Bush is Toast
I say that not because I think that Kerry and Edwards have done a good job convincing voters that they will be a huge improvement. I say it because the powers that be seem to have decided to finally put Bush in the toaster. The NY Times reports today on yet another report which will say that Iraq posed "little immediate threat." And not only does the Times report the story, they actually compare the hyperexaggerations made by Bush and Cheney with the few pitiful remnants of decades-old chemical weaponry that was actually found.
This on top of another Times article last Sunday about how the White House embraced faulty intelligence, focussing on the aluminum tubes issue. And the critical comments made by Republican senators McCain, Lugar, and Hagel. And the comments of Paul Bremer. And that the media seems to have concluded the spin debate about last Thursday's debate, saying it was a Kerry win. And the polls showing Kerry has bounced back. (I don't believe that the polls represent the opinions of the American voters--they reflect the desires of the power elite. The elite now wants Kerry, from whom it has nothing to fear.)
Most of these criticisms could have been made two years ago, and might well have kept us out of this disastrous war. The criticisms were made then, by the likes of Scott Ritter and Dennis Kucinich, but they didn't make it to the mainstream media like they have now. Or the criticisms could have been made one year ago, thereby discrediting not only Bush, but also Kerry, Edwards, and the other pro-war Democrats. This might have allowed us to run a candidate who actually opposed Bush's foreign policy. But the powers that be definitely didn't want that. They are now convinced that Kerry will more competently carry out the demands of American empire. I think we'll see more and more pro-Kerry reporting over the next four weeks, and if Bush tries to steal the election again, the powers won't let him--every shenanigan attempted will be reported this time.
And over the next four years we'll all be slightly less bad off than we would have been if Bush had been re-selected. We'll still be much worse off than we are now, however, as all of the crises that Republicans and Democrats have led us into over the past 25 years come to a head--peak oil, global warming, wars wars wars, and the probable collapse of the global economy.
I realize these are pretty bold predictions, and I'm usually not this confident. I haven't been right on everything, for sure, but if you browse through the archives of this blog I think you'll find a lot of cases where I either quoted members of the lunatic fringe of the time (or was that fringe myself), when what they/I said then is now pretty much accepted fact (except by Cheney, of course). So forgive me for being a bit cocky on these predictions. I do realize "pride goeth before the fall." But I'm calling the election for Kerry, and I consider that a slightly less bad thing than a Bush victory.
This on top of another Times article last Sunday about how the White House embraced faulty intelligence, focussing on the aluminum tubes issue. And the critical comments made by Republican senators McCain, Lugar, and Hagel. And the comments of Paul Bremer. And that the media seems to have concluded the spin debate about last Thursday's debate, saying it was a Kerry win. And the polls showing Kerry has bounced back. (I don't believe that the polls represent the opinions of the American voters--they reflect the desires of the power elite. The elite now wants Kerry, from whom it has nothing to fear.)
Most of these criticisms could have been made two years ago, and might well have kept us out of this disastrous war. The criticisms were made then, by the likes of Scott Ritter and Dennis Kucinich, but they didn't make it to the mainstream media like they have now. Or the criticisms could have been made one year ago, thereby discrediting not only Bush, but also Kerry, Edwards, and the other pro-war Democrats. This might have allowed us to run a candidate who actually opposed Bush's foreign policy. But the powers that be definitely didn't want that. They are now convinced that Kerry will more competently carry out the demands of American empire. I think we'll see more and more pro-Kerry reporting over the next four weeks, and if Bush tries to steal the election again, the powers won't let him--every shenanigan attempted will be reported this time.
And over the next four years we'll all be slightly less bad off than we would have been if Bush had been re-selected. We'll still be much worse off than we are now, however, as all of the crises that Republicans and Democrats have led us into over the past 25 years come to a head--peak oil, global warming, wars wars wars, and the probable collapse of the global economy.
I realize these are pretty bold predictions, and I'm usually not this confident. I haven't been right on everything, for sure, but if you browse through the archives of this blog I think you'll find a lot of cases where I either quoted members of the lunatic fringe of the time (or was that fringe myself), when what they/I said then is now pretty much accepted fact (except by Cheney, of course). So forgive me for being a bit cocky on these predictions. I do realize "pride goeth before the fall." But I'm calling the election for Kerry, and I consider that a slightly less bad thing than a Bush victory.
<< Home