Electoral Ambivalence

Usergroup(s): Conservatives, Liberals
Format: Free style

The Bush Administration seems to have treated those who do not agree with it paternally at best and callously to disparagingly at worst. This seems intended to give one the impression that it knows best, but two events have come to light within the last 12 months that would speak otherwise, namely, the lack of WMD in Iraq and Mr. Richard Clarke's Testimony before the 9/11 commission.

Worrisome are a number of things: lack of concern for Al Qaeda (Admittedly, this may be relatively subjective), the poor planning for the post Iraqi conflict (Not Subjective), VP Cheney's refusal to name names in his "energy commission" meetings, and the initial reluctance to have Dr. Rice testify before the 9/11 panel under oath (Both of these lay claim to Executive Privlege). Granted the administration has precedence on its side regarding its past refusal towards such testimony of its National security Advisor, but it has now changed its mind because "the events of Sept. 11, 2001, present the most extraordinary circumstances."?-and rightly so. But somehow the change in heart now seems hollow and forced. Wasn't 9/11 an extraordinary circumstance before this perceived administrative flip-flop? Liberals will jump all over this, but how about conservatives' concern about the major increase in the national deficit effected by this President's latest tax cuts? Republicans' main claim to fame has been their ability to set policy and "stay on message". The tax cut, sans cutting government financial outlays, seems antithetical to the Republican school of thought. Then there is this President's pandering towards the religious right in calling for a constitutional amendment preventing same sex marriages--one of the few of such constitutional changes aimed at cutting civil liberty (the other had something to do with ethyl alcohol consumption). How about the outing of Ambassador Wilson's wife as a CIA operative? That was not only nasty, it was illegal. The last one is truly perplexing for we find that the most powerful leader on the planet seems helpless, if not hapless, when it comes to finding out who broke this law.

I certainly would welcome anyone's comments on these above observations but my main quandary is this: if I so decide to cast a no confidence vote for President Bush this November will this make our current fight against terrorism unsustainable? We have already seen the current Spanish administration's fate. Sure, sure we know it was merely Spain's electorate rebelling against its administration's efforts to deflect the Madrid train bombing towards ETA, but Islamic terrorist will view this as a success. What happens if Bush is defeated? What about the fate of Tony Blair in the UK? Is my choice in November being decided by terrorists?

Respectfully,

JM