August 22, 2007

IMPEACH BUSH


IMPEACH CHENEY

BUSH'S BAD ANALOGIES

It's interesting how George W. Bush chose to ignore history when he launched an unnecessary and immoral war against Iraq. Bush was warned of the dangers of the invasion and occupation, but he didn't listen then. I suspect Vietnam was mentioned when Bush was leading up to the war. Now that Iraq has turned into a daily horror show Bush wants to invoke Vietnam. He cites boat people, re-education camps, and other atrocities that occurred after the United States pulled out of Vietnam. But it was clear at the time that the United States had to leave Vietnam. The consequences of leaving were horrendous; the consequences of staying were worse. Iraq has now dragged on longer than World War II and there is no end in sight. We're at a point where any choice is a bad choice. We have to make the choice that is the least harmful. We need to get out of Iraq. This analysis by Dan Froomkin is at www.washingtonpost.com:

Mr. Froomkin quotes from an article at The Los Angeles Times:

"Historian Robert Dallek, who has written about the comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam, accused Bush of twisting history. 'It just boggles my mind, the distortions I feel are perpetrated here by the president,' he said in a telephone interview.

"'We were in Vietnam for 10 years. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than we did in all of World War II in every theater. We lost 58,700 American lives, the second-greatest loss of lives in a foreign conflict. And we couldn't work our will,' he said.

"'What is Bush suggesting? That we didn't fight hard enough, stay long enough? That's nonsense. It's a distortion,' he continued. 'We've been in Iraq longer than we fought in World War II. It's a disaster, and this is a political attempt to lay the blame for the disaster on his opponents. But the disaster is the consequence of going in, not getting out.'"

BUSH: WEALTH INEQUALITY (HO-HUM)

When George W. Bush and his criminal administration took power it was like swarms of locusts descending on the United States economy. The Bushes have devoured everything that benefits working people and transferred it to the economic elite. Wages have stagnated for almost everyone except the people at the top of the pyramid. The administration's response is that wealth inequality is not a very interesting story. This commentary by David Sirota is at www.workingforchange.com:

We are told that when there is a short supply of a good or service that is in demand, the market dictates that the price for that good or service rises (as just one example, we hear this justification all the time when it comes to the supply of oil and the price of gas). This results in higher profits for the corporations producing the good or service. But we are simultaneously told that if there is a short supply of labor that is in demand, the market should not raise the price (aka. wages) for that labor (which would, of course, lessen the wealth disparity in America). No, instead we are told that we should rig the labor market by flooding it with a supply of workers who will exist under a legal framework that makes them more easily exploitable than other workers (ie. they can't form unions to demand better wages/working conditions without fearing their employer will deport them).

This is the governing ethos of economic/globalization policymaking in Washington. Couple it with tax policies that target most of their rewards to the handful of Gordon Gekkos who run Wall Street, and what you have is a pretty open, pretty vicious economic war being waged on America's middle class.