Ayoon wa Azan (He Does Not Deserve It)
Jihad Al Khazen Al-Hayat 2004/11/7
President Bush won a second term, despite his record in power, from the war on terror, to Iraq and the economy. Nothing explains his victory except the fact that the democratic conduct is the one that decides, and not any writer or analyst. The victory came from Ohio, where thousands of workers lost their jobs due to the President's economic policy.
We are surprised, but we wish that the President would succeed in the coming four years; unlike the past four ones. Today, I will talk about those who supported the President, and others who opposed him, in hope to draw some light on the future.
William Kristol wrote June 16th, 2004 in The Weekly Standard, an article entitled "Yes, Bush will win;" whereas Marc Stein wrote an article August 29th, 2004 in The Sunday Telegraph entitled "Something is telling me that Bush has all the winning cards." The neo-conservatives decided from the beginning, until the Election Day, and even before counting the first ballot, that Dubya would win a second term; since this is what suits them.
I do not accuse Kristol and Stein of anything more that political extremism and incitement; however, I accuse the neo-cons within the administration of crime, from corruption to bribery in order to kill Americans and Iraqis, and I demand that they be tried after four years, not to say immediately.
While waiting for this trial, I would say that insolence is not a crime, but it is what distinguishes the neo-cons the most. I bet that they end-up believing their lies, as much as they repeat them; thus, they expect people to believe them as well.
Kristol started his column by saying: "George Bush will win. He will win the war, and will win the elections…" The Washington Times, another neo-con publication, gave the Presidency to George W. in an article it published on October 19th, 2004, and re-published on the eve of the elections, which focused on the idea that Bush would win a second term because he would make the world a safer place. As for The Weekly Standard, it was ecstatic about the grand victory, which is something understandable and expectable from W.'s supporters; it is their right.
From what I understood, Bush deserved to win a second term because he won, or will win, the war on terror.
Is this true? This is the contrary of reality; Bush's war on terror has increased terrorism. I am not stating an opinion here, but I am stating information. The terrorism of 9/11 was followed by two wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, and the result is that Osama bin Laden is still alive, and his opinion is recorded and broadcasted on television. Al-Qaeda gave birth to Qaedas, there is a record of terrorist attacks from Bally to Spain, and numerous terrorist attempts, which, if most of them failed, some of them would eventually work, with the increase of the danger of the 'dirty bomb,' due to tons of lost nuclear material around the world.
I do not know whether there are some points of power in the record of Dubya of the past four years, which could be used to promote his image. However, the wars on terror, just like economy, are the strongest points against him; relying on them means nothing but an insolence that inverts facts.
Dubya's record would not have allowed him to run for a second term. I leave it for the reader to compare between his support by The Weekly Standard and The Washington Times, and his opposition by the world's most distinguished newspapers, The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, as well as The Economist.
The latter offered a choice between Bush the 'impotent' and Kerry the 'confused.' It ended up by giving its support to the Democratic candidate, but with reservations. Also, The New York Times and the Washington Post supported Kerry, with the same reservations. The first said that preferring a candidate over the other is based on his past record, priorities, and general morals; and based on these three, it supported Kerry. As for the Washington Times, it acknowledged that voting for Kerry is dangerous; however, the dangers of Bush are more numerous, and more flagrant. This is why it supported Kerry in his demand for the Allies to help him in Iraq, in the war on terror, and in dealing with Islam less arrogantly.
Thousands of publications around the world supported Kerry against Bush; however, many publications supported Bush against him Democratic opponent. I noticed, while monitoring both, that the supporters of Bush lied when talking about his 'accomplishments,' and that his opponents supported Kerry not because he is really capable, but because he is less harmful that Dubya, whether in the context of the war on terror, economy, environment, social security, health care, and others.
I said many times before the elections, that I do not care who wins, as I found that Bush and Kerry were competing on their support of Israel; such a stance is linked to a sole cause that is more personal than objective. This is why I choose the stance of billionaire George Soros; he started by opposing Bush, and toured the United States during the last three weeks of the electoral campaign, in order to gather support against Bush, before supporting Kerry.
Soros saw that Dubya has led the country in the wrong direction, and that the war on Iraq was a horrible mistake; this adds to the fact that Bush, according to Soros, in incapable of acknowledging his mistakes, and thus changes the truth in accordance with his convictions, despite the fact that the price would be fooling himself and his people.
On Election Day, I wrote an article saying that the faith of Dubya scares me, as he relies on it in decision making, instead of relying on information and analysis. I found that the Independent has repeated my same idea on the same day, and published an article entitled "In a contest between faith and reason, America must vote for Mr. Kerry and offer hope for the world."
I found that Soros is also scared of the faith of Dubya, and of the President's taking advantage of his conviction in order to gather the support of a wide base, which finds in faith an exit from a threatening and confusing reality.
No matter what, W. has won a second term that he does not deserve; while his father was incapable of winning a second term that he deserved. This is the logic of democracy; the question here is whether Bush would learn from the mistakes of his first four year in order not to repeat them. We all hope so; however, the first step in the road of correcting a mistake, is to acknowledge it, and W. does not see that he was mistaken. How could he be mistaken when his decisions were based on faith and prayer?
Dubya's political religiousness scares both Soros and I.
|
