Finally, there's a catalogue

One of the things making it harder to comprehensively and effectively criticize the Bush Administration is that they do so much that is controversial and, some would say, wrong. Take note of this: the scattershot approach might be an effective method of governing, by giving opponents just too much to get angry about at once. What to attack? What to oppose? Maybe if the left-one don't get you, the right-one will?

The same is true with the way the Bush Administration has mishandled the lead-up to and the aftermath of the war in Iraq. To explain all of the reasons why I have grave misgivings of the Bush Administration's actions, I would have to devote several posts to the subject. In fact, I already have.

I started to wonder if I could perhaps put together a comprehensive list on the controversial aspects of the Bush Administration's handling of the War on Iraq, getting everything out in the open, point and counterpoint, for all to see. Maybe then a final judgement would be easier. Well, I don't need to do that: somebody has done it for me.

The site has its political biases, as all people do, so it's important to take everything with a grain of salt. (For example: #9: "The US wants democracy in Iraq and the Middle East" is not a lie. I think the Bush Administration wants democracy in Iraq. I just don't think they have a clue how to get it) However, even if you could casually dismiss one quarter of the points raised, that's still thirty tough questions for the Bush Administration to resolve.

My American in-laws (on my mother-in-law's side) are solidly Democrat, with one exception: my sister-in-law's husband, Lars. My American in-laws also like to talk and debate, so this is an issue that has come up. Lars throws up his hands over Bush, but he would have happily voted for McCain. McCain has a tremendous amount of personal integrity and he's not beholden to the Christian Coalition. This, in his opinion, puts McCain several notches over Al Gore and Bill Clinton, both of whom he felt had little in the way of political integrity.

Lars: "Voting against Bush, though? That's a no brainer. Even if it means voting for 'No Zipper'"
Erin: "No Zipper versus No Brainer"
Me (thinks): "What a choice for America.

To me, the differences between the Clinton and Bush presidencies are starting to fade. There is a fair argument that the Clinton's presidency can be summed up as follows:

  1. He lied to the American people.
  2. He was soft on terror.

If even a handful of the 40 charges against the Bush Administration sticks (and some seem pretty sticky), the Bush Administration can arguably be summed up as follows:

  1. He lied to the American people.
  2. He was soft on terror.

And I think you can make the point that, unlike Clinton, Bush's most serious lie may have cost American lives. This is why I think that, if the Democrats can offer up a half-decent alternative to this man, Bush should lose. If the Democrats can't, then I would have to say that the American democracy isn't particularly healthy at the moment.

blog comments powered by Disqus