The Suggested
5-minute Announcement that can Change the World
July 17th 2006
|
 |
|
G8 Summit |
|
Consider, for a moment, the potential affects on violence in the world
if President Bush, from the Oval Office, announced:
“It is clear that our efforts in the Middle East to replace violence
with political debate has been an abject failure. In the process my
administration has placed an undue strain on America's families by
sending their spouses and children to foreign lands for unachievable
causes and from the economic consequences of depleting public coffers
for funding such, not to mention the financial burden we've placed upon
the working class from the surge in oil prices caused by the instability
in the region that contains the world's oil largest oil fields.
“Therefore, in my estimation, and my estimation alone (this line is to
make sure that Mr. Bush's neocon advisers can escape the blame of the
president's discretion), I do not believe that wisdom is served by
devoting the American people's lives and treasure on disputes that do
not involve them or that can possibly begin to be understood half a
world away.
I have come to the conclusion that the energies of American government
need to be focused on the problems within the nation's borders—the most
important of which are restoring the value of American labor and
stability to the currency by ending the foolish government practice of
overspending its revenues.
Comment on this article at our Forum
“With this focus in mind I am hereby withdrawing all American military
personnel from Iraq and Afghanistan with an apology to the citizens of
those countries for the horror we have brought them. What started as a
quest to bring terrorists to face judgment for the hell they committed
on September 11, 2001, has become an ill-advised exercise in nation
building in a region that has a history of rejecting the systems that
have sprung from Western beliefs. I pledge that after we have removed
our occupation and reset our government's focus on serving the interests
of the nation that we will take every step to recompense the damage we
have done to your lands—that is the American way of doing business.
“In the meantime, I am impelled to inform those who would terrorize
Americans in our cities, however, that we are going to be very diligent
in defending our shores. Those of you who consider violence a suitable
political tool might find avenues for that expression outside the US,
but taking such measures in our borders will draw serious and drastic
consequences.
“As for the current conflicts facing Israel I wish to express my
sympathy. It is to my great sorrow that the folly of my administration
has helped to motivate the enemies of that nation. On the other hand,
the domestic problems that are burdening our citizens have little or
nothing to do with the conflicts of Israel. Last night I took the time
to review the US Constitution and my oath of office and found there
nothing that obligates my office, our congress, or the citizens of the
United States to the safety and security of Israel, so while I offer
them my prayers and Godspeed, I feel honor bound to limit our financial
and materiel support to only those means allowed by the next congress
that will take office this coming January 2007.”
A statement of this type not play well with a large number of people who
have become enamored with directing fire power of the American Military
to hot spots around the world. Nor would it be found appealing to the
hormonally addled, middle-aged male voters who find the testosterone
surges from war talk to be an adequate substitute for their fading
influence on a culture that has been feminized due to their negligence.
Furthermore, such a message would cause a horrible disruption to the
political system that has become accustomed to combating the evils of
partisan opposites in biennial intramural hissy fits—an announcement
that funding of foreign policy initiatives are subject to congressional
oversight might restore intelligent debate to election campaigns.
A message such as the one above would inspire vocal and vicious
objections from global oil companies that have profited significantly
from American intrusion into Middle East power struggles, their
government, and control over their oil fields. Instead of their access
to oil being guarded by American prestige and power, they would have to
negotiate business deals with the people who actually live on the land
they seek to use. They would then have to negotiate deals in markets for
the purchase of their oil and face market forces such as supply and
demand on the price of their products. A decision by President Bush to
withdraw American meddling in the Mid-East might even light a spark to
the American entrepreneurial spirit to fill a need with a solution to
the energy demand that would rise from a diminished supply of oil (we've
done it before, there is no reason to believe we can't do it again).
Perhaps removing the promise of financial and materiel support for
Israel's military build-up would force them to negotiate peace with
their Islamic neighbors. Announcing that financial support for Israel
should be an issue of debate for Congressional elections would certainly
force the Israeli lobby to present itself to the public. It might even
inspire Israel to conduct itself as an ally rather than pushing America
into deeper obligations for the provisions of Israeli security.
An announcement of the kind submitted could, though, restore the notion
that American government exists to serve the interests of American
citizens. It would pay homage to those of us who have worked a lifetime
to help raise Republicans to power for the cause of limiting the power
of government and America's obligations around the world. If President
Bush promised to start honoring limits of the Constitution on the
exercise of government, he would be restoring integrity to the idea that
Republicans aim to conserve the ideals that made American independent
and self-sufficient and giving form and focus to his claim that he is a
constitutional constructionist.
If President Bush made a declaration such as the one above he would
disenfranchise the neocon influence over his administration and free
himself to truly become the “decider” in his administration. It would
also force the Karl Roves of the world to take a lesson in federalist
government and understand that, as Tip O'Neill once said, “All politics
is (sic) local.”
With one five minute announcement George Bush can remove American
government from the dictates of emotionally driven voters, global
industrialists, narcissistic and self-important hegemons, foreign
entanglements and political hacks to restore it as a source of public
service and a system of justice.
I guess that's why we won't hear an announcement like the one authored
above—but I won't sue for plagiarisms if he uses it.
By
Bob Strodtbeck
Columnist
Bob Strodtbeck has been writing editorial
commentaries since 1993. He has professional experiences in
pharmaceuticals, radio, and education. He has also served as a church
elder in an Orlando congregation where he has made his home since 1986.rvstrodtbeck@peoplepc.com
Related Books
Keywords and misspellings: politics poletics
democrat demoncrat republican repub comentary commentary |
RSS Feed to our content
