17 October 2005

Grievances Aired Here

You probably didn't expect this post from me but it's here. I'll just go ahead and say it:

If George W. Bush could run for a third term, I don't know that I'd vote for him again (not that I'd vote for the Democratic nominee either. I highly doubt I would do that). It doesn't have as much to do with him as a man than it does the people he surrounds himself with in his administration.

- I think the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination was the one that made me make the above statement. This woman, while apparently a nice person and a Christian (and an attender at the same type of church I attend - an independent Christian Church), seems ill-qualified for the Supreme Court. Sure, she was a top lawyer in Texas and the president's personal attorney, but that doesn't make one qualified to sit on the highest court in America. We know so little about her that it makes it hard for conservatives or liberals to get behind her. That may be a plus for many but not for me. I voted for Bush, partially, for his ability to change the face of the Supreme Court which has (wrongly) become the law-shaping body in this land. Miers has the very real possibility of becoming another pick that blows up in conservatives' faces once she gets on the bench (if that occurs).

- The only explanation given to conservatives by Bush has been to trust him in his picks. That's not good enough. Sorry, it's just not. Pick someone more qualified and I would trust you more. Her pick may not be cronyism but it sure appears that way to most reasonable people (liberal or conservative). If you were a president and were concerned about perceptions (as this president seems to be much of the time), wouldn't you NOT pick someone so close to you as your nominee?

- Bush's team also seems to think that the anger over the Miers nod can be solved by pointing out that she's a good Christian lady. PLEASE DON'T PATRONIZE US! Now I know how some of the African-American constituency must feel aabout many Democrats who just assume that they should be taken at their word. Thankfully, with the exception of our so-called spokespeople (Dobson, Robertson, etc.), the Christian constituency didn't buy this line given by Karl Rove and the Gang. Now, they are repitching the nomination and leaving out the Christian angle because it didn't sell us on her.
Memo to Karl Rove: Just because I place my faith in Jesus doesn't mean I'm buying everything you're selling. Being saved doesn't give me the mark of the donkey or the elephant. Please take us seriously and not for granted or think we're so easily sold.

- Also in my reasoning is my growing discomfort with the War in Iraq. I supported the war but did not really think it was sold the right way. Forget WMDs, Saddam was a very bad man and needed to be removed. I also realize that while Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, they were supporters of terrorism and, after 9/11, we were at war with anyone who supported terrorism as an ideology. So, I'm not against the war (my brother fought in this war and I'm very proud of him and of his service to this great country). What I'm against is the apparent lack of real planning that went on when we got into this. Hindsight is always 20/20 I realize, so take this for what it's worth. It appears that Rumsfeld and the guys planning this war really believed that we could shock and awe Iraq into submission and that THAT would go a long way in making this a short conflict. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that has EVER worked long-term in the history off warfare. The shock and awe has worn off and we are left fighting street battles in what appears to be a Civil War in Iraq. It's time to begin the pullout. What more can we do? Sooner or later (hopefully sooner) the Iraqis will have to stand on their own two shaky feet. Bush's rationale is that if we pull out, the terrorists will just wait for us to leave and then launch a full-scale assault in Iraq. Where does that leave us? It leaves us with a permanent stay in the world's armpit. If there was ever a time to begin leaving, it is now, I believe.

- While I respect the ideals of the War on Terror, it's kinda like the War on Drugs. It will never be over. It's as if we think that defeating "terror" will rid the world of evil. It won't happen until the end of time. 9/11 was not something we should have treated as a crime (as was done in the Clinton admin.). It was an act of war. Bush, thankfully, saw this. However, the screw-ups in Iraq (Abu Ghraib, poor provision for troops, not enough troops) have made it a war that much harder to win.

- I'm sure there are comments in here that you disagree with, obviously these are just my opinions (and you know what those are like). It was hard for me to come to this, believe me.

Your thoughts?

No comments: