SharedThought

Are you still in shock over the election? I know I am. My brain has been paralyzed for the six weeks since the election. I do realize that there are two very distinct perspectives of life, patriotism and security in this country. And I know by nature that the two seldom see eye-to-eye on issues. But isn’t there a middle ground any more? Listening to the rhetoric coming out of Washington, it certainly doesn’t seem so. Does the word “progress” mean anything anymore? Integrity? Responsibility? Science? (Silly me, of course I know that science has been relegated to the “quaint” category, along with the Geneva Convention and civil rights)
Going on a rant here, so be forewarned. Stream of consciousness engaging. . .
The “mandate” our leader has now will ensure that the following practices will continue unabated, if not accelerated. Degradation of personal liberties; freedom to travel unmolested (Literally. For those of you who have traveled recently, you know this term is not an exaggeration) and unhindered within our own country; dilution of services that we ALL take advantage of (read Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, . . . ), continuing conflation (I love that word) of the word enemy with “terrorist”; unconscionable mistreatment, torture, and killing of prisoners in our custody-most notably at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib; lack of respect for each human life. More executions? By God yes!! Kill the bastards! Pro-life? Yup. Nope. Health plan coverage for Viagra so all the men can have big boners? Sure, why not? (Sorry for being crass, it seemed appropriate here) Birth control and family planning to keep unwanted pregnancies from occurring? Nope; “Protect” the US and exact vengeance on the terrorists? Uh, yeah! Not care that the price is thousands of civilians killed as “collateral damage”. What a shame. For someone else that is; suppression of rational objective thought in the formation of national policy-to be replaced instead by policy measured by the yardstick of Christian dogma. e.g. the use of a narrow “moral” argument with respect to pre-marital sex, and the exclusion of the discussion of protection against disease and the use of birth control as opposed to the government’s actual responsibility to the public health of those involved; continued failure of W to assimilate the concept that just because he is a conservative right-wing Christian does not mean that he has the right to turn the government and this country into a theocracy;
Inhale
Blatant cronyism of the Cabinet staff appointments-can you say Bernard Kerik? This guy is a fully vetted candidate for Secretary of Homeland Security (Homeland Security?, don’t even get me started on just the name alone) and he is a crook and a philanderer; using the drumbeat of fear to drown out popular objection and objective analysis of irrational domestic and foreign policy; a dearth of accountability for mistaken and false statements, assumptions, conclusions, and actions undertaken, indeed the reward of those individuals involved with further tasks and accolades. e.g. today’s reward of the triumvirate of stewards of military, intelligence (and I use the term loosely), and civilian facets of the horribly bungled Iraq war with Presidential Medals of Freedom. And the continued presence of Donald Rumsfeld, although he has yet to make a correct assumption about any part of the Iraq situation; failure to formulate sound fiscal policy-the result being the increased economic stratification of our nation and the free-fall of the dollar internationally; blindly borrowing hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars to fund war and irresponsible tax cuts, threatening the solvency of our entire financial structure and future of our country; blatant pandering to energy interests. Our policy is what? To lessen the use of foreign oil? No, of course not. Hello. Oil is not going to last forever. Now is the time to develop alternate sources of energy And I don’t mean hydrogen. Do you know how much natural gas, oil, or coal you have to burn to provide enough energy to make hydrogen? It doesn’t just fall out of the air, or split from water on command. Not to mention the cost of constructing a hydrogen transport network, currently estimated at $5 trillion.) My personal opinion is that we should nationalize the energy companies. Then, at least, if there is profiteering, the proceeds go into our own pockets. Why is there no limit on the profits these companies may realize? It is not as if we, as residents of the US have a choice of whether we use electricity or gas or not. They are essential to everyone’s life on a daily basis;
Exhale
Failure to recognize that the US cannot stand on its own against the rest of the world (read up on Athenian history if you need a classic example-or more contemporarily, say, Great Britain? Or the Soviet Union?); expansion of the military, including the desire of our “fearless leader” (Bullwinkle fans?) to develop and use a whole new generation of nuclear weapons while at the same time blustering loudly about Iran and North Korea’s possible “illegal” nuclear capabilities; unilateral abrogation of established treaties; politicization of the entire governmental process. Has W left Democrats any choice in their opposition to any legislation coming their way in the Congress? They have been frozen out of committee since 2002, when the Republicans took over the majority in both houses, and have been allowed no input. NOT a uniter; the frightening and somehow seemingly conspiratorial fervor for keeping the workings of government hidden from view. I don’t know about you, but when the process is hidden and secret, it would seem to indicate there is something to hide, and I don’t mean those actions which are truly in the national interest. If what you are doing is the right thing, then what is the rationale for keeping it out of the public record?

Whew! That feels better. Not really, as the above is the bitter reality.

We are doomed to live the next four years in a country ruled by W and his false morality. According to Webster’s; morality - conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct; integrity - soundness of and adherence to moral principle and character. Does this describe W? Not in my opinion. In my moral system, the code with which I was raised, or think I was raised, the truth trumps all. Equality, cooperation, openness, responsibility, accountability, respect, honesty, compassion, dignity, humanity, gravity, nobility, industriousness, prudence (now there’s a thought), equity, justice, patience and endurance, forethought, hope, and modesty are the measures and qualities of my system. (Many of these are also the basis for the Roman Way, the qualities of life to which every Roman Citizen-and, ideally, everyone else-aspired. A great society the Romans. Whatever happened to them?)
These are what determine true character. It really has nothing to do with belief in God or not. W falls short on many of these counts, and it only hurts our country and our fellow citizens.
The mouth says one thing, the actions speak loudly to the contrary. I enclose several verses from Matthew 7:

16. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
20. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
This is W in a nutshell. (Austin? How did he get in that nutshell?) In his mind, he has done many wonderful works in His name. But his is the corrupt tree. Boiled down, distilled to its essence, this quite ungodly administration wholly, unabashedly, worships at the altar of power and the almighty dollar, nothing else.

Just a few notes from last night’s debate. The debate was heated, not very surprisingly. I was actually a bit disappointed in both candidates. Several times, their answers did not really relate to the audience member’s questions, but instead were reiterations of past comments. However, there were some comments made by Senator Kerry that underscored his suitability to occupy the highest office in the land. The statements were taken directly from the transcript of the debates, found at this link.

Q: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?

A: (John Kerry in rebuttal) I subscribe to the Justice Potter Stewart standard. He was a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. And he said the mark of a good judge, good justice, is that when you are reading their decision, their opinion, you can’t tell if it’s written by a man or woman, a liberal or a conservative, a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian. You just know you’re reading a good judicial decision.

A few years ago when he came to office, the president said - these are his words - “What we need are some good conservative judges on the courts.”

Q: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

A: First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I’m a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.
But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that. But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation.
And I have to make that judgment.
Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro-abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don’t deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the constitution affords them if they can’t afford it otherwise.
That’s why I think it’s important. That’s why I think it’s important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.

In my opinion, Senator Kerry’s answer, regarding the Supreme Court, outlines exactly what we should expect from our judicial system-impartiality, non-partisanship, and lack of bias. It expresses one facet of his vision for a better America. Again, idealist Chris talking. But can we not, at the very least, aspire to that ideal? President Bush, on the other hand, is more concerned that we think and behave in his ideological form. The law and the Constitution take second chair.

With regard to the abortion question, I was caught off-guard by his answer. I don’t think he could have framed his response better. His view is absolutely, unequivocally correct. The President’s obligation is to see the law of the land, as laid out in the Constitution, applied fairly and equitably, not to impose a law according to rigid ideological restrictions not shared by all US citizens.

There may be arguments over who won or lost last night, but the American people, and our way of life, will be the true winners in January when John Kerry restores the integrity and perspective due the office of the Presidency.

I have this theory about terrorists and the policy of fighting them “over there”, so we don’t have to fight them here. In this theory, I compare terrorists to mold. Here’s how it goes.

Many people have mold problems in their houses, boats, or whatever. There are a couple ways to look at the problem. You can go out and purchase mold killing chemicals, and drying agents, and then go around and kill all the mold you see; at the base of walls, the floor, behind the toilet, under the rug, etc.; and treat the surface with the drying agents to slow down the spread of mold.

The flaw in this logic is, you haven’t done anything to identify the source(s), or taken the steps necessary to prevent the recurrence of the problem. Without this research, you are merely treating the symptom of a greater problem. The mold does not spring out of a vacuum-there are conditions which are conducive to its growth. Absent the elimination or mediation of the source of the mold, it keeps coming back over and over.

All you end up doing is killing the mold when it becomes visible. Get it?

Once the identification of the probable or proximate cause is made, then the logical course would be to formulate a strategy to remedy the situation. In the case of mold, once you find the source of moisture, the case is usually solved. You fix the leak, you dry the area, the mold dies out on its own.

We may choose to kill the terrorists when and where we find them, and continue to kill them whenever and wherever they appear. However, there is no possible way to kill them all if the conditions which produced them in the first place remain extant. There will always be another terrorist produced to take the place of the last one killed.

The way to achieve true progress in the greater fight is to first identify the source of the problem. Is it economic? Is it philosophical? Is it due to ecumenical threat? Other external stimuli? i.e. U.S. foreign policy? Or?

In the case of terrorism, what is the true reason for the hate of which we are the object? Do the homework, the “hard work”, to understand and identify the real motivation for this hate, and you are a long way toward solving the problem. As they say in a certain twelve-step program, first you have to admit you have a problem.

In the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda, et al, President Bush has yet to admit that we are part of the problem, not just victims. The hard work has yet to be done. We need to have vision-first, to see the proper course, and then, the conviction to take it. The prosecution of war to express your point of view is not vision; it is direct evidence of failure of vision.

Again, to paraphrase that certain program:

grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference

Real courage does not come while wielding a gun. I have always kept hope for wisdom in our current leadership, but continue to suffer from disappointment. It is for this reason, above all else, we need to remove President Bush and his administration from power.

With the next debate looming on the horizon, I just had a thought about the economy that comes from a different perspective than any I have heard thus far.

The voting population just seems to be entirely disconnected from the fact that the burgeoning national debt has an impact on them.

Perhaps if it were expressed that Mr. Bush has taken out an interest-only home loan and equity credit line, it would register.

If they were to understand that at some time you really do have to pay principal on the loan, that you can’t run the deficits ever-increasingly, that it can’t be interest-only forever, then people would understand that the tax-cuts are not actually cuts, only rubber checks written by the government on an overdrawn account.

The balloon payment is coming due, and who is going to pay then?

The companion issue is mortgaging our country, through the sale of bonds to finance our debt, to other nations. The real danger of current policy is ceding control of our capital markets and national economy to our creditor nations.

Who do we want to be in control of our money and future? Japan? Europe? Russia? Singapore? France? Canada? China? Saudi Arabia? (Saudi Arabia? Conspiracy theorists take note here)

President Bush has not protected the United States’ economy for the future generations. Instead, he has pandered to the rich and special interests, and bought the votes of the common man with his tiny “tax-cut” checks. He has sold us out.

People should realize that these checks are really only a loan of their own money, that we are all only currently paying the interest on that loan, and, as we all know, the payback is always going to be at least double the loan amount.

The clock is ticking, and we don’t have much time to rein in the profligate deficit spending of this administration. Just say NO!

I wake this morning to the fresh chance for John Kerry to assume the Oval Office in January. He was a clear winner in last night’s debate. Oh, the spinmeisters from the Republican side are all claiming victory today, but if you watched, as I did, no honest person could make that assertion.
Mr. Bush appeared flustered, angry, perturbed, confused, and mildly delusional in his continual repetition of his thirty minutes of prepared material. I say thirty minutes because, after the first half-hour, regardless of the question, his subsequent answers were mere paraphrases of his answers of the first half-hour. He was, and has been during the entire compaign, a broken record. His answers expressed no plan for our future, and no admission, explanation or justification for the mistakes of the past. Regardless of the question, Mr. Bush merely twisted his first few sentences of his answer until he got around to repeating the party line ideological dogma time after time. Is this the type of leader we want and need? What is his plan for future success in Iraq? As Mr. Kerry stated last night, the Bush plan is as follows: “More of the same”. Which means: each month, increasing casualties; each day, declaration that we are making good progress, “no worries”. Mr. Bush’s rebuttals were weak and meandering, many having nothing at all to do with Mr. Kerry’s comments, and some bordered on irrational and completely non sequitur. His body language was not that of a confident man. Several times he looked like a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming car, with the grim realization of his fate. Just imagine W going into a summit conference, or treaty negotiation with the level of preparation and attitude we observed last night. Is it any wonder Mr. Bush cannot get any cooperation from our recalcitrant allies? Webster’s defines negotiate as, “to deal or bargain”; bargain as, “an agreement between parties settling what each shall give and take or perform and receive in a transaction”. This president does not give, he does not settle. He demands, and he takes. It is his way or the highway. And he again made that very clear last night. He is unwilling to admit ANY error in judgment. Once faced with that error, he then further compounds the mistake by his utter failure to adjust. He is closed to new ideas, and the concept of compromise. They say he practiced for six months for this debate. Did it show? I think not. I say he deserves a vacation, say, starting January 21, 2005? I’d give him a C-minus. A poor performance for a prospective commander-in-chief, let alone an incumbent.
By contrast, Mr. Kerry’s answers were clear and to the point. He actually answered the questions put forth. There was no waffling or “flip-flopping”. (Gawd, I hate that term. It sounds like some juvenile schoolyard taunt, which it is) He described how he would do things diferently, by engaging our allies and initiating dialogue with those who oppose us. He didn’t take armed force off the table. He simply considers it the very last option, not the only one. He knows war is evidence of the failure of imagination, and unprovoked war a weapon of choice not necessity. Mr. Bush’s Freudian slip last night was that Iraq attacked the United States. After being caught by Mr. Kerry in that lie, he retorted that of course he knew it was Bin Laden that attacked us. I’m not so sure. Mr. Kerry’s rebuttals were also clear, cogent, and germane to the questions. He was confident and at ease in this environment.
I think this debate was very telling in delineating their styles. Mr. Kerry exhibited the statesmanlike stature and ability that we deserve in a leader. He is deliberate. Since when did that become a liability? He is intelligent. Since when was that a drawback for a leader? He does change his mind. You would prefer a leader who ignores his staff, military leaders, and intelligence estimates to one who flies by the seat of his pants? Based on his immense international experience? Remember, W had only left the United States once in his life prior to becoming the President. No wonder the lack of global understanding. He only knows politics Texas-style. Mr. Kerry brings a level of tact, acumen, and perspective that is sorely lacking in our present Commander-in-Chief, and I think he showed that last night. Overall, I give him an A-.
I am a Democrat, and proud of it. I care about people, and the future of the world. Mr. Bush is a threat to that future.

Reading through a bit of Sun Tzu recently, I could not help but come to a few conclusions. Two millennia have really not made his (their) conclusions any less viable. When the Art of War was written, China had four thousand years of history from which to learn about martial action. As philosopher George Santayana once said, “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

The Art of War, Sun Tzu

Spies cannot be usefully employed without a certain intuitive sagacity; (2) They cannot be properly managed without benevolence and straight forwardness; (3) Without subtle ingenuity of mind, one cannot make certain of the truth of their reports.
It is undisputed that the United States was duped by Iraqi expatriates and Baathist insiders prior to the invasion, and fed volumes of misinformation. And the words “subtle” and “ingenuity” are not found in the Bush administration’s vocabulary.
He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue… In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
The cost of this elective war, in lives, prestige, or dollars, was never honestly calculated, at least not publicly.

He who exercises no forethought, but makes light of his opponents is sure to be captured by them. The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory. No leader should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no leader should fight a battle simply out of pique. Hence the enlightened leader is heedful, and the good leader full of caution.
Is there really an argument that we were rash in our leap to release the dogs of war? That we made light of the fact that we were setting out to wage a vengeful war? Attacking out of displaced anger? Riding the crest of a wave of lies?

To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting. If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. Indirect tactics, efficiently applied, are inexhaustible as heaven and earth, unending as the flow of rivers and streams; like the sun and the moon, they end but to begin anew; like the four seasons, they pass away to return once more.
Ahhh, the true crux of the issue. Sun Tzu, twenty-five hundred years ago, recognized the value in seeing issues from your enemy’s perspective. Isn’t it common sense that there is value in trying to understand why these people hate us so much? Is there any dialogue going on, right now, with Muslim leaders, even those belonging to the insurgency? Any attempt to get into the heads of our foes? Is diplomacy now a four-letter word? Or are our leaders only able to make their point or share ideas at gunpoint?
Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve.
This pertains to the terrorists, and insurgency. The point is, that, justified or not, there is a certain percentage of Muslims in this world that feel threatened by the United States and its policies. In the face of this perceived threat, these fighters will not retreat from the fight. Should we merely maintain our present course in the world and feign blindness to the consequences of our actions? And when we run into dissent, or are attacked, continue to send out teams of killers to “protect” our interests? Or attempt to initiate a dialogue? To reach some sort of understanding? Recognize that we can’t behave as though we live in a vacuum? Which has greater value? Don’t we all benefit from having more friends in the world? We may make enemies with our words and policies, but I am sure we never made a friend by shooting them. We have created more enemies than we have quelled.
Our enemies multiply faster than we can kill them, and we “stay the course”. In the face of increasing insurgency, we “stay the course”. Terrorists pour into the country, and we “stay the course”. I say, “Just say NO!”
He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain. For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the supreme of excellence. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence.

There is still time to change the road we’re on. But not much. Make this election a referendum on the war-mongering, isolationist policies of the Bush administration. Send them packing!

President Bush regales us with tales of working untiringly to protect us from terrorists, and keeping us all safe. God bless him. But his own record belies the that claim. While most of us toil in our day jobs five days a week, fifty plus weeks a year, he spends most of his time either campaigning or on vacation. I realize I am engaging in a bit of hyperbole here, but am I wrong in the assumption that our President can do the job best while actually being present in Washington, D.C., and not on the road? Any familiar with the telecommuting experiment can testify that being away from the office, and absent your support staff and command structure is a formula for missed communications and lost opportunities.
If Mr. Bush’s goal is truly what he proclaims, I am bewildered by his absence from his base of operations. This is the man who was on a “working” vacation for the entire month of August 2001, during which time the infamous Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) entitled, “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US”, was delivered to him and his staff. Despite previous attacks on the US and its interests by Osama Bin-Laden, this PDB was ignored. There was no executive direction to follow up on the issue. For excerpts from the memo, go to this site: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
The World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks occurred on President Bush’s watch. Fully one month after the explicit warning from his intelligence resources. This is protecting the United States? How this makes him better equipped to deal with the mounting threat of terrorism is beyond me. It only bolsters evidence that the manner in which he once again ignores his own intelligence now about the state of affairs in Iraq is dangerous to our well-being. In the aftermath of the attacks, did Mr. Bush then buckle down and say in his mind, “My God, how did we miss this? How can we ensure this does not happen again? Let us leave no stone unturned in the quest to get to bottom of it!” Did he set his mind to working extremely hard, every waking moment, to thwart the terrorists, and the “Axis of Evil”? The evidence doesn’t point to it. In fact, this man is an absentee president. How can you lead if you’re not there? By telephone and fax? Ever try to run an office as a boss if you don’t show up to mind the store? You know what they say about mice and cats. The fact is, that this man and his foot soldiers did their best in the aftermath of 9/11 to prevent a broad investigation in to the roots of the intelligence and security failures which resulted in the disaster. Only under extreme duress from the families of the victims themselves, and their subsequent public airing of their complaints did this administration did the investigation really begin to take shape. See these links for a look at the truth of the matter. http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1610361.php
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1610361.php
And go to this link for a laundry list of obstructionist tactics by Bushco. http://www.rense.com/general37/brief.htm
Mr. Bush has spent all or part of over 500 days of his term away from Washington, D.C., whether at his ranch, Camp David, Kennebunkport, or elsewhere. This is not including the time he has spent, virtually since January 21, 2001, on the road in his campaign for re-election. Including those periods, our “War” president, the man guarding our future, and the person with the charge of protecting us from terror, has spent eighty percent of his term away from the White House.
Once again, idealist talking, but is it unreasonable to expect the leader of the Free World to show up at the office? Prior to the election in 2001, a central issue in my view was that W just wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed. My Republican friends assured me that this was just not very important, that that staff he had assembled was the key. That his staff was the real brains of the outfit, and that the President had only to then make his decisions based on staff input. If they are to blame, then make this election a referendum on their performance. However, this President has shown an unparalleled ability to ignore rational input from objective sources, and time after time makes decisions based in personal philosophical leanings, and not tangible evidence. He takes credit for he ability to make decisions and stay the course. But makes no room for the possibility that any decision could have been even one iota mistaken. This has placed the United States and its citizens more firmly in the sights of terrorists than ever. The scariest thing to me? I am now more afraid of my own government than of a terrorist attack. That is my fear.

Four More Years? God help us.

Recent polls seem to reflect an increase in the public’s support for Pretender-in chief Bush. Gallup has it at 13 percentage points. I view that number with a certain measure of disbelief. It is always easy to then do a search and find information on the Net to support or deny any perspective. I normally look for balanced input prior to writing for public consumption. Coincidentally, however, I was sent this link this morning, underscoring my opinion exactly.

The United States of America is at a political crossroad met seldom in one’s lifetime. Upon the coming presidential elections will depend the fate not just of our country, but of the world. Of this I am certain. The two mainstream candidates present distinct ideologies.

For purposes of expediency, I will only comment on our present leader in the White House. One whose rule is built on power and fear. Motivated by greed and cloaked in secrecy. Evincing an archaic philosophy marked by imperious disdain for the rules of law and the sanctity of human life. All the while proclaiming divine Providence in justification of their actions, although justification is not exactly the right word, for that would imply recognition of a need to justify their deeds. This administration is unabashed when questioned regarding any action, inaction, misdeed, or even criminal act committed on their watch.

Mr. Bush calls himself Christian, compassionate, conservative. His actions belie those labels. In truth, he behaves neither as a Christian, compassionate, nor truly conservative.

True Christian compassion involves extending a helping hand to the least of us. By lifting up those at the bottom, we raise the standard of all society. This has not occurred on his watch. More of our citizens suffer in poverty now than four years ago. Our seniors have Medicaid and Medicare, which entitlements obtain merely by reaching a certain age. Why should the sons and daughters of our poor suffer from a lack of health care purely based on economics? Our youth are our future and deserve our attention if truly are looking to that future. As Jesus said in Matthew 25, “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

True Christian compassion does not lead to the increased execution of your own citizens. Mr. Bush’s Attorney General goes the extra mile in his efforts to override local prosecutors when he feels the death penalty is appropriate in a case, irrespective of the fact that the prosecutors recommend otherwise http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0207-03.htm.

True Christian compassion does not leap to release the dogs of war and revel in the deaths of our enemies. An honorable, American president does not start a war based on the flimsiest of evidence. An honorable, American president views war as the last unreasonable alternative, for war is the absolute ultimate failure of policy and diplomacy. It does not seek ever more efficient killing machines. Our current leader has re-instituted the development of new nuclear weapons, abrogating our thirty-four years of membership in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2780521.stm

True Christian compassion honors and respects life. This administration flouts the Geneva Convention, invoking spurious rationale for the mistreatment, unlawful detainment, torture, and killing of prisoners, both in the US and abroad. An honorable, American president does not condone the practice of holding a prisoner without access to counsel or visitation. An honorable, American president does not allow his subordinates to deny the Red Cross access to prisoners. An honorable, American president does not allow prisoners to be held without even informing said prisoner of the charges under which (s) he is held. This is something to be expected of a third world dictator, not of an American leader.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1127639,00.html

An honorable, American president is tolerant to dissent in the arena of democratic, public discourse. Mr. Bush labels it unpatriotic and divisive.

An honorable, American president does not repeat ad nauseam the “Big Lie” of 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and Saddam Hussein as the case for an elective war. Here is how the Big Lie works. It is simply a matter of conditioned response. I f you repeat something enough times, it does not make any difference if there are logical connections. The mere utterance of weapons of mass destruction now brings to mind Saddam Hussein, 9/11, and terrorism. Whether you agree with the argument or not, that is what is present in your subconscious mind. The current republican leadership counts on people not taking the time to actually think for themselves. With a bit of quick research, any intelligent person could find enough evidence to call into question the motivation for and evidence being relied upon to make a case for war, let alone continuing along the path being followed. Make no mistake about it, this was a war of choice, not necessity. When presented with evidence all to the contrary, the honorable man admits his mistakes and then takes steps to rectify them. We have yet to see this type of integrity from our sitting commander-in-chief.

“In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table,” Bush said. “But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win.”

The evidence for this victory? The 2003 edition of “Patterns of Global Terrorism”, released by the US Department of State on April 29, 2004. Front page news. Problem is, on June 22, 2004, a revised report detailing the real story was released by the State Department. In it the numbers show that in actuality, the number of worldwide terrorist attacks increased by just under ten percent for the year, and casualties increased by over two hundred and twenty-five percent!! Just another example of evidence being “massaged” by the Bush administration.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5865710/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/powell.terror.report/
http://globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2004/pgt_2003/

The truth is, this man makes me embarrassed for the United States. The country I know and love has been subverted to an agenda of Christian dogma, misdirection, hateful rhetoric and intolerance. President Bush is NOT a uniter, he is an excluder. NOT compassionate, but impassionate to those in real need. The face put forth by the Republicans at their recent convention was a mask. The only time we got a peek behind that mask was during Democratic Senator Zell Miller’s speech. Whether knowingly or not, he was showing the true attack dog, irrational, spittle flecked face of our ruling party. This is the face of a party unfamiliar with the concept of compromise and bipartisan interest. A party which treats those in disagreement with contempt. The best interests of our great nation are not served while President Bush is in office. He has not focused any energy on being a member of the world community, but has sent a message to the world during his tenure, one of self-centered self-importance. The result can only be on of further isolation and estrangement of America from the other 95% of earth’s population. This week the President gave us a warm and fuzzy speech full of programs to help those in need over the next four years. That left me wondering. Where was he the last four years? What happened to the compassionate platform he proposed in the year 2000?

Since his inauguration, the president and his staff have taken advantage of tragedy to create a bastard son of the United States which I grew up to know and love. My United States stood for right, not might. My United States had a conscience. My United States was founded in integrity, honor and respect. My United States didn’t need to hide prisoners and obstruct inquiries into its actions. My United States is confident that, in the light of day, their actions may withstand the most detailed scrutiny from all sides.

An idealist, I admit. But is it too much to expect our leaders possess those qualities admired by all? When our president leads by fostering a climate of fear and retribution, it can only serve to bring out those very qualities in our people. Only by being strong enough not to fall prey to the baser instincts of man can our leaders hope to lead us to a better world. In this respect, President Bush is an abject failure and has earned a place on the sidelines in America’s future.

Thanks to all of the comment spammers hitting this site, I’ve changed the comment format to now require registration. Sorry for the inconvenience, but hopefully the process will be relatively painless for you.