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
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 email@example.com