How Bush Could Have Had It All
by Vedran Vuk
by Vedran Vuk
One may argue that it is simply impossible to distinguish between President Bush's innumerable mistakes. After all, there are so many that naming them all would take an entire evening arriving no closer at the real reasons why he has failed so miserably with the American people.
However, there are two mistakes that meant the world to George W. Bush, literally. If he had done these two very simple things, he could have had it all. These errors are not something that was known before the invasion of Iraq nor was it known immediately after the invasion of Iraq. By that comment there alone, it cannot be the weapons of mass destruction.
These two miscalculations are far more devastating than even the effects of unraveled false intelligence reports being paraded around the world as mockery of the United States.
The first blundering mistake is mislabeling the war. If President Bush simply called the invasion of Iraq a humanitarian intervention like Darfur, there wouldn't have been any fuss put up at all. People would be outright asking George Bush to serve a third term.
This strategy works so well for Democrats; there's no reason it shouldn't work for Republicans as well. It would hardly be a stretch demanding the overthrow of Saddam Hussein who murdered thousands of Kurds.
Second, Bush should have offered universal healthcare. How could Republicans possibly allow that much spending? The answer is the same as "How could George W. Bush possibly veto almost no spending bills?" Easily.
Conservatives hardly put up a fight to Bush's other left-wing liberal spending programs, why protest other fiscally irresponsible proposals? With the conservatives in one pocket and the liberals happy with healthcare in the other pocket, he would have been free to continue his rampage in the Middle East unabated.
The most important lessons of waging a successful war don't come from the Republicans but instead from the Democrats. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are an outright shame to the anti-war movement attuned to "properly" labeling wars.
Anti-Iraq war is not an anti-war position. If we want peace, we must withdraw all of our troops from the Middle East. Iraq is only one battlefield in a gargantuan conflict. It is useless and in fact hypocritical to support candidates who are against the struggle in Iraq and for the war in Afghanistan. It's the same war. This position is like being against the war in Vietnam but for the war in Cambodia.
Democrats have shown that they don't want to kill for oil but when someone offers them a few free band-aids through universal healthcare, they're more than willing to continue murdering for Israel, fighting in Afghanistan, and approaching a conflict with Iran.
The same people who denounced the oil companies for profiting from the war are not nearly as loud when the money comes to their own pockets in the form of universal healthcare.
When the money fills their pockets, the war in Afghanistan is just fine and Israel becomes our greatest ally that must be defended at all costs. The only people more morally void than those still supporting the failing war in Iraq are those voting for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama while maintaining a personal "anti-war" position.
If George Bush had known that mixing a little healthcare with the war issue would have bought him so much support, I would probably not be allowed to write this article today. There would hardly be a voice of dissent and those truly against war would be hung in the streets.
Here is the great new direction of Barack Obama:
"Unfortunately, because of the distraction of Iraq, we have not finished the job in terms of making certain that we are driving back the Taliban, stabilizing the Karzai government, capturing bin Laden and making sure that we've rooted out terrorism in that region." ~ Barack Obama (South Carolina Democratic Debate)
This direction for Afghanistan seems like the same old direction for Iraq. Let me just change a few words around for you to make it more clear.
"Unfortunately, because of the distraction, we have not finished the job in terms of making certain that we are driving back Al Qaeda, stabilizing the Iraqi government, capturing bin Laden and making sure that we've rooted out terrorism in that region"
Barack Obama's view of Afghanistan is painfully similar to the attitude of President Bush toward Iraq. But hey, let's not let that bother us, because the soldiers that get their arms and legs blown off in Afghanistan will get free healthcare. And we all know that universal healthcare makes everything better….
Universal healthcare is a weapon of mass distraction from the real issues and injustices committed by the United States against the people of the Middle East and against our own brave troops who signed up to defend, America not to be America's political pawns.
Between the Neocons and Obama/Hillary NeoCrats, there seems to be little chance for America. Our only hope in these trying times is candidate, Ron Paul.
Ron Paul isn't just against the war in Iraq or just against the war on terror. The words "anti-war" do not describe him accurately. He is not anti-war but instead pro-peace.
That means ending interventionism everywhere and promoting peace with cessation of aggression in all theatres of United States military activity.
If you are truly against war and for peace, this is the only candidate that you can be morally justified in supporting. And if you aren't going to vote for the most anti-war candidate available because he doesn't support universal health, then you have been bought and bribed by the welfare state.
These Hillary/Obama supporters see themselves as some sort of highly virtuous moral crusaders. Look, there's peace and there's war. There is no virtue in being "sorta against war." These NeoCrat voters need to get off their high horse, because after all, they're just Neocons of a different color who will perpetuate the war of terror.
If you truly support honesty in a presidency, peace abroad, and treating this country as though it had 50 states not 51 counting Israel, then do what it is right and noble and actually vote for peace. Vote Ron Paul. Blessed are the peacemakers.
This strategy of waging wars while placating the populace with the welfare state is not a new idea. The Nazis (National Socialists) were very attuned to this. Do you think all those people supported Hitler in his wars simply out of thirst for glory and a greater Germany? No, the Germans were National Socialists. Before being able to successfully wage wars with no dissent from the majority, Hitler first had to bribe the population with infinite welfare programs and redistribution.
The price of the programs paid for itself. It wasn't just the Gestapo that kept dissenters quiet. People were happy with their handouts and loved the new German state. We're approaching this very same situation today. As soon as a candidate talks about universal healthcare, the war stops being an issue. Invade Iran or Pakistan, sure why not…where's my check? Give every child thousands of dollars and you'll pay for complacency from the masses.
With Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, we are on the Road to Serfdom. Bush could have had it all. He didn't have the national socialist formula completely together. Obama and Clinton do. If they take over, the war will continue and it will be too late for dissent. When the Democrats support invading Iran and continuing war in Afghanistan with the Republicans supporting the same position, who will be left to speak up for peace?
Time is running out. America is approaching the writing of its darkest chapter. Stand up for your freedom; there is still hope. There is Ron Paul. If you have not already done so please join his cause and have a loud unapologetic voice for the message of liberty and peace while you still can.
October 25, 2007
Vedran Vuk [send him mail] has a bachelor degree of Economics from Loyola University of New Orleans, and was a 2006 Summer Fellow at the Mises Institute. He is currently pursuing a doctorate of economics at George Mason University.
Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com