|
Bush’s
failures make his authority questionable “We’re going to smoke him out and hunt him down,” were the words of President George W. Bush six months ago. The new refrain sounds like, “I don’t know where he is and frankly I don’t care. He hasn’t done much lately.” Half a year ago the most important thing we could do was remove the government of Afghanistan to catch this Osama guy. Now, he’s not worth our time. The question now is, was he ever worth our time? If he really planned this thing shouldn’t he be the goal, the target of the operation? Didn’t quite a few people spend quite a bit of time convincing European leaders and the American public that Osama bin Laden was our arch-nemesis and the director of al Qaeda? Kind of makes you wonder if that Office of Strategic Influence was around before they told us about it. Instead of bin Laden, why is it important for us now to invade Iraq as numerous media outlets are now urging us? Is it because we might now be looking into the numerous financial difficulties corporations experienced, especially those close to the president and vice president, and the influence they swayed with our notably pro-corporate administration. Secondly, why is Bush, a notable failure at corporate management, suddenly allowed to help corporations? Bush failed when he started Arbusto Corp., failed when added to Spectrum 7 Energy Corp. and Harkin Energy Corp., and finally had a mini-Enron fiasco when he cashed out of Harkin. In fact the only business adventure which made Bush any money was his sell of the Texas Rangers. Bush bought into the Rangers partnership with a loan from a bank ($606,000) then after receiving a new stadium from the people of Arlington, and entering the campaign for governor, he was bought out by Tom Hicks. Presto chango… $16 million. Did anyone ask if it was ethical to sell out while running for governor, or what effect that had upon Bush’s decision to put Tom Hicks in charge of the University of Texas endowment? But why worry about these things? Bush is a good ol’ boy, he isn’t going to hurt anyone. Except that despite the official policy of nuclear weaponry only being used as a deterrent, he now wants battle with field-sized nukes. As a deterrent to attack America, he wants nuclear weapons that can be used offensively on a battlefield. Sounds more like an ace in the hole. Also, why do people even take this guy seriously? He has absolutely no ideas worth saving for posterity. His reaction to the first attack on the continental mainland in the last 190 years was to revert to some west-Texas sheriff, by that meaning small minded, racist and vengeful. Notice the powerful lack of bombing of Idaho and Wisconsin, after the Oklahoma City bombing. I’m sure there would have been too much collateral damage of innocent civilians embarking on a major bombing campaign of the Midwest. But then we’re not to worried about bombing Afghanistan despite its population of innocent civilians. It is true the Taliban was a horrible regime that forced women into a subservient role in society, further forcing them to hide their faces behind a veil. But then again I know some fundamentalists around here that got into a little trouble for forcing women to be “in gracious servitude to their husband.” Not to mention the fact that some of their women won’t leave the home without ‘putting on their face,’ often coating their cosmetics thicker than burkahs. But I digress, and return to the small mindedness of Bush. Despite a need for governmental revenues, a burgeoning prison population and mass destruction of the society in Columbia, Bush has failed to do the one thing that could end all these problems during his term, end the prohibition of illegal drugs. While children are fed pharmaceutical amphetamines, adults can not choose which drugs to enjoy in their recreational time. Prohibition of alcohol didn’t work, but who wants to learn from history. Chris
Dobson is senior history major from Arlington. |
|
|
TCU Daily Skiff © 2002 |
||