Building Anarchy in the USA

Tomorrow is Independence Day. Can I possibly take pride in our nation when the nation’s leaders are doing so much which I so strongly disagree with?

Iraq is a major case in point. Based on the post-major conflict reports I have seen to date, the "shock and awe" campaign has left Iraq a devastated country. The results seem to indicate no realistic plan for instituting basic services (water, medical aid, food, etc) within a reasonable amount of time.

A report on NPR (see "Iraqi Women Fight for Voice in New Iraq" under Thursday, July 3) suggests that the Shiite majority is having a strong influence – by peer pressure, if not by governance. Based on our experience with Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, I should think this is exactly the result our leaders would not want.

Got to hand it to our Fearless Leader. He has kept his campaign pledge not to involve the United States in "nation building". Unfortunately, it seems the administration is focused on "anarchy building". This is only a suitable goal if one seeks Armageddon.

Hmmm. There are those who believe this is, in fact, our Fearless Leader’s goal. I’d buy into this theory if I could convince myself that the man is capable of sincere intellectual convictions.

Meanwhile, on the domestic front, the jobless rate is at 6.4% — a 9-year low. I’m no economic expert, but I suspect this has more to do with the insane round of upper-class tax cuts than anything the Clinton administration did. Though it has not been said out-right, these tax cuts are a re-run of Reagan-era "trickle-down economics." Remember that theory? GHB (our Fearless Leader’s daddy) referred to it as "voodoo economics." Didn’t work then, have no clue why the Powers That Be think it will work now.

Suspicions of pocket-padding would seem well-founded.

Even more depressing, the Loyal Opposition (i.e., Democrats) seem to be falling all over themselves to appear as conservative as the Party in Power. The main exceptions to this seem to be Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich. My fear is that, in spite of the fact Mr. Dean is leading the pack in fund-raising, the ultimate winner will be Joe Lieberman — who I perceive to be "Busch-lite." Insert the appropriate sound effects.

How can we say we have a two-party system when the main difference between the parties is one (the Dems) tries to look just slightly less bad than the other? Can someone explain the difference to me?