Fired off a letter to the Akron Beacon Journal

[zbdent]

Will let you know if it's published sometime soon. Not bloody likely.

Here it is:

October 12, 2000. The terrorists attacked the USA as represented by the USS Cole, docked in a port in Yemen. Apparently, the attempt to influence the election failed. George W. Bush had to rely on the Supreme Court to step in to overcome the loss of the popular vote and squash the probability of losing the electoral vote.

If you listen to the logic portrayed by the Bush administration now, the attack on the USS Cole was an attempt to influence the election. With an investigation into the attack, the early evidence pointed directly at Osama bin Laden.

When George W. Bush strode into office, his biggest concern was pulling FBI and law enforcement agents from tracking terrorists and placing them on the trail of whomever took the “W” keys off of computer keyboards. Next up was the investigation of the Marc Rich pardon. And then we had the search for a Senator’s girlfriend, Chandra Levy, whose remains were found more than a year later a few blocks from where she was last seen. (Please note, this was months after the area was “well-scoured” by search teams; the remains were found by a guy walking his dog).

How would September 11, 2001, have unfolded under President Al Gore? Well, we will never know, but I have a suspicion.

Imagine, if you will, that somewhat moderate Sandra Day O’Connor had ruled in favor of Gore instead of Bush on December 12, 2000. The atmosphere of the country, already at a boiling point with the “liberal media” pushing the mantra of “Gore should concede for the good of the country”, would boil over into outrage, with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Oliver North, Curtis Sliwa, G. Gordon Liddy, Charlie Daniels, and Dr. Laura all calling for people to express their anger.

George W. Bush, in his usual “calm manner”, would be expressing his “righteous indignation” at the ruling.

By September 11, 2001, Osama might not have had to set anything in motion because the United States could conceivably have been embroiled in a civil war, with militant right-wingers marching on Washington DC with guns drawn. Osama bin Laden would have sat back and laughed.

As it really happened, “President” George W. Bush got his daily briefing and went about chopping wood on one of his many vacations, unconcerned.

After September 11, we rightly chased after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Six months after September 11, on March 13, 2002, George Bush did say this about Osama bin Laden (despite his attempt to smear John Kerry as a liar): “I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.”

So now we are embroiled in what is probably a never-ending war on the concept of terror.

Also now, the mantra being thrown about like candy from a Shriner is that “in the middle of a war, you can’t change horses in midstream”. I’m sure the people of Germany held to that ideology some time ago.

So now that’s the reasoning behind re-electing Bush. Even though you might feel that someone else might have done a much better job of fighting terror than deposing a president of an oil-rich country, you cannot vote against the incumbent.

You look into the glassy eyes of the Bush supporter who truly believes in their “honorable and honest man”, and you start to wonder. How far are they willing to go with this thinking? Already, there is talk about the Arnold Schwarzenegger constitutional amendment, which would allow him (or “any other foreign-born person”) to run for the office of President (which, by the way, would also allow Jerry Springer to run). If a legitimate push is on for an Arnold amendment, would the Republican-backed amendment forbidding anyone from serving more than two terms as President be pushed to be repealed?

Even if the “presidential term-limits” remains in place, how will the Republican party push the idea that, since we’re still in the “never-ending war on terror” in 2008, there should be no election? It’s possible. The sentiment is that the country cannot have a change in leadership, so why should the Constitution get in the way? Dissention is already being characterized as being unpatriotic, how long before merely questioning the actions of a Republican president?

Are you willing to let Bush’s prophecy in December of 2000 be fulfilled: “This would be a lot easier if it were a dictatorship, and I was the dictator”?

[Kolesar]

1. The Leakin' Urinal *did* endorse John Kerry

To their credit...that must have been a tough sell at a gop newspaper.

[aldian159]

2. Very Good

Very good indeed