Let Bush's second term be opposite to his first

The Washington Post's respected columnist Richard Cohen captioned his October 28 piece, "Impeach George Bush." He noted: "Of course I realise there's no chance (Republican) Congress would impeach the president at this point or under almost any circumstance. It somehow reserves its outrage for lying about sex under oath and not, as now seems clear, the making of war under false pretenses. Say what you will about Bill Clinton, no one died in the White House pantry." Cohen continued, "By the time Bush had firmly decided to go to war, all in Washington knew Saddam's nuclear weapons consisted of a wish. You will remember that early on Bush refereed to the war against terrorism as a 'crusade'. He was speaking the truth. Just as the original crusades were a form of mass madness, so was this one when extended to Iraq. It came as did the original one, out of the bonnet of a leader: Bush this time, Pope Urban II in 1095 -- and it swept everything before it. Congress lent its approval and so, significantly, did the media (myself included). The failure of the leadership was across the board. The events of 9/11 were as emotionally wrenching to us as had been the Muslim capture of Jerusalem to medieval Christians."

Cohen concludes: "72 per cent of Bush supporters believe that Iraq did in fact possess WMD and that 75 per cent believed that Saddam gave al-Qaeda "substantial support." These beliefs are a direct consequence of the administration's lies lies of commission, such as Cheney's statements, and lies of omission, the appalling failure to correct wrongly held views. We embarked, truly and regrettably, on a crusade. Still from Bush comes not a bleep of regret, not to mention apology. If the man were commanding a ship, he would be relieved of command. If he were the CEO of some big company, the board would offer him a golden parachute -- and force him to jump. But in government, it's the people who make those decisions. We get our chance on Tuesday. Impeach Bush."

Of course the American people did not vote to impeach George Bush on November 2; they endorsed him for a second term. Unlike his US Supreme Court-engineered presidential election victory in 2000, this time George Bush won fair and square. Supported by 51 per cent of the electorate, Mr. Bush has earned the right to govern America for the next four years. Good luck to him and America. This does not mean that the 48 per cent of Americans who vehemently opposed Mr. Bush's ill-conceived policies at home and abroad should stop criticising him and start loving him! Bush supporters have as much right to gloating over Bush's victory as Bush-detractors have of loathing his disastrous policies. In a democracy, Einstein's vote and "Six-pack Joe's" vote are valued equally. This does not mean that "Six-pack Joe"'s opinions are as enlightened as Einstein's. If a nation has many more "Six-pack Joe"-types than Einstein-types naturally their candidate will win. While "Six-pack Joe"'s choice clearly has the right to rule, the Einstein-types have the equal right to lament what they see as the horrendous consequences of that disastrous choice. It is a mistake to be condescending and say that the average American was duped by the Republicans into voting against their interests. The average Americans knew exactly what they were doing. All one can surmise is that it is more likely that the judgment of the average American is wrong and that of the (for the lack of a better word) the Einstein-types is right.

In his November 3 column, The New York Times' multiple Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Tom Friedman summed up the feeling of the 48 per cent America: "Why did I wake up feeling deeply troubled? At one level this election was about nothing. None of the real problems facing the nation were discussed. Despite an utterly incompetent war performance in Iraq and a stagnant economy, Bush held on to the same core states that he won four years ago -- as if nothing had happened. It seemed as if people were not voting on his performance. It seemed as if they were voting for what team they were on. This was not an election. This was station identification. I'd bet anything that if the election ballots hadn't had the names Bush and Kerry on them but simply asked instead, "Do you watch Fox TV or read The New York Times?" the Electoral College would have broken the exact same way."

Unlike Al Gore, John Kerry did everything he needed to do, including using a convalescing Bill Clinton to fire up African-American voters. At the end nothing mattered. Americans were going to elect Bush come hell or high water. Ellen Goodman of Boston Globe summed it up: "John F. Kerry was a Vietnam vet and the "Swift Boat veterans" wounded him any way. John F. Kerry came out against gay marriage and got tarred with it anyway. He shot a goose and the NRA hated him anyway. He said life begins at conception and the Catholic Church came after him anyway. He could barely utter the L word and he got tagged as a "Massachusetts liberal." He won the debates and it did not matter. In the end, a majority of Americans -- 52% to 46% of likely voters -- were dissatisfied with how things were going and still voted for the man in charge. A majority -- 47% to 41% -- thought we were on the wrong track and still re-elected the conductor. Given the choice between the commander-in-chief of the war and a guy who promised only a 'smarter, more effective war', they decided to go home with the guy who brung'em to the battlefront. Fear just didn't trump the long-jawed hope. It trumped the economy, it trumped health care, and it trumped John F. Kerry."

The New York Times' Republican columnist David Brooks (November 6) disputes that "moral values" had much to do with Bush victory: "Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." But the phrase can mean anything -- or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? The fact is if you think you are safer now, you probably voted for Bush. If you think you are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry." Talking of values, the same day a New York Times reader reminded everyone: "Surely pre-emptive war, socio-economic injustice, racism, unemployment, denial to free access to health care, the death penalty, fiscal irresponsibility and the destruction of the environment (by Bush) are value-laden issues." Added another reader: "John Kerry should have stated immediately, clearly and forcefully that the war in Iraq was wrong, and that he was wrong to support; that Republican attack ads were lies; that environmental protection is in everyone's interest; that high wages and decent benefits are matters of economic justice; and that infringement of our rights on the basis of fearmongering is fascist."

President Bush has demonstrated that while he is good at winning elections, if the last four years are any guide, he is very bad at governing. Two of the reasons are President Bush's obsession with faith-based politics and his inability to admit mistakes, according to an article written by financier George Soros in The Independent: "Faith plays an important role in an open society. Exactly because our understanding is imperfect, we cannot base our decisions on knowledge alone. We need to rely on beliefs, religious or otherwise, to help us make decisions. But we must remain open to the possibility that we may be wrong so that we can correct our mistakes. Otherwise we are bound to be wrong. President Bush has shown he is incapable of recognising his mistakes. He insists on making reality conform to his beliefs even at the cost of deceiving himself and deliberately deceiving the public. There is something appealing in the strength of his faith, especially in our troubled time. But the cost is too high. By putting our faith in a president who cannot admit his mistakes, we commit ourselves to wrong policies. We are the most powerful nation on earth. No external power, no terrorist organisation can defeat us. But we can defeat ourselves by getting caught in a quagmire. Leaders who claim to be in the possession of the ultimate truth offer an escape from uncertainty. But that is a snare, because those leaders are bound to be wrong."

President Bush's election victories in 2000 and 2004 were engineered by Karl Rove, "Bush's Brain." According to Wayne Slater and James Moore, authors of "Bush's Brain," even as a high school debater, "Rove just didn't want to win; he wanted the opponents destroyed. He would defeat them, slaughter them and humiliate them." That is exactly what he did to Kerry. No blow was too low, no truth was beyond their ability to distort, no fact was unworthy of falsification and no dirty trick was beneath their dignity to discredit Kerry. And all of these were carried out in the name of "moral values." Everyone who opposed George Bush -- be that John Kerry or the Iraqis of Falluja who had nothing to do with 9/11 -- were marked for destruction! In the aftermath of the election campaign savagery displayed by the Bush team it is comical for the President to now claim he wants to unite the country!

American president can make a difference in the world. I felt the idealism of President Kennedy when a Peace Corps volunteer ended up in a hostel next to our house in Feni in the 1960s. As Maureen Dowd of The New York Times recalled in her November 7 column: "Even as a child, I could feel the rush of JFK's presidency racing forward, opening up a thrilling world of possibilities and modernity. We were going to the moon. We were confronting racial intolerance. We were paying any price and bearing any burden for freedom. We were respecting faith but keeping it out of politics. Our president was inspiring much of the world. Our first lady was setting the pace in style and culture.

"George W. Bush's presidency rushes backwards, stifling possibilities, stirring intolerance, confusing church and state, blowing off the world, replacing science with religion, and facts with faith. We're entering another dark age, more creationist than cutting edge, more premodern than postmodern. Instead of leading America into an exciting new reality, the Bushies cocoon in a scary, paranoid, regressive reality." For the sake of America, here's wishing that George Bush's second term is diametrically opposite to his disastrous first term.