When people are just skimming the news for information, it is a shame that our media constantly tries to equalize our political parties in order to appear non-partisan. I find that the goals of Democrats are generally far healthier for our country than Republicans 9 times out of 10 or I wouldn’t support them (by the way, I’m supporting pro-life candidates even though I disagree with that position). Although we’ll find corruption everywhere, it’s just not as overwhelming among those who care less about stuff/money/status (and believe me I do care about stuff/money/status).
In a nut shell, Clinton's moral problems included an intern while running a healthy government but “Jesus is my philosopher” Bush has broken federal law (1), lied to get us into a morally problematic war (2), has given up on fighting terrorism (3) and has sold us to China. I think the bottom line of the folks in power right now is personal and corporate greed. There are greedy Democrats, but I wouldn’t call the party greedy—I would say that a few of the Democrats in office right now are part of the problem and not the solution (like getting money out of politics and creating a more efficient government), but I think many of the Democrats running, especially the military veterans, are full of good ideas that the press ignores. On Meet the Press on Sunday, Jim Webb was a great example of Democratic analysis and solutions for getting us out of Iraq and ahead of the real terrorists.
The press ignores Harry Reid and all the other Democratic leaders and say, “Where are the Democrats? The Republicans say this about Democrats” it’s maddeningly unfair for me to see our press do that all the time. It’s as if Republicans own everybody with a microphone—1984. Lies are stated all the time on TV and on the radio. http://www.mediamatters.org
(1) I've heard that the Republican congress is trying to pardon him right for breaking FISA laws by making it legal for the President to spy without court approval, but I find no news sources other than the ACLU and Moveon.org for this information.
(2) I find it morally objectionable that we are willing to use Iraqi people and their land as a backdrop for our "fly-paper" "fight it over there, not over here" logic, even though that argument makes no sense. Our civilian government is using our loyal military to create a fight against terrorists that did not exist until we got there; and mostly they are not "terrorists" they are fighting one another in a civil war. Saddam hated Al Qaeda and had no working relationship with them--when we invaded Iraq, we did Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas a favor. Terrorists are happy right now--I'd like to see that reversed.
(3) Bush's "war on terrorism" consists of his passion (or Cheney's) for torture. Torture doesn't work (please, find me one case where it dramatically worked), the military opposes it, and the way we had it already allowed the fantasy emergency situation where a suspect has information that will help in that minute, humans can break the law. The military doesn't want to get back torture that we dish out! This is such an abstract, civilian argument and I can hardly believe it's a Christian one. I thought Jesus moved past the Old Testament "eye for an eye" argument. Why should we be like the terrorists? If we had a draft like Israel we'd all be fighting for the Geneva Convention. I just heard that this fight in Congress about torture is really to protect our torturer's from what the Red Cross is going to find out.
Bush's second tool to catch terrorists appears to be spying on terrorists without Congressional checks and balances. We're supposed to be in this fight together, Washington should work together, or is the fight against us, Mr. President?
Democrats, it's like this, maybe people think Clinton let bin Laden go, but it was Bush who let bin Laden go AFTER 9-11 at Tora Bora.
And as for Cheney's SUGGESTION the other day that we've stopped terroist attacks from happening here, there's no substantive EVIDENCE of that, and there were how many years of planning before/between the World Trade Center bombing and 9-11? EIGHT years. Plus, London's attack felt very close, to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment