my cynical take on the election

suffragettecity's picture

I thought things would turn out better. I thought people knew better, but I was wrong. Bush won a term. I mean, he WON a term, by a few million votes, beating Kerry even in the popular vote.

If somebody had told me they were voting for Bush in 2000, I would have tried to sway them, but I would at least sort of understand that maybe they were just swallowing his rhetoric. However, now we know what sort of person Bush is. He stole the election in 2000 (and even after an objection was lodged by the African-Americans in Congress, the Democrats in the Senate didn't do shit to help them). Richard Clarke told him repeatedly that a terrorist attack by Osama bin Laden was imminent, and he did nothing to try and stop it. He lied to the American people and sent us to war in Iraq, causing that country to plunge into a state of chaos and alienating most of the planet, thus squandering any amount of sympathy most other countries had for us after 9/11 (and again, the Dems mostly didn't do shit). One of the things that Conservatives are supposed to stand for, fiscal responsibility and careful spending, is obviously something he doesn't know too much about. So, that and many other things prove that just as he can't run an oil company, Bush doesn't know how to be a President. He's stupid, incompetent, ignorant, and beholden to the interests of various industries and the anti-democratic Religious Right.

And yet, he won a term, and why? Because of "values." You see, apparently a lot of people in Middle America (like where I live) don't seem to realize that because we live in a pluralistic society, moral values are only supposed to be applied to your personal life. Rather, they believe that their beliefs are superior to everyone else's, and that they should be forced on everybody else (the very antithesis of what this country is supposed to stand for). And say nothing about the separation of church and state, because regardless of what the Constitution says, that doesn't mean dick to them.

Back in China, in Guilin, a friend of mine and I were talking to the brother-in-law of an expat from the UK. My friend asked the guy "So, what do people in the UK and Europe think of Americans?" "That you're stupid" was his immediate reply. Now, there are plenty of intelligent people in this country, and it wasn't fair to paint all Americans as stupid. However, if Bush can win a term as president in this country and even win the popular vote, then you know what? I don't blame Europeans for thinking that we're a nation of idiots.

I commend anyone who voted for or supported Kerry, and I think a vast majority of people on this website have good heads on their shoulders, and most of my family's pretty cool as well. However, I've basically lost faith in the American people. I blame Bush's victory on a failure of democracy, but not of the sort that got him selected in 2000. A democracy requires citizens who are informed enough to make an intelligent voting decision. However, a majority of voters this year did NOT make an intelligent decision, but an incredibly stupid one. They actually fell for Bush's rhetoric and voted for him because of his "values" and because he came across as "down-to-earth." What a bunch of fucking morons. I don't think that anyone who voted for Bush this time around deserves to be living in a democracy, because they don't know how to, and they obviously don't want to know.

On the other hand, it is still possible that Bush stole the election again. Maybe Karl Rove bribed the counters, maybe the media helped them out (like last time), or something else, but until it's prove otherwise, Bush won based on a failure of intelligence on the part of a staggering number of people.

Comments

jdub's picture

um,

blaming 9/11 on Bush is like blaming Pearl Harbor on Franklin Roosevelt. Instead of holding the people actually responsible accountable, it's placing the blame on the easiest scapegoat

suffragettecity's picture

Re: um,

I'm not directly blaming Bush for 9/11. However, I am saying that he was grossly negligent (maybe intentionally so), because Richard Clarke repeatedly warned him about it, even going through the trouble of preparing a report that was handed to Bush in early August. Instead of trying to see what was going on and maybe taking steps to stop the then imminent attack from happening, however, Bush did nothing, and his administration basically stonewalled Clarke. Bush obviously wasn't the one who ordered the attacks or carried them out, but 9/11 might not have happened had he been doing his job.

Now that you mention Pearl Harbor, the same is true with that incident. US military intelligence knew about Japanese plans to bomb Pearl Harbor from listening to their radio transmissions, but they allowed it to happen so that they'd have an excuse to enter World War II and thus make a butt load of money for defense contractors.

"Sometimes a little brain damage helps."
-- George Carlin

jdub's picture

Oh my God, where did you lear

Oh my God, where did you learn your American history? There is NO actual proof of prior knowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. There might have been some suspicions about a "possible" attack, but nobody knew when or where it might take place. Nobody knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, especially Franklin Roosevelt. As for the argument of Pearl Harbor being the likely attack location, the Japanese had enough Pacific posts that it was possible for them to attack the entire west coast of the United States kamikaze style.

"BAD HISTORY IS BAD FOR A CULTURE"--something to keep in mind

suffragettecity's picture

pearl harbor

Okay, you have me there, but there were still plans to join WW2 for the benefit of big business and to maintain Anglo-American hegemony as early as 1940, so I have my doubts that it was to save the world from fascism. Anyway, this is irrelevant, so I don't want to debate it any further.

And, what I wrote about Bush knowing that we were going to be attacked and stonewalling Richard Clarke is still true.

"Sometimes a little brain damage helps."
-- George Carlin

jdub's picture

Big Business

Ok, if benefiting big business was the intention of entering WW2, why didn't the United States enter at the beginning of the problem? If it was so important to further big business, why didn't the U.S. take that advantage when it first appeared? Let's see, in 1933 Hitler legally acquires his position and almost immediately begins preparing for war. September 1, 1939 Hitler invades Poland and so begins WW2. If the United States' main purpose was to benefit big business, why didn't the U.S. enter the war then? I know why, it was because of the policy of isolationism. It wasn't until the United States was attacked two full years after the onset of the war that the decision to enter the war was made. Yes, big business did benefit from the U.S. entrance but that was not the reason for entering the war. I also don't believe the United States entered the war to make the world safe for democracy. Honestly, I don't think the American people at that time gave a shit about how many Europeans were dying because of the hostility. The United States was too involved in its own problems to really give a fuck about the rest of the world, which didn't change after Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor did however give the the United States a reason to enter the war, revenge. The American people demanded retribution and that's what Roosevelt gave them. September 11th is another example of this. After 9/11, the American people demanded revenge and that's exactly what Bush gave us. I don't for one second believe the war is a "holy war" to protect the world from terrorism, it's a war of revenge, of retribution. Bush provided America with the revenge it wanted and now he is stuck carrying out his promise long after the cause lost its emotional ferver.

As for Clarke, where is the proof of the report? If he gave Bush a report, there has to be some concrete proof of it. Who else saw the report, are there any witnesses to the report existing? Even if there was some suspicion of a possible attack, there is no way that the he could have known exactly where and when that attack would be. It's known that when people leave administrations it's usually because of a personal qualm, and personal qualms lead to lying.

I would like to leave this on this point--I am not a Republican, I didn't vote for Bush. What I am, though, is a believer in the facts, the correct facts.

suffragettecity's picture

WW2 and Richard Clarke

Actually, most of the wars the US has fought have been for financial gain or land acquisition. You're right that isolationism was the reason for the US not having interest in World War II early on, but actually, Hitler was a pretty popular character among many Americans in the 30s (you might recall that he was Time Magazine's Man of the Year at one time, and he had a close personal relationship with Henry Ford), and a number of US companies were doing business with Nazi Germany, even though the brutality and racism of Hitler's regime were well-known. Several govnernment and business officials, including officials from the State Department and the Council on Foreign Relations held a meeting in October 1940 concerning US strategy, concluding that the US would go to war in order to expand US hegemony. Later, in 1941, a memorandum between the CFR and the State Department was written that read "If war aims are stated which seem to be concerned solely with Anglo-American imperialism, they will offer little to people in the rest of the world... The interests of other peoples should be stressed... This would have a better propaganda effect." Anyway, Pearl Harbor was just the pretext that the US needed to enter the war.

Bush was handed a report on August 6, 2001 that said Osama bin Laden was planning to attack the US by hijacking airplanes. Despite warnings from Richard Clarke and the CIA concerning al-Qaeda, however, the Bush administration basically didn't try to dig deeper or stop it. This is discussed in detail in "Fahrenheit 9/11" (which shows a photo of the report being handed to Bush) and also the book "House of Bush, House of Saud." Clarke actually had laid out plans to attack al-Qaeda as early as 2000, and while Condoleezza Rice showed some interest, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld didn't do anything with it. If you don't want to spend the money on the book or movie, then see http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html for a big list of articles from various sources, including a few mainstream ones like the Washington Post and CNN. There is a little bit of conflict, particuarly between mainstream sources and non-mainstream ones, but the gist that you get is that the Bush Administration was aware of a terrorist threat prior to 9/11, and if they'd tried a little harder, 9/11 might have been averted.

I'm a believer in facts as well, and though I can't claim to be right about everything, I'm not of the opinion that the most widely accepted story is always the truth.

"Sometimes a little brain damage helps."
-- George Carlin

jdub's picture

Hitler

of course he was Time Magazine's Man of the year, he was an economic marvel. he took Germany in its depressed economic state and turned it into an economic powerhouse

suffragettecity's picture

...

... and the otherwise isolationist US praised him for it, despite his rabid racism (actually, racism and specifically anti-Semitism were huge problems in the US at the time - if you've seen the documentary "America and the Holocaust," you'll know what I'm talking about).

Anyway, this debate is pointless. Obviously, neither of us like Bush, and regardless of how you or I feel about 9/11, Pearl Harbor, or Herr Schickelgruber (that was the Hitler family's original surname - they changed it because it sounds funny even to German ears) that's enough for me.

"Sometimes a little brain damage helps."
-- George Carlin

agaypresidentin2085's picture

Stupid voters

Yeah I agree that it was a failure of democracy that allowed Bush to win. "The American people have spoken," he said, but I think that the American people should have kept their mouths shut. Our people have lost the American dream, we've become fat and lazy, and we're getting more and more stupid. Our country is degrading in every way and I think that our time has passed. Every nation has a Golden Century, and the nineteenth was ours. But now we're in a state of decline. We can see other nations rapidly rising to the top, like China, and probably within our generation we will be replaced as the superpower. Its kind of scary to think that China could control the world, but hey, it could happen. There are plenty of countries with big populations and plentiful resources and governments that are getting less and less corrupt out there. So thats what I think. If it turns out that I'm wrong, well, then....you can shoot me.
Wow, that really trailed off from stupid voters.

jdub's picture

Golden Century?

uh, the 19th century was the 1800s and I don't think being involved in 3 wars(the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, and the American Civil War) and then the chaos that was Reconstruction would constitute as America's golden century. I know it makes me seem like such an asshole for correcting you when it's obvious that you probably meant the 20th century(the 1900s), but having correct historical facts is just so important