Written by DAVID KEYES

January 30, 2005

Each and every day, it seems like I find new legitimate reasons to roll my eyes at the Bush administration. Their idealistic (almost utopian) outlook on the world is really quite hilarious -- first they send us into a war that costs billions of dollars (see costofwar.com for the latest tally), and then when their decision comes under fire by building counter-attacks, they pull new excuses out of thin air to justify their inept foreign policy. First it was "Iraq is in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction," then it was "Saddam's Regime may be harboring terrorists." Eventually the excuses got a little vaguer ("Saddam was a very bad man"), but now they almost reek of desperation ("We want people in the Middle East to be free and live in a democracy"). Such gibberish is what you'd expect of the average elementary school student looking for excuses as to why he didn't complete his homework; for the leaders of the most prominent government in the world, they are tired, vague and transparent. Why even use them? Why not just come out and say the truth, which is that "we want to police the world, occupy their countries and force them to accept our methods"?

Today's inevitable eye roll comes from reading a few recent Associated Press articles, which recap the events in Washington this past month as potential nominees for Bush cabinet posts are grilled by members of the senate. It's not enough that the president's Attorney General nominee is under fire for saying (or not saying) that he approved of the torture tactics exhibited last year during the Abu Ghraib prison scandal -- no, newly-appointed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has to add fuel to the flame by dodging responsibility for the Iraq war right in front of congress. No one in this administration seems to be willing to admit that it may have made mistakes, even slight ones. Condoleezza’s public testimony as she was questioned by Democrats this month was arguably some of the most unsuccessful yet -- often resorting to inane double-speak, she tried hard to justify each and every decision made in her department regarding the war strategy, and briefly touched on the fact that some errors "may" have been committed during the last couple of years. The basic problem is that we seemingly heard all this we-did-what-we-thought-was-right malarkey already. Does anyone remember a similar situation when she was grilled by the 9/11 commission regarding the White House's response to a terror memo delivered to the president in August of 2001?

With elections in Iraq at our doorsteps, the administration's pursuit of democracy in Iraq is finally being put to a decision-making test. How will Bush and his cronies respond if the election does not meet their guidelines? What with the deadliest day for American troops on the ground occurring just this past week (37 dead), rising death tolls for would-be voters (27 on Saturday, at last count), anonymous candidates on ballots, boycotts from interim Iraqi politicians and prospects of a low voter turnout (only nine percent of Sunnis are expected to cast ballots), you have to wonder if the White House sees this as "progress" -- or, for that matter, if they actually expect Iraq to become a country where anyone can safely walk down to the local polling office and safely vote in an election anytime soon.

One of the last rays of hope for relatives of troops comes from the White House's recent rhetoric that American presence in Iraq can gradually be removed from the ground with a successful election on Monday. The Devil's advocate advises you to not bet on that possibility, at least for the time being. Because of the current condition of the nation, what with an ongoing revolt on part of ruthless insurgents and inhumane terrorists (not to mention increasing kidnappings and beheadings), our American troops are still needed there in full force, and will no doubt be needed for the foreseeable future. This is not a country that is ready to be handed over to its own citizens, unfortunately, and with democratic process struggling to find footing on the soil, one has to wonder just how long it will take. Of course, the established deadline set by the administration is just another example of its architects living by pig-headed idealism instead of by reality, but that's hardly a surprise given their track record.

Politicians, in general, are vindictive individuals; they care little about the needs of the masses and more about padding their wallets, and you can practically trace this trait back several generations of Democrats and Republicans, whom have a history of either exhibiting ulterior motives or lying through their teeth when it came to crucial political decisions both at local and national levels. Why, for instance, would the anti-war baby boomers give Lyndon Johnson a second term in office when his intention was to keep military presence in Vietnam high? Simple: because being persuasive is all that the job requires. It doesn't matter what you do or how you do it -- as long as you manage to kiss enough ass at the crucial moment, you will eventually have carte blanche to do exactly what you want to... and for the most part, get away with it.

Having said that, George W. Bush has managed to cross a line that few presidents in our lifetime have -- he is evil of the elusive seventh-level-of-hell kind. Nearly every one of his political stances lacks a convincing argument, from his vague perspective on abortion to his desire to ban gay marriage at the constitutional level to his desire to overhaul social security in order to "protect" its future. He touts himself as a "Compassionate Conservative," but what is so compassionate about limiting civil rights based on gender, age and/or sexual orientation? And what it so compassionate about offering sketchy explanations on why you went to war in the first place and allowing hundreds of your soldiers to die because you have no tangible exit strategy (and are not equipping them with sufficient armor)?

Yep, it sure sounds like “progress” to me. You?

Author's note: Politics is never a friendly discussion point between people. I do not expect anyone to agree with the viewpoint above, nor do I anticipate it will be endorsed by any of the people that read it. Therefore, if you feel the need to comment, please do so without turning it into one of those "you're a die-hard liberal bastard"-arguments. I dislike all politicians equally, and therefore I like to consider myself an equal-opportunity offender, at least when the occassion calls for it.