagued by a lack of troops and
planning.
One deep institutional result of the stubbornness of Rumsfeld and the
president is highlighted by Stanley Kutler's review of the Stephan
Halper and Jonathan Clarke book, "America Alone":
"Halper and Clarke denounce the Bush administration for effectively
co-opting 'important allies and entire government agencies in a
pattern of deceit.' The administration, they believe, created 'a
synthetic neurosis,' which it buttressed by exploiting the Sept. 11
attack. The price was enormous, they say, with 'substantial damage' to
both core American political institutions and to 'American
legitimacy.' "
Among the nation's postwar foreign policies, Iraq is likely to rank
with Lyndon Johnson's tragic course in Vietnam as the two efforts
causing the most long-term damage to the United States' national
security, internal political cohesiveness and international standing.
In both the tax-cut and Iraq cases, whatever the reasons --
stubbornness, arrogance or ideological rigidity -- the decisions
reflected a common administration response in the face of sound
contradictory evidence.
One aspect of administration policy has worked, however.
Amazingly and unfortunately, the dismal policy failures in pursuing
the tax cuts and the invasion and occupation of Iraq are being sold as
achievements during the presidential campaign and apparently being
bought by large numbers of the public.
The Bush administration's strong suit has been its political
propaganda machine.
From the first tax cut introduced at the outset of the presidency, the
administration has exploited every trick in the books to win the
public to its side.
This makes it imperative that the electorate has hard evidence readily
available showing the dimensions of the failed presidency.
What's needed is to provide a solid base for refuting the
administration's deceptive presidential campaign, which has used
alchemy to change the hard reality of its disastrous policy
performance into untruths that proclaim a successful four years.
If not, the most polarizing and likely the most important election in
the 60 years since World War II ended will be decided on
misinformation and a distorted imagery that covers over a failed
presidency.
The reasons to vote against Bush in the upcoming election go beyond
partisanship.
The nation has become an entrenched plutocracy ruled by immensely
wealthy individuals and the leaders of corporate America.
It closely resembles the Gilded Age of a hundred years earlier with
its concentrated wealth and robber barons.
_________________________________________________
Sorry, Karl, no matter how ya slice it, a Bush failure is a Bush
failure is a Bush failure.
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "LastChance" |
|
| Title: Re: Karl Rove tries to sell Bush's failures as "achievements" |
26 Sep 2004 02:29:35 PM |
|
|
And they try to call themselves conservatives.
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:77sdl0533vbkrsr9slieh1e800f44kptje@4ax.com...
Under George W. Bush, the United States has become a government of the
corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation, to paraphrase
Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.
From The Seattle Post-Inelligence, 9/26/04:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/192327_williams26.html
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Bush's dismal policy failures in tax cuts and Iraq are being sold as
achievements
By WALTER WILLIAMS
During his first term, George W. Bush has inflicted more damage on the
nation's people than any other president in the post-World War II era.
Not only has the Bush administration failed, it has been far and away
the most dangerous presidency in this period.
No other administration has seen itself above the law or so
disregarded the Constitution by attacking the venerable institutions
created to uphold democracy.
In addition, the Bush presidency pushed through its policies by
employing a calculated lawlessness that featured both deception and
secrecy.
A couple of examples help illustrate the administration's use of
subterfuge.
The wanton level of deception became clear early on when the first tax
cut was sold with the claim that those with the lowest earnings did
better than the highest-income families.
As data and analysis became available, however, it was clear that
claim depended on statistical trickery.
The biggest beneficiaries were the top 1 percent of the population,
who received more than twice as much from the total amount of tax
reductions as the bottom 60 percent.
Another example involves the Medicare bill.
To pass the legislation, the administration promised reluctant
conservatives that the legislation would cost less than $400 billion
over 10 years.
After enactment, the administration admitted that Medicare would cost
$530 billion.
It also came out that the Medicare actuary, a career civil servant,
had earlier projected the cost at around $550 billion.
After Congress requested the actuary's numbers, the administration
threatened to fire him if he turned over his projection.
He did not.
Later the administration's threats that blocked the actuary were
adjudged illegal.
Yet the lawless behavior won the day, with the legislation acclaimed
as a great triumph for the president.
Deception became the administration's primary weapon.
The Bush administration's two most important policy thrusts -- the
three tax cuts and the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq -- were sold with
similar tactics, including the withholding of critical information
needed by Congress and the public to make informed judgments.
The nation thereby was duped into buying two flawed policies that
quickly resulted in devastating failures.
Tax cuts disproportionately benefited the rich, turned a budget
surplus into the largest deficits in history, produced weak economic
and job growth, and brought the worse income disparities since the
'20s.
Invading Iraq was a questionable call from the beginning because that
country had become a mere shell after the Gulf War.
In contrast, North Korea and Iran, the other two members of the
president's "axis of evil," posed much greater nuclear threats.
Even more incomprehensibly, the administration turned its attention
away from Afghanistan before capturing Osama bin Laden, the architect
of 9/11.
The shift in policy generated a frightening rise in Muslim hatred of
the United States, caused incalculable harm to America's reputation as
the world's moral leader and increased the threat of world terrorism.
Why did these disastrous policies come on George W. Bush's watch?
The answer is the administration's gross mismanagement stemming from
ideologically driven incompetence and lawlessness.
The lawlessness of this administration far exceeds that of any postwar
presidency, including that of Richard Nixon.
Two dogmas drove the Bush administration.
The first involved the return to Ronald Reagan's embrace of
anti-governmental market fundamentalism.
The second was the unshakeable neoconservative belief that Iraq was
the epicenter of worldwide terrorism.
Not even Reagan was as ideological as Bush has been in his holding so
unswervingly to the two dogmas in the face of strong contradictory
evidence.
In a direct comparison, no Reagan policy had a higher place on his
agenda than deep reductions in the top tax brackets.
He threw all his political power into pushing through by far the
largest tax cut in history at that time, with the biggest gains going
to the wealthiest citizens.
But the consequent reality of surging budget deficits then persuaded
the administration to raise taxes three times, albeit, not enough to
stop the flow of red ink.
Bush, like Reagan, forced through a huge first-year tax cut mainly
benefiting those with high incomes.
It too exploded into massive budget deficits.
But unlike the Reagan administration, the response of Bush and his
close advisers has been to cling to their ideological beliefs.
They have ignored the overwhelming evidence that the first tax cut had
been too deep and repeated the error with more tax cuts the next two
years.
Bush's tax policy turned a budget surplus in 2000 of $236 billion, or
2.4 percent of GDP, into a Congressional Budget Office-projected
deficit of $477 billion, or 4.2 percent of GDP in 2004.
In their April 2004 report "Tax Returns," Isaac Shapiro and Joel
Friedman, senior fellows at the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, wrote:
"The swing of 6.6 percentage points of GDP is the sharpest
deterioration in the nation's fiscal balance since World War II."
Together with an almost total lack of spending restraints, the tax
cuts have created a gaping imbalance between federal revenues and
expenditures, and thus massive budget deficits.
Even so, Bush chose not to follow his three predecessors -- Reagan,
George H.W. Bush and Clinton -- in increasing income taxes, or the
latter two in working with Congress to develop and maintain strong
expenditure controls.
Turning to Iraq, two costly errors exemplify and summarize myriad
other mistakes.
First, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld decided to field a
relatively small invading force in order to demonstrate the
superiority of the more mobile army he saw as the wave of the future.
This decision ignored strong warnings from experts, such as the former
head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, that far more
troops would be needed in the occupation stage.
Even when the problem of insufficient troops became clear, Rumsfeld
refused to abandon his concept.
Second, Rumsfeld invaded Iraq without a strategy for stabilizing that
nation, dismissing completely a well-thought-through State Department
plan developed in the Future of Iraq project.
The State Department effort spelled out many of the difficulties that
would arise and that likely could have been avoided or mitigated had
the administration followed it.
Rumsfeld's unwillingness to change direction proved to be particularly
costly.
The occupation continues to be plagued by a lack of troops and
planning.
One deep institutional result of the stubbornness of Rumsfeld and the
president is highlighted by Stanley Kutler's review of the Stephan
Halper and Jonathan Clarke book, "America Alone":
"Halper and Clarke denounce the Bush administration for effectively
co-opting 'important allies and entire government agencies in a
pattern of deceit.' The administration, they believe, created 'a
synthetic neurosis,' which it buttressed by exploiting the Sept. 11
attack. The price was enormous, they say, with 'substantial damage' to
both core American political institutions and to 'American
legitimacy.' "
Among the nation's postwar foreign policies, Iraq is likely to rank
with Lyndon Johnson's tragic course in Vietnam as the two efforts
causing the most long-term damage to the United States' national
security, internal political cohesiveness and international standing.
In both the tax-cut and Iraq cases, whatever the reasons --
stubbornness, arrogance or ideological rigidity -- the decisions
reflected a common administration response in the face of sound
contradictory evidence.
One aspect of administration policy has worked, however.
Amazingly and unfortunately, the dismal policy failures in pursuing
the tax cuts and the invasion and occupation of Iraq are being sold as
achievements during the presidential campaign and apparently being
bought by large numbers of the public.
The Bush administration's strong suit has been its political
propaganda machine.
From the first tax cut introduced at the outset of the presidency, the
administration has exploited every trick in the books to win the
public to its side.
This makes it imperative that the electorate has hard evidence readily
available showing the dimensions of the failed presidency.
What's needed is to provide a solid base for refuting the
administration's deceptive presidential campaign, which has used
alchemy to change the hard reality of its disastrous policy
performance into untruths that proclaim a successful four years.
If not, the most polarizing and likely the most important election in
the 60 years since World War II ended will be decided on
misinformation and a distorted imagery that covers over a failed
presidency.
The reasons to vote against Bush in the upcoming election go beyond
partisanship.
The nation has become an entrenched plutocracy ruled by immensely
wealthy individuals and the leaders of corporate America.
It closely resembles the Gilded Age of a hundred years earlier with
its concentrated wealth and robber barons.
_________________________________________________
Sorry, Karl, no matter how ya slice it, a Bush failure is a Bush
failure is a Bush failure.
Harry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "LastChance" |
|
| Title: Re: Karl Rove tries to sell Bush's failures as "achievements" |
26 Sep 2004 02:26:49 PM |
|
|
When in the Course of human tragedy, it becomes necessary for one person to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume the powers on the earth, the separate and unequal station to which
the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle me, a disrespected human of
the opinions of all mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel me to separate the Rich from the poor.--We hold these lies to be
self-inflicted, that all Corporations (Men Only) are created unequal, that
they are endowed by their Made UP Creator with certain unalienable Wrongs,
that among these are Life for Rich people, Liberty for a few and the pursuit
of Evil.--That to secure these wrongs, Governments are instituted among Men
only , deriving their wrong powers from the manipulated masses of the
governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes controlled by the
manipulated masses then this must end, it is the Right of the Government to
alter or to abolish the manipulated masses, and to institute new doctrine,
laying its foundation on such principles as Market Manipulation, Government
bureaucracy that can not figure out how to Sharpen a pencil, Organizing
Terrorist Organizations, and to Create General Chaos that can scare the HELL
OUT of the Manipulated Masses, and it is our power that shall seem most
likely to effect their Misery and Obedience. And in such form, as they
shall seem more Safely Lied to and Screw their Happiness. Outrages Lies,
Half Truths and General deception, indeed, will dictate that Our Government
longs to established the Rule of Dictatorship over its manipulated masses,
and should not be changed for any reason; and accordingly all experience
hath shown, that mankind is more ignorant then they think to suffer under a
Government, while the evil continues and millions are suffering, they will
wrong the rights by abolishing the manipulated masses from the form to which
they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations are
hidden, pursuing the GREED is the same Object they have been trying to reach
all their lives so now Despotism has reared its Ugly Head, it is the
Governments right, it is the duty of every government official, to throw a
temper tantrum such as to make them feel better about the Government, and to
provide new Guards for their future rich, filthy and most certainly Wealthy
few that need tons of security.--Such has been their patient waiting in the
lurch of these CEO's and generally pampered few; and such is now the
necessity for the reckless abandonment and I need to wildly strike new deals
for ourselves to alter their society for the good of the Systems of
Government. The history of the present King of America is a history of
repeated injury and usurpations of power which is constantly being hidden,
all having a direct hand in it, and objections will be slapped down
immediately for the sake of the establishments need for absolute Tyranny
over the manipulated masses and any States that challenge this authority
will have their funds cut off to their State. To prove this, look at
California as fact that we will crush all rebellion even if you submit facts
that we are screwed by Wealthy white men in cowboy hats and so many others
in New York who think they own the world. - He who refuses to assist in
making Laws to screw over one state from another, shall most likely be
humiliated in the general manipulated masses through National TV. Most who
think it necessary for the public good to be squelch by the powerful few are
most likely in bed with the devil and are having homosexual relations. I
have forbidden this Governors to pass any Laws without my consent, and me
pressing a AK-47 to the back of your head is important to me King G, and
unless you suspended the rights of those to eat and to have medical
healthcare, I am going to implement Martial Law NOW!!
For that matter, Screw the rest of this document. Lock all the fuckers up
who don't agree with me in concentration camps. Formally known as
conversion camps.
If the UN pulls one more stunt, I am going obliterated the whole lot, and
put a new Disneyland on it for all who obey me to come visit and turn over
all their assets over to me.
I am The Power, I am the million points of why you should not re-elect me, I
have absolute control of my bowel movements, and look - I can snort cocaine
all day long. O and thanks for the cool Jet I can't fly and for all those
servants I do not have to pay for.
GOD BLESS the RICH PEOPLE and screw the REST! Thank you
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:77sdl0533vbkrsr9slieh1e800f44kptje@4ax.com...
Under George W. Bush, the United States has become a government of the
corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation, to paraphrase
Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.
From The Seattle Post-Inelligence, 9/26/04:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/192327_williams26.html
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Bush's dismal policy failures in tax cuts and Iraq are being sold as
achievements
By WALTER WILLIAMS
During his first term, George W. Bush has inflicted more damage on the
nation's people than any other president in the post-World War II era.
Not only has the Bush administration failed, it has been far and away
the most dangerous presidency in this period.
No other administration has seen itself above the law or so
disregarded the Constitution by attacking the venerable institutions
created to uphold democracy.
In addition, the Bush presidency pushed through its policies by
employing a calculated lawlessness that featured both deception and
secrecy.
A couple of examples help illustrate the administration's use of
subterfuge.
The wanton level of deception became clear early on when the first tax
cut was sold with the claim that those with the lowest earnings did
better than the highest-income families.
As data and analysis became available, however, it was clear that
claim depended on statistical trickery.
The biggest beneficiaries were the top 1 percent of the population,
who received more than twice as much from the total amount of tax
reductions as the bottom 60 percent.
Another example involves the Medicare bill.
To pass the legislation, the administration promised reluctant
conservatives that the legislation would cost less than $400 billion
over 10 years.
After enactment, the administration admitted that Medicare would cost
$530 billion.
It also came out that the Medicare actuary, a career civil servant,
had earlier projected the cost at around $550 billion.
After Congress requested the actuary's numbers, the administration
threatened to fire him if he turned over his projection.
He did not.
Later the administration's threats that blocked the actuary were
adjudged illegal.
Yet the lawless behavior won the day, with the legislation acclaimed
as a great triumph for the president.
Deception became the administration's primary weapon.
The Bush administration's two most important policy thrusts -- the
three tax cuts and the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq -- were sold with
similar tactics, including the withholding of critical information
needed by Congress and the public to make informed judgments.
The nation thereby was duped into buying two flawed policies that
quickly resulted in devastating failures.
Tax cuts disproportionately benefited the rich, turned a budget
surplus into the largest deficits in history, produced weak economic
and job growth, and brought the worse income disparities since the
'20s.
Invading Iraq was a questionable call from the beginning because that
country had become a mere shell after the Gulf War.
In contrast, North Korea and Iran, the other two members of the
president's "axis of evil," posed much greater nuclear threats.
Even more incomprehensibly, the administration turned its attention
away from Afghanistan before capturing Osama bin Laden, the architect
of 9/11.
The shift in policy generated a frightening rise in Muslim hatred of
the United States, caused incalculable harm to America's reputation as
the world's moral leader and increased the threat of world terrorism.
Why did these disastrous policies come on George W. Bush's watch?
The answer is the administration's gross mismanagement stemming from
ideologically driven incompetence and lawlessness.
The lawlessness of this administration far exceeds that of any postwar
presidency, including that of Richard Nixon.
Two dogmas drove the Bush administration.
The first involved the return to Ronald Reagan's embrace of
anti-governmental market fundamentalism.
The second was the unshakeable neoconservative belief that Iraq was
the epicenter of worldwide terrorism.
Not even Reagan was as ideological as Bush has been in his holding so
unswervingly to the two dogmas in the face of strong contradictory
evidence.
In a direct comparison, no Reagan policy had a higher place on his
agenda than deep reductions in the top tax brackets.
He threw all his political power into pushing through by far the
largest tax cut in history at that time, with the biggest gains going
to the wealthiest citizens.
But the consequent reality of surging budget deficits then persuaded
the administration to raise taxes three times, albeit, not enough to
stop the flow of red ink.
Bush, like Reagan, forced through a huge first-year tax cut mainly
benefiting those with high incomes.
It too exploded into massive budget deficits.
But unlike the Reagan administration, the response of Bush and his
close advisers has been to cling to their ideological beliefs.
They have ignored the overwhelming evidence that the first tax cut had
been too deep and repeated the error with more tax cuts the next two
years.
Bush's tax policy turned a budget surplus in 2000 of $236 billion, or
2.4 percent of GDP, into a Congressional Budget Office-projected
deficit of $477 billion, or 4.2 percent of GDP in 2004.
In their April 2004 report "Tax Returns," Isaac Shapiro and Joel
Friedman, senior fellows at the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, wrote:
"The swing of 6.6 percentage points of GDP is the sharpest
deterioration in the nation's fiscal balance since World War II."
Together with an almost total lack of spending restraints, the tax
cuts have created a gaping imbalance between federal revenues and
expenditures, and thus massive budget deficits.
Even so, Bush chose not to follow his three predecessors -- Reagan,
George H.W. Bush and Clinton -- in increasing income taxes, or the
latter two in working with Congress to develop and maintain strong
expenditure controls.
Turning to Iraq, two costly errors exemplify and summarize myriad
other mistakes.
First, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld decided to field a
relatively small invading force in order to demonstrate the
superiority of the more mobile army he saw as the wave of the future.
This decision ignored strong warnings from experts, such as the former
head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, that far more
troops would be needed in the occupation stage.
Even when the problem of insufficient troops became clear, Rumsfeld
refused to abandon his concept.
Second, Rumsfeld invaded Iraq without a strategy for stabilizing that
nation, dismissing completely a well-thought-through State Department
plan developed in the Future of Iraq project.
The State Department effort spelled out many of the difficulties that
would arise and that likely could have been avoided or mitigated had
the administration followed it.
Rumsfeld's unwillingness to change direction proved to be particularly
costly.
The occupation continues to be plagued by a lack of troops and
planning.
One deep institutional result of the stubbornness of Rumsfeld and the
president is highlighted by Stanley Kutler's review of the Stephan
Halper and Jonathan Clarke book, "America Alone":
"Halper and Clarke denounce the Bush administration for effectively
co-opting 'important allies and entire government agencies in a
pattern of deceit.' The administration, they believe, created 'a
synthetic neurosis,' which it buttressed by exploiting the Sept. 11
attack. The price was enormous, they say, with 'substantial damage' to
both core American political institutions and to 'American
legitimacy.' "
Among the nation's postwar foreign policies, Iraq is likely to rank
with Lyndon Johnson's tragic course in Vietnam as the two efforts
causing the most long-term damage to the United States' national
security, internal political cohesiveness and international standing.
In both the tax-cut and Iraq cases, whatever the reasons --
stubbornness, arrogance or ideological rigidity -- the decisions
reflected a common administration response in the face of sound
contradictory evidence.
One aspect of administration policy has worked, however.
Amazingly and unfortunately, the dismal policy failures in pursuing
the tax cuts and the invasion and occupation of Iraq are being sold as
achievements during the presidential campaign and apparently being
bought by large numbers of the public.
The Bush administration's strong suit has been its political
propaganda machine.
From the first tax cut introduced at the outset of the presidency, the
administration has exploited every trick in the books to win the
public to its side.
This makes it imperative that the electorate has hard evidence readily
available showing the dimensions of the failed presidency.
What's needed is to provide a solid base for refuting the
administration's deceptive presidential campaign, which has used
alchemy to change the hard reality of its disastrous policy
performance into untruths that proclaim a successful four years.
If not, the most polarizing and likely the most important election in
the 60 years since World War II ended will be decided on
misinformation and a distorted imagery that covers over a failed
presidency.
The reasons to vote against Bush in the upcoming election go beyond
partisanship.
The nation has become an entrenched plutocracy ruled by immensely
wealthy individuals and the leaders of corporate America.
It closely resembles the Gilded Age of a hundred years earlier with
its concentrated wealth and robber barons.
_________________________________________________
Sorry, Karl, no matter how ya slice it, a Bush failure is a Bush
failure is a Bush failure.
Harry
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
