How is it That...?

September 25, 2004
By Michael Shannon

How is that George Bush can go to the United Nations and ask the international community to contribute more troops, materials and monies to the stabilization of Iraq and he is lauded as being "Presidential," and yet when John Kerry makes the same requests he is deemed as being delusional?

How is it that Rudy Guiliani, Arnold Schartzenegger, Dick Cheney and George Bush can stand in front of the Republican National Convention and contend that they and their party are indispensable to the national security of the United States when the first one never served a day in the armed forces, the second made his name and fortune by dressing up in elaborate costumes and pretending to be a Barbarian, Terminator, Super Spy, et al, the third applied for and was granted 6 separate deferments during the Vietnam War because he had "other priorities at the time", and the last one -- the only one of the quartet who actually did serve in a branch of the Armed Services! -- not only received preferential treatment to be accepted in a non combat outfit but didn't even live up to its less than demanding requirements? Meanwhile, out of the other corner of their Party's mouth, they have the shameless gall to impugn the character of a man who willingly faced more lethal danger than the four of them combined have in their entire lives

How is it that the Bush administration and other Iraq war supporters used the prewar intelligence concerning Iraq's weaponry and Saddam's alleged intent to use it, when the people who compiled these reports had no direct access to Iraq and even less insight to the working of Hussein's inner circle? And how can the President now dismiss the postwar strategic postulations by the same intelligence community, this time based on direct and immediate hands-on observation over an extended period of time, by saying "they're just guessing"?

How is it that George Bush said while seated with his entire Cabinet in attendance that he was gonna git Bin Laden "dead or alive," and now can't even bring himself to say the man's name? And how does he still have the audacity to swagger around like he's John Wayne's 21st century alter ego?

How is it that in the days before, during, and immediately following the Iraq War, the White House and Pentagon repeatedly posted projections for prescheduled troop reductions which were received by both professional and layman alike as realistic and routine, and yet when John Kerry proposes a timetable of "possible" troop withdrawals he is branded as irresponsible? How is it that George Bush has changed his public position on almost everything -- going back to the United Nations for a specific resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, the formation of the Commission on September 11, whether Condi Rice would testify before said commission, whether he would himself testify before the same commission; and dozens of other less weighty issues -- and he is still considered a man of decisive and resolute action, whereas if John Kerry offers an opinion that doesn't fit to a "t" what he has said in the past he is the king of all flip-floppers?

How is it that after "Mission Accomplished," and after the situation in Iraq devolved to the point where it is now one bad day away from sinking into the abyss of complete anarchy, Bush can still manage to keep a straight face when declaring that "freedom is on the march"?

And most perplexing of all: how is it that, after Bush has shown himself to be more ill prepared for the complexities and demands of the American Presidency as any man who has ever held that position, enough people may actually vote for this shell of a man that he's gonna get to do it all over again?

 
Contact Mike at shnnn613@cs.com