I’m getting very concerned about how polled Americans regard our country’s actions and relationship to the global community. I’m also extremely concerned about our country and its future security. I’m wondering if you’ve thought about this, too…

On Friday, I happened to stop the channel on the Fox News network briefly, to hear host John Gibson asking a new liberal talk radio host that if he opposed the war, would he prefer that Saddam Hussein were still in power. His guest replied that it was a wrong-spirited question. Gibson repeated the same question to provoke a response. At that point, I could stand it no longer and switched the television off. Is that going to be the new right-wing mantra, in response to the question about the need for war? “Would you prefer that Saddam Hussein remain in power?”

Well, I thought of a question for all of those who ask that. “In light of all we’ve discovered concerning the imminent danger from the failed [and toothless] regime in Iraq, are you pleased that not only over 500 of our best and brightest young generation have been taken from their wives, husbands, children and parents, but America has ushered in a new global political era of fear and resentment?”

Think about it. Five hundred (and counting) men and women, ten thousand civilians later, we have left a country in shambles, destabilized, and sparked a world filled with growing resentment of American principles and arrogance. And for what, exactly? Regime change? You see, I think many who opposed the war were surprised (and very pleased back in February of 2003) to see Saddam begin a new era of cooperation with the weapons inspectors prior to our invasion. Sure, he was initially hesitant and secretive, but he was already showing blatant signs of acquiescing. Progress was being made. But because our current administration had this invasion in their sights for their own misguided and very “un-American” principles, (we didn’t need Paul O’Neill to tell us that – many of us knew it from the very beginning) Saddam could not have avoided it in any way.

The big problem is that the administration set the tone for future dealings with our country and a dangerous precedent. If George Bush is elected President and remains in office for another four years, I’m afraid it’s going to look pretty bad for us, folks. He has created a Machiavellian machine in this current administration that does whatever it deems necessary, without any consideration whatsoever to the opinion of the rest of the civilized world. Instead of being a participant in the global political community, it reaches out slapping the hands of the entire world, like an aggressive bully. If we as Americans elect him into office for the next four years, we’ll be telling our enemies (and friends alike) that we like and approve of the maverick tactics taken by the Texas cowboy and a small group in the political boardroom. We’ll be telling the rest of the world, “Americans have had it. We’re no longer going to be the country for you to admire or aspire to emulate. We’re going to be the country to fear, so you’d better get in line, or you’re next.”

What’s really upsetting is not that 15% of us believe that what the President has done is proper and exactly what he should have done, whether Iraq was a sovereign nation or not. They’re the right-wing neo-conservatives. No, what’s really upsetting is that another 40% of us think to ourselves, “Yeah, okay. Whatever…that sounds good to me, I guess,” and support it because it’s easier than getting riled or involved. That creates a majority of Americans who aren’t truly thinking at all about our future. And that is incredibly upsetting!

Why should we be concerned? Here’s why: we’re dooming ourselves to having to elect new leaders that will carry on in the tradition of George Bush – changing the very definition of what it means to be America. Do you think that after four more years of Bush and Co. we’ll be able to elect someone in office who exhibits compassion and concern for our country and who desires the spirit of cooperation with the rest of the world? – Not very likely, at least for the foreseeable future. If George Bush continues to strong-arm the rest of the world for another four years on our behalf, the resulting backlash from Europe, Muslim countries, and Asia once he leaves office is going to be so severe, and with an economic cost that will not be supportable – especially after the fiscal mess this administration is creating and perpetuating, that we’ll have no choice but to continue to elect George Bushes and Dick Cheneys for posterity.

Lastly, do you honestly think having Bush in office for another term will have kept us safe from terrorism? His administration incites and angers people all over the world. All he’s really done is temporarily contain them by latching the lid on the pressure cooker. But he’s also plugged it in. Four more years of cooking that anger, we’re going to be dangerously vulnerable. But unlike Bush, the rest of us won’t have a Secret Service entourage or an underground tunneling network to protect us.

Folks, whether you like Bush or not, it’s time to take a serious look at the course this administration has set for us on all fronts: Global, Economic, Political, Environmental and our American way of life. There really isn’t all that much to cheer or feel reassured about. Sure, our economy appears to be rebounding right now, but at what long-term cost? A deficit that is going to drag down a future of prosperity for our children? Who knows? You may really enjoy seeing Liberals, Environmentalists, Unions, the Press and the rest of the world take a beating from this administration. And as much fun as that is, this you must never forget: all of those groups are desperate to see a livable long-term future awaiting all of us. Not so with our current leader. For our safety, for our children, and the security of our future as Americans, it's time to accept that he really must go.

We constantly see the same argument: "It is better to go after Saddam Hussein now instead of waiting for Iraq to attack us with nuclear weapons."

This argument is absolutely absurd. Saddam is a megalomaniac with delusions of holiness, but he isn't suicidal. Neither are North Korea, China, Russia and the other nuclear powers. Every one knows very well that launching a nuclear attack against the United States would trigger an extremely swift response that would devastate the aggressor. This war cannot be justified.

That Saddam would have the capability to launch a nuclear weapon at the United States much less develop one for such an attack are nothing more than fabrications by the administration to justify launching a "winnable" war, one that will provide Bush a hollow victory in light of his utter failure to win a war on terrorism. Pre-emptive strike? For crying out loud, this is the United States of America. We've been the one country that is supposed to set an ideal example for the rest of the world on how to be a beneficial participant to the human community. Are we now supposed to be the abusive parent?

Every action by this administration seems to be an attempt to orchestrate global anti-American sentiment (and terrorism) just so it has something to respond to. It helps sustain Bush's popularity ratings. Perhaps it is meant to illustrate Bush's ability to function in the global arena, thereby disproving the negative press prior to his presidential appointment. Funny thing is, the harder he tries, the more he fails.

The Trajectory of Cause, Cause and Effect, Action and Reaction, incremental and discreet steps towards entropy, each with its own system of equilibrium for the moment. Life happens, matter changes, creating millions of ripples in known and unknown continuums exending through an untold number of dimensions...

Distill each discreet step to find the truth of the moment.

Get over it?
We see it all the time: “Bush won. Get over it.” It is a cry that is thrown up to put dissenters in their place. To those that tell everyone to get over it, I say this: You’ve completely missed the point. It isn’t and wasn’t a competition for the sake of declaring a winner. It was a decision by concerned citizens all over the country on whom they wanted to lead this country for the coming term. More appropriate would be the cry: “We all lost, live with it.” The closeness of the election illustrates that neither candidate was a glowing choice in his own right. Many democrats were loath to elect Gore, so George Bush’s numbers were inflated by default. Whether Bush won or not is now completely irrelevant. He’s in the Executive office, and there is no political way to change that fact.

Bush supporters always like to point to his approval ratings. They’ll assault you by pointing out that Bush has an approval rating of over eighty per cent, and “so there!” Bush’s execution of the war against terrorism has a high approval, because frankly, we all feel a bit vulnerable and frightened these days. Does that translate to an 80% approval of George Bush as our nation’s President? Oops, looks like the point was missed again! Look at the polls and read the questions that are being asked. Do Bush’s policies on tax cuts and budget deficits meet with the same approval? Wait, don’t walk away, we’re not finished discussing this yet! What was the approval rating of his economic stimulus plan? What’s Bush’s approval rating on his involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

People say they are relieved to have a man with integrity in the White House for a change. There is no denying that George Bush is a man of personal integrity. But what about ethical integrity? A man who would further tip the economic balance to the wealthy while the poor begin to intensify their suffering is not a man of ethical integrity. A man who has up until recently ignored the increasing violence in the Middle East when we have established our responsibility as the sole neutral party with the interest and resources to further the efforts of peace, is not a man of ethical integrity. A man who would just as soon see Congressional oversight disappear despite Constitutional precedence is lacking a little political integrity, don’t you think? A man who would reduce the government coffers and increase the outlay – in some questionable projects, no less – to the detriment of the country’s financial well-being, is not a man of ethical integrity. Does our nation become stronger, safer and prosperous because of one man’s personal integrity? Gosh, if that’s all it takes, why hadn’t we thought of that sooner?

Okay, so Bush was elected to / appointed to / stole / deserved the Presidency. Whatever.

But, “Get over it!” ? Not on your or my life. Thank your lucky stars that there are those of us who will not get over it. You can sleep better, knowing we’re out there. We are the vigils of ethical integrity. We are the ones who stand in the way of blind ambition and cronyism. Because of us, the Bush Administration won’t succeed at destroying ecological balance, social institutions, and constitutional freedoms. They won’t succeed at making us the most despised country in the western world, and endangering American citizens because of global hatred. Because of us this country will continue to be a beacon of freedom, fairness and respected leadership.

Sincerely and not getting over it,