I generally don't write about politics, but recent events have forced my hand. (And yes, I am opening myself to outside critique in this public forum).
Recently, someone asked for us to view the Obama campaign with "I sincerely hope those who don't believe in Obama for whatever reason will turn their hate and pessimism into support and optimism. I hope they realize through the eyes of the people at that acceptance speech that this is a rare opportunity for positive transformation. Will it be positive? I can't say, just as anyone else can't, but I hope because at this point we have no other positive course of action. Criticize his faults as they are definitively revealed, stop focusing on what you anticipate will be his downfalls, and give the man a chance to be what so many hope he will become. I genuinely believe he will surprise us all in a positive way. Really, what productive outcome are you hoping for by constantly posting stuff like this?"
So, "c'mon guys, let's all get behind our president now. It does no good to argue and bicker!"
I posted a lengthy response, then decided it needed to be said in a larger forum,
My interest in this is not to praise or dig at Obama, please understand. My only concern is that I simply don't like the duplicity that is being shown here.
So, here we go:
When Clinton was a "Lame-duck" president, and Bush had won the election, the comparisons were already out between Bush and monkeys. His intelligence was already being questioned, and he was being portrayed as nothing more than an un-intelligent hick.
What is at root with the new urge to be civil to Obama is the Bush-bashing that began before he even set foot in the white house. With the other side taking over, the fear is that all turnabout might be fair play, now leveled at the other-side's golden boy. The roles have been switched, and now someone else can sit in the back to deride and second-guess every decision that the POTUS makes.
(The original poster brought up Halliburton as an example of Bush's negligence)
Halliburton, being a large company, with many large contracts in which other construction firms simply can't compete, would be a wise investment by any stretch of the imagination.
The reason for this is quite simple: They are the only Construction company that:
A) Can be trusted (unlike the large construction firm attached to the Bin Laden Family)
B) Can afford to provide military protection
and:
C) Can tackle large projects like city-building.
To run Haliburton's name through the mud in an attempt to bring down Bush is patently unfair. That's like claiming that EDS is evil because they are the only ones that could take on the Naval/Marine Corps Intranet project. You have to work with your best tools. It was the press who notified the president that his actions were benefiting the company his outside financial handler was investing in.
Halliburton was given a $307 million dollar no-bid contract to rebuild parts of Iraq. At first, that seems a conflict of interest. However, digging into google (search parameters, "clinton halliburton bosnia"), you'll find out that Clinton gave them a $407 million dollar no-bid deal to rebuild parts of Bosnia. And his financial advisor made larger investments in Halliburton.
(He also brought up the war)
As for the war. There were three things that lead to the war:
A) A need to get out of Saudi Arabia.
The Royal family is, at any given moment, a trigger pull away from being ousted like the Shah of Iran in 1979. They know it, the extremists know it. 9/11 was perpetuated by people who were incensed at the presence of US troops on "holy ground" (Saudi Arabia). The Royal family asked for the US to make plans to leave. It would be RIDICULOUS for the US to simply walk away from the middle east. So we needed a new base.
B) Saddam's despotism.
Saddam's flaw was not that he is a dictator or despot. What put the nail in his coffin is the fact that he was paying $25k per suicide bombing against our allied country, Israel.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml
This was stepping up pressure. In response, Israel would find the name of the beneficiary of the money, evacuate everyone from the building, bulldoze the building, then leave them alone. In this way, all that money would be spent re-building their homes. This was making things difficult for our allies, and they requested help in finding a solution.
We knew the Iraqi people were under an oppressive regime, their leader was making things difficult for our ally, and was smack dab in the middle of the middle east.
The (correct) thought was that once we were there, and the Iraqi people are able to fend for themselves (which they are starting to do), our reward would be to rent space in the middle of nowhere to conduct our base of operations.
C) WMDs
They were there, but the press was kept in the dark until it was safely transported away:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
Thank you for playing.
Now, you are asking, "Why do I bring all this up?"
With all the Bush has done, what he has accomplished, the other side has made him out to be an insane, self-serving, maniacal dirtbag. They have second-guessed him every step of the way, and have blamed him for their own problems:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
What the Obama supporters are concerned about is this: at this point he has been put on such a high pedestal that there is no earthly way he can meet their expectations.
When that happens, they are afraid that the same snarky, blindsided, nasty, nonsensical prejudgement that they have employed on W for the past eight years will be applied to Obama.
It will be interesting to see how he handles it.
No comments:
Post a Comment