![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
All in the eye of the beholder, I guess
Mar. 26th, 2006 11:43 amThe editor of the San Diego Tribune was on NPR this morning, on some sort of editors' roundup. He said the war in Iraq was not really an issue in the upcoming election to replace Randy "Duke" Cunningham in Congress.
Now, I will agree that Francine Busby (the front-running Democrat) is not basing her platform on Iraq. She is, however, taking a stand against corruption and cronyism in the Republican-controlled Congress, and the need for real reform in government.
Now, maybe it's just me - but I see Iraq as symptomatic of all that, and sort of a handy summmary of all the things that are wrong about the current government. After all, if Iraq were the only thing going wrong these days, if we felt safe, and the economy was booming, and the budget was under control, people would be a little more willing (I think) to give the Administration a chance in Iraq.
But everything is going wrong, and all the things going wrong are found in Iraq. There have been discussions on the quality of the intelligence that put us there. But now we have proof that the president had good intelligence on Katrina...and ignored it. So how can anyone now doubt he did the same with Iraq?
And the corruption that put "Duke" behind bars - how different is that from all the contracts Dick Cheney is handing over to Halliburton? It seems to me, the main difference between the two is that Cheney has the clout to kill any investigation into his shady affairs - although Duke had a similar level of arrogance, in the end, he didn't have the power he thought he had.
"Duke" insisted that he never betrayed the troops in Iraq - even as he admitted that he earmarked contracts based not on the quality of work a company would deliver, but the quantity of cash delivered to him. The truth is, he never thought twice about whether his actions harmed the people risking their lives in Iraq - any more than the president thinks about whether his stance on torture, on international relationships, and on little things like the budget for veteran's health care will harm them. He's all about supporting them - as long as it doesn't mean making the slightest change to his ideologically-driven strategic plan.
"Duke" gave contracts to his friends. The president has filled his administration with his friends - regardless of their qualifications or competance (or lack thereof). He's setting the example for everyone below him - forget the needs of the country, what's important is keeping your friends in money. The fact that he was elected to serve the needs of the citizens - _all_ of the citizens - doesn't even seem to be on his radar. Like Cunningham, he's not concerned about breaking the law, because he considers he's above the law. Like Cunningham, his loyalty is to Party, not Country. And like Cunningham, an impartial history will consider his behavior close to, if not actually guilty of, treason against that county.
No, when you get down to it, it's all about Iraq. Because Iraq is all about everything wrong with this country today, and everything we need to change in the 2006 elections.
Now, I will agree that Francine Busby (the front-running Democrat) is not basing her platform on Iraq. She is, however, taking a stand against corruption and cronyism in the Republican-controlled Congress, and the need for real reform in government.
Now, maybe it's just me - but I see Iraq as symptomatic of all that, and sort of a handy summmary of all the things that are wrong about the current government. After all, if Iraq were the only thing going wrong these days, if we felt safe, and the economy was booming, and the budget was under control, people would be a little more willing (I think) to give the Administration a chance in Iraq.
But everything is going wrong, and all the things going wrong are found in Iraq. There have been discussions on the quality of the intelligence that put us there. But now we have proof that the president had good intelligence on Katrina...and ignored it. So how can anyone now doubt he did the same with Iraq?
And the corruption that put "Duke" behind bars - how different is that from all the contracts Dick Cheney is handing over to Halliburton? It seems to me, the main difference between the two is that Cheney has the clout to kill any investigation into his shady affairs - although Duke had a similar level of arrogance, in the end, he didn't have the power he thought he had.
"Duke" insisted that he never betrayed the troops in Iraq - even as he admitted that he earmarked contracts based not on the quality of work a company would deliver, but the quantity of cash delivered to him. The truth is, he never thought twice about whether his actions harmed the people risking their lives in Iraq - any more than the president thinks about whether his stance on torture, on international relationships, and on little things like the budget for veteran's health care will harm them. He's all about supporting them - as long as it doesn't mean making the slightest change to his ideologically-driven strategic plan.
"Duke" gave contracts to his friends. The president has filled his administration with his friends - regardless of their qualifications or competance (or lack thereof). He's setting the example for everyone below him - forget the needs of the country, what's important is keeping your friends in money. The fact that he was elected to serve the needs of the citizens - _all_ of the citizens - doesn't even seem to be on his radar. Like Cunningham, he's not concerned about breaking the law, because he considers he's above the law. Like Cunningham, his loyalty is to Party, not Country. And like Cunningham, an impartial history will consider his behavior close to, if not actually guilty of, treason against that county.
No, when you get down to it, it's all about Iraq. Because Iraq is all about everything wrong with this country today, and everything we need to change in the 2006 elections.
