President Bush claimed, “our goal hasn’t changed” in Iraq (“Bush willing to shift tactics to win in Iraq”, 10-21) but the truth is his administration’s stated goals have continuously changed.
First Bush said the goal was to rid Iraq of its (nonexistent) WMDs, then the goal was to remove Saddam and his sons, then the goal was to establish a demonstration model of Arab democracy, and most recently the goal seems to be the imposition of order and stability, perhaps by installing another “strongman” like Saddam!
On the other hand, Bush’s unstated goal probably hasn’t changed: To control Iraqi oil by establishing a huge permanent military presence near the epicenter of the world’s largest oil deposits.
Regardless of his stated and unstated goals, the wheels long ago flew off Bush’s foreign policy wagon.
In one sense this is a very good thing because no nation should ever benefit from a war of aggression.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
October 22, 2006 - Who IS Michael Steele?
While I am sure the Sun’s recent article about Senatorial candidate Michael Steele will be decried by Republicans as another “hit piece”, it struck me as a much-needed and sobering reminder that after four years in the spotlight, Mr. Steele’s past, present and future plans are still largely unknown (“A personality for politics”, 10-22).
Like President Bush, Steele seems to have an affable demeanor and a questionable history that the candidate, his campaign and his former employers are unable or unwilling to shed any light on.
Like Vice President Cheney, Steele seems to exclude relevant parties from participating in the process of developing policy recommendations; Steele has made much of his concern for listening to all the voices in the room—but what happens when the voices are not even invited into the room?
Like Senator John McCain, Steele seems to have a penchant for delivering proposals that are “all show and no go” like his three-year study on the death penalty that concluded that another study group should be formed!
Like former President Nixon’s famous “Checkers” TV address, Steele used a dog as a straw man to counter a fictitious charge while he ignored the fair criticism being leveled against him.
Finally, like the fictional character in Jerzy Kosinski’s “Being There”, Steele seems to have been induced by party elites (like Karl Rove) to win high office through a strategy of employing a “folksy” charm-based campaign in the hope that his vaguely reassuring comments would be mistaken for good judgment.
My question for Maryland voters is: Do they really want another leader with a dubious past and no detailed agenda, a leader who apparently believes in opaque government and who evidently favors the unalloyed rule of party and corporate elites?
Like President Bush, Steele seems to have an affable demeanor and a questionable history that the candidate, his campaign and his former employers are unable or unwilling to shed any light on.
Like Vice President Cheney, Steele seems to exclude relevant parties from participating in the process of developing policy recommendations; Steele has made much of his concern for listening to all the voices in the room—but what happens when the voices are not even invited into the room?
Like Senator John McCain, Steele seems to have a penchant for delivering proposals that are “all show and no go” like his three-year study on the death penalty that concluded that another study group should be formed!
Like former President Nixon’s famous “Checkers” TV address, Steele used a dog as a straw man to counter a fictitious charge while he ignored the fair criticism being leveled against him.
Finally, like the fictional character in Jerzy Kosinski’s “Being There”, Steele seems to have been induced by party elites (like Karl Rove) to win high office through a strategy of employing a “folksy” charm-based campaign in the hope that his vaguely reassuring comments would be mistaken for good judgment.
My question for Maryland voters is: Do they really want another leader with a dubious past and no detailed agenda, a leader who apparently believes in opaque government and who evidently favors the unalloyed rule of party and corporate elites?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
