NB: In case this someday fails to be topical
, the title of this node is a parody of that for China is wrong, and there is no 'grey area' here
Whether or not China
or the US
have breached international law in this latest lamentable incident (3/4/01
), one thing is clear: we do not
have the best man for the job in Washington
. Geedubya has already done his best to reverse 10 years of diplomacy with Russia
, and his gratitude to the oil
companies has led him to tear up the Kyoto
agreement. A recent count showed that Al Gore
did in fact receive more votes than Geedubya in Florida
's debated counties. Why is this man still here?
This is not
an ad hominem attack. I explain in my very first
line above that the title was chosen for satirical reasons. I do
have a low opinion of Geedubya's intellectual faculties, but that's an opinion, and my own business. The WU was intended to highlight the invalidity, both electoral and moral, of Bush's presidency. I am British
, and I fear and dislike the idea of being used as a staging ground for NMD
. We're making enough of a mess of our country without help.
answer to the oil companies, and his actions are
motivated by an ignorance of and disregard for environmental issues. I concede that his position is not unique, nor is he solely responsible for the problem. But he does
carry a certain burden.
As for the Russians, I refer not merely to NMD, which I do believe to be an ill-judged action, but also to the 'expel diplomats first, ask questions later' attitude expressed by Mr Bush. Arguably, Vladimir Putin
is responsible too. But then we were already scared of him.
My issue is not merely with Bush's policy, although I do strongly oppose it. I also believe that his election was rigged, and that many undue influences played their part in getting the man 'elected'. I concede that the best man (or woman) is not always elected, but Bush is neither
the best nor
the most popular.
I don't know or much care how the American SAT system works. I included a link to the (now vanished) Wit and Wisdom of the 'Leader of the Free World' to enable people to judge for themselves what the nature of the man is. The only drawback of this is that they might mistake him, on evidence, for a harmless fool.
As for the will of the people, I am not able to vote for or against the election of an American president, but due to US foreign policy, that man's decisions affect me and millions of others directly. I'm entitled, I feel, to a little comment.
And are Americans all so patriotic that they'll leap to the defence of their president (in this case, by downvoting an opinion they dislike) regardless of the actual issues at stake?
Without wishing to get too much more deeply embroiled here, I did
mean to say 'regardless of the actual issues', since I had been dv'ed for posting a concise and topical opinion node. That was not
an accusation directed at Rook, or for that matter Elwood.
In response to a separate criticism, I must state that my assertion that Bush's election was invalid is based on a CNN report:
and others similar which state that although the finished recounts do indeed support Bush, these do not take account of several hundred spuriously discarded ballots from Broward
and Palm Beach
counties, whose total effect would have been to return Gore
Further reports from CNN (17/11/01 or slightly before) suggest the reverse: the Bush was narrowly the winner in Palm Beach. However, there were other disputed counts. In retrospect, all I can say is that that was no way to run an electoral system - no matter who got elected.