I actually don’t think that Bush is the sole culprit, here. Half the country elected him. And reelected him. Brrrr!
– AlexSchroeder 2006-10-11 17:05 UTC
Sad to say it’s even worse than that. If I remember correctly, less than 40% of people voted, and less than half of them voted for Bush. Twice.
So Bush’s abuse of power is all courtesy of just 20% of the US.
Gee, thanks folks.
I just can’t understand why the other 80% are accepting it.
– GreyWulf 2006-10-11 22:17 UTC
The problem with the American people is that they have a very short memory and are very easily manipulated. They often get confused between patrioism and the worship of that one man they call the President.
Considering that, it’s not really that strange.
Besides, most of those who re-elected Bush did so because they knew that it wouldn’t make much of a difference if the democrats came to power. The top men are family and share the same ambition – money.
And I think the reason that the those that doesn’t agree with the Bush administration today won’t rise against him is that they have no idea how to. They would need a very powerful leader to actually accomplish anything.
This number is not acceptable though. Especially for a war where the leaders promised a minimal number of civilian casulties.
The problem is that Bush and Blair have immunity at the Internation War Crimes Court in Brussel and it seems that they’re turning their back on Iraqs people for heck knows what reason.
There has to be some sort of limit to what “minimal number of civilian casulties” actually is about. Unless the pay have been too good, of course :p
– Christa 2006-10-11 22:37 UTC
The lack of a real alternative certainly explains why the democrats are not inspiring. But still, the Americans failed to make a vote of no confidence by reelecting him. They effectively said: What you did in our name – it’s ok!
As to the silent majority Robin mentioned: I just read some analysis about voters and non-voters here in Switzerland and it turns out that the silent majority here is about as informed as voters (no better, no worse), and wouldn’t have voted any different from the actual voters. Basically that means that putting your faith in the silent majority is not an option. It’s just more of the same.
You’d have to show that voting in the USA is a class phenomena etc. I doubt it, actually.
– Alex Schröder 2006-10-12 08:43 UTC
I agree. Unlike here in the UK, voting in the USA isn’t as tied to class. I’m not sure whether that’s a good thing or not
It’s the lack of alternative that troubles me. I’m sure you’re right, and that just means that what’s happenning really is what the US wants. Hard to believe that there could be so much inhumanity on one continent, but true.
– GreyWulf 2006-10-12 11:45 UTC
Voting in the US is more connected to where in the country you are than to what class you belong to. Of course, if you have a big fat bank account and a big biz, you’re more likely to be liberal, but it’s more common that your political view is tied to the state where you are or grew up. That’s also why they count the votes the way they do….which in itself was the reason for Bush winning the first election in the first place.
And I think that everyone knows by now that Florida is politically very corrupt when it comes to this. But then again, who is not corrupted when it comes to politics?
– Christa 2006-10-12 12:29 UTC
– AlexSchroeder 2006-10-12 15:05 UTC
– GreyWulf 2006-10-12 21:30 UTC
Nice article I found via Space War:
- In some swerve of logic, Bush has decided for the Iraqis that they see the death of, say, their child or children, husband, wife, the descent of their entire country into chaos and hell – all worth it for the sake of what Bush deems to be freedom. It should go without saying that president’s conclusion begs a question: what choice do the Iraqis have? Does the president really believe that, given such a choice, the Iraqis would choose ruinous war in exchange for his own vision of freedom? 
– AlexSchroeder 2006-10-16 09:09 UTC
Ick. Evil does have a need to justify itself. That’s been proved time and again.
Bush’s logic seems to go like this: “An Iraqi mother would think ‘my child and husband have been killed by the Americans, but that’s ok because my grandchildren will have a free country to live in.’”
Doesn’t work like that. Never has, never will. Every death in Iraqi is likely to turn a mother, brother or friend into someone with a reason to kill Americans and their allies or die trying. Bush has created 655,000 more reasons to become terrorists.
– GreyWulf 2006-10-16 11:08 UTC