Tag Archives: Bush

Comrade Bush


Hugo Chavez, the dictator of Venezuela, referred to President Bush as Comrade Bush and said Bush has moved “left” in the financial crisis. Normally, I would defend the President and his actions, I can’t say that I have minded the Bush administration and generally feel he has done a better job than most give him credit for.  But in this instance Hugo Chavez is absolutely right!

President Bush moved left like I never thought possible.  First, fully supporting spending 700 billion dollars to bailout mortgage companies, then announcing that the federal government will buy majority shares of private banks!

Is he kidding? What have we become as a nation?  Is our society and culture so reactionary that we will compromise the very founding principles that made us great?  Apparently so. But if I wanted to live in Venezuela or Russia I would move there.  But I don’t, I want to live in America, moreover I want to live in a place where I can work hard, earn money to support my family and live a comfortable life, and have the freedom to worship, play, work, speak, and move the way I want to. But the actions of our government over the last few years continually erode those rights. 

But, you may be saying, what does the nationalization of banks have to do with the way you want to live?  Well, it is yet another step towards socialism and government control.  Government, no matter where you live, loves its power and will rarely relinquish it but often seeks to expand it.  Does anyone honestly think that the continued forays of the government in to the private markets and our citizens pocketbook is going to slow down any time soon?  Especially considering the legislature will continue to be controlled by America’s socialist party (Democrats) and will soon have the most left of their Senators as her President?  No chance.

And that is the most frustrating aspect of this whole move by Bush to begin nationalizing these banks. He came out and said that he wasn’t a fan of this action but felt it was necessary to ensure stability in the banking structure of America and then he promised that this is a short term nationalization and that the government will sell the shares back to the companies when stablized.  Does he think we are stupid?  Do any of you believe him? Not me.  And it is not that I don’t believe him per se, it is that the decision will not be his.  If this occured in his second year as President, I would be more inclined to believe him. Why? because he would be the one to decide on the action of selling the shares a year or two down the road.  But he has three months left in office.  So unless he sells those shares before January 20th, they aren’t getting sold anytime soon.  Do you think Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid will sell them?  No chance.  They have little faith in the free market, support government control, and have no desire to relinquish power.

How dare our government take such irresponsible and reactionary actions? In any free society and market there are going to be ups and downs.  Major collapses seem to occur every 10-15 years (see 2000 and the Tech collapse) and every time our market pulls out of it and becomes stronger (see the Bush economy around 2006).  The free market is like nature: unpredictable, wild, efficient, successful, and prone to forest fires and disasters.  Additionally, just like a forest fire in nature is initially devastating to the forest, it is always a net positive.  The forest grows back healthier and stronger.  The market is the same way.  A fire is often necessary to get rid of the chaff and strengthen the economy, except in this instance, our government decided to use taxpayers money…MY MONEY… to keep the chaff in the market.  It will be a disaster, everything the governement touches usually does.


Filed under Democrats, Election 2008, George Bush, Liberal, Politics, Republicans

Frustrated War Protesters

Apparently, many War protesters and activists are becoming increasing frustrated with the lack of motivation in the anti-War movement.

Of course they are! Why? Let me count the ways.

First, we are hardly in a War right now.  Basically, we are carrying out a massive peace-keeping and rebuilding operation.  To actually call what is currently going on in Iraq  a “war” is a bit ridiculous; there are no major battles, no storming of beaches, no crazy carpet bombing, so on and so forth.  Sure, there are military raids to root out terrorists or the occassional strategic bombing, but really a majority of the troops there are acting as peacekeeping troops and helping with Iraq’s infrastructure.

The only reason we call this a war is because of political reasons.  Republicans use the term war because it helps drum up support for funding and political backing from their base.  Democrats use the term war to drum up the anti-war sentiment and solidify support from their base.

What is going on in Iraq is nothing like what happened in Vietnam, Korea, Japan, or Germany.  It is a completely different conflict that, all things considered, is going quite well right now and looks like there will be a positive outcome for the U.S. and Iraq.

Aside from Why we went to Iraq in the first place and simple , I don’t understand what the anti-War movement is so upset about.  About the only argument they make that makes complete sense is that Iraq should be spending its own oil revenue to fund their reconstruction, amen!

How could they possibly expect the American people to be passionate against the war?  Just because polls show that 60-70% of Americans want the troops withdrawn in the next two years and think the war was a mistake, doesn’t mean they advocate our defeat there or think we have lost.  In fact I want our troops home in the next two years too.  Anyone who doesn’t has issues.  But that doesn’t mean they should be brought back in the next two years.  I want the job done and I want Iraq to be successful.  These things can’t be rushed, and, like nearly all of our previous wars in our history, it has taken a few years for our troops start winning and gaining the upper-hand (go read your history of the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and WWII).  We have a knack for struggling for a while, but we always seem to come out on top (and many argue we would have in Vietnam had we been given another year or two).

The other reason people are apathetic is because there are more important issues that we are facing, e.g. the economy.  Additionally, we are in the depths of a historic Presidential campaign where we focus on issues that are beyond trivial.

So basically, people are apathetic because things are not that bad in Iraq and we are generally safe from terrorism (and this is true and something I intend to address in a future post).  The only way the war gets more coverage and people end up being passionate against it is if there is no perceived progress ever occurring, like pre-2007.  However this is not likely.  The only thing that could make things interesting is Iran; their involvement and the way we handle them.


Filed under Conservative, Democrats, Election 2008, Politics, Republicans

Can’t Bush Be Given at Least a Little Credit?

Christiane Amanpour and her CNN cohorts released a report about North Korea’s nuclear program on Monday.  They were given a tour of a known nuclear powerplant that North Korea admits they were using to build a nuclear bomb.  Today that plant is empty and desolate but Amanpour rather than giving any credit to the Bush administration and their handling of the situation, simply decided to make fun of the President. Consider the following paragraph:

For a nation President Bush labeled as part of the “axis of evil,” it was not an impressive sight: a dilapidated concrete hulk, built with few resources back in the early ’80s.

Basically, we are supposed to laugh and say, “ha, ha, Bush is an idiot.  He claims they are evil and dangerous but their nuclear plant is empty.  Moron.”

Nevermind the fact that the very next paragraph in the article she acknowldeges this:

But it did produce plutonium, enough to make a few bombs and to test-fire a nuclear weapon 18 months ago.

Hmmm, so 18 months ago that same plant was fully operational and was making bombs, but Bush and his policy get no credit?  So what happened then. Did Kim Jong Il just decide to become a benevolent dicatator and lose his ambition for a nuke for the good of the world?

I doubt it.  In fact Amanpour continues to tell us why North Korea did it:

For all of this, North Korea expected a million tons of heavy fuel oil, a lifting of sanctions and removal from the U.S. list of terrorist sponsors. This has not happened yet, so North Korea has slowed down the disabling process at Yongbyon.

The United States says Pyongyang hasn’t yet fully accounted for its past nuclear activities. However, both sides seem determined to overcome this stumbling block and reach out in other ways, too.

So basically, North Korea decided to dismantle it’s nuclear program because the U.S. and other countries offered benefits.  That sounds an awful lot like it is due to U.S. policy dictated by the Bush administration. 

I find it quite telling that CNN and Amanpour would fail to give Bush any credit for such a turn of events.  I also find it outrageous that every other news source is ignoring this North Korea story, instead they are talking about the NY Philharmonic Orchestra playing in Pyongyang.  This is a major story and a major victory, not just for Bush, but for the U.S. and the world as a whole.  The sad thing is, Clinton’s agreement with NK was a complete failure, but if it were as successful as Bush’s it would have lauded and praised, but simply because it is Bush it is ignored and cast aside.  What a sad state for our society and media. 

As a side note, purely discussing the NK nuclear program, I am still quite skeptical that they have dismanteled their nuclear program.  I am not saying they haven’t, but I would not be the least surprised to find out that they have a secret plant elsewhere.  Also, it is quite possible that now that they have their multiple nukes, they are content and decided to appease the U.S.   I mean, how many nukes do you need to destroy Seoul.  All we have heard about is a plant being dismantled, not about bombs.


Filed under Election 2008, International Affairs, Media, Military, Nuclear, Politics