Monday, September 22, 2008

Republicans: Third strike?

Iraq war based on the lie of weapons of mass destruction coupled with its ditching of the Geneva Convention: the US looses its world standing in moral authority. Strike one!

Hurricane Katrina recovery: the US loses its world standing as capital of "can-do" and organization—displays third-world level ineptness. Couldn't get the job done or didn't give a damn—pick one. Strike two!

Collapse of US financial infrastructure: US loses its world standing as bastion of capitalism as most of its financial infrastructure is nationalized. Strike three!

Three strikes and you're out, right? Well, apparently not in the case of the Republican Party. What other leader in the western world could survive three such massive disasters. Yet, in the US, they are seriously contemplating another Republican president. Go figure.

Think George bush has been a disaster? Wait until that old dodderer, John McCain, gets his shaky hands on the tiller of the good ship USA.


  1. Since the second and third of your strikes were more the responsibility of the Democrats, maybe the Republicans are nor as bad a choice as you think.

  2. Come now, Swift, I know blame-shifting is de rigueur these days, but certainly the Bush administration is Republican and was in office and supposedly in charge before, during and after each of those events.

    Or are you using McCain-speak, whereby one promises to clean up a legislature in which one is a senior mover and shaker—and didn't he vote 95% in lock-step with that administration?

  3. Solid analysis Rusty.

    Except for, let's see:

    1. you seem to have a definition problem in the word "lie". Intelligence on the WMD was apparently wrong, but it was the best available and corroborated by other national intelligence agencies (French and British) whose countries didn't have the wherewithall to do anythign about it. In any event Iraq was for more than WMD (and no not al Queda)and sanctioned by the UN. Perhaps you might read up on the Geneva Conventions before you quote them so that you would realize that the US went beyond what was required under the GC since the Fedeyeen, militias etc. are not recognized as entitled to protection under the GC and could have (and if this were WWII would have) been executed after a drum head hearing instead of three hots and a cot in Gitmo - not to mention legal representation on the USA's nickel.

    2. Katrina was principally a local disaster since the primary response is is supposed to come from local and state and the Feds are not allowed (that crazy Consitution getting in the way again)to provide any meaningful help above logistics until asked by the state governors. The problems for New Orleans (since most of the rest of the gulf Coast seemed to weather the storm a little more rationally, even the part of Ms hit directly by Katrina) was that people didn't leave before the storm and the half assed levees, that have been a model of graft, waste and incompetence for generations failed. Once the storm hit and passed, the Coast Guard, Navy, Army and Guard were there in force, but since the pre-storm execution was so useless there was far more than any responders could handle. Bush didn't handle the PR aspects well at all but I am not sure what GWB standing in NOLA in a rain coat would have done to help.

    3. The financial mess was a long time coming and had tis roots in laws passed by Congresses from the time of Jimmy Carter to the present, with the only real efforts to head off the potential crashes of Freddie and Fannie coming in the last three years - to little too late. Although signed by the Presidents the legislation that let and encouraged Fannie and Freddie to back and then make completely improvident mortgages came from Congress and principally Democrats.

    So really the count is 3-0 with one and two being in the neighbourhood but still off of the plate, while number three is in the dirt and outside.

    Judging from your tone I am surprised that you didn't add in that Bush was selected not elected and 9/11 was an inside job. I don't see why you wouldn't. Like your first three propositions you cite if you look sideways at the events and avoid looking too deeply you could probably talk yourself into those being true as well.

    I think that we have moved on from the more basic Bush Derangement Syndrome to the Bush Tourette's Syndrome. The former merely has people think that Bush is responsible for all things that are bad, while the latter has its sufferers randomly blurting out "Bush" as a response to all questions real or imagined.

    And for your final shot at voting 95% with Bush, that number is only relevant if you can put some context to it. Did Obama vote 96% or 6%. How about Hillary and Joe Biden. And was the voting pattern before or after they declared for the Presidency. Your response to Swift is to spout off some stat that may or may not be relevant as proof. As a real example, I'd throw out Nicolas Sarkozy as someone who was completely tied to a lame-duck and unpopular president and running against a rock star "minority" candidate who managed to portray himself as both a staedy hand and a reformer and things worked out pretty well for him.

  4. Thanks for the detailed rebuttal, Cranky.

    For the record, I do not think that Bush was selected not elected and 9/11 was an inside job. To make such a suggestion is akin to "name calling" and I don't want to get into that—I'm not very good at it.

    I put it to you that my position on those diverse events—each in its own way among the most significant in American history—is closer to the most commonly held view, World view, than is yours.

    And I'm personally convinced that those events or their aftermath in the case of Katrina would have been unthinkable 20 years ago, under either Republican or Democratic administrations.

    The America of Ronald Regan was a model to the World, and it is tragic that I can not say the same about the America of today.

    Criticism is sometimes just that, not some conspiracy theory.

    Thanks for your comment.