OPINION & EDITORIAL
Bush veto puts spotlight on incompetent government
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ben Patterson:
- What would Jesus do with millions? (November 6, 2007)
- University of Wisconsin System hinges on budget allocations (October 9, 2007)
- Homeless need to find their bootstraps and pull up (September 25, 2007)
- Bush veto puts spotlight on incompetent government (May 4, 2007)
- UW to fund discrimination (April 20, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Pork: it's what's for your Rep's dinner (December 7, 2005)
- Total Recall (October 20, 2005)
- Billionaire Bloomberg should stay out of politics (July 26, 2001)
- State legislators accessible, ethical (January 21, 2004)
- Rampant spending piles on more debt (November 30, 2004)
by Ben Patterson
Friday, May 4, 2007
Politics is a tough business. For an institution intended to be representative of its constituents, our government always seems to be preoccupied with what seems like the right business move, and not the actual right move. Politicians earn campaign dollars from big business based on the expectation they will make decisions that benefit those who helped to pay the politicians' way into office. And from then on, what's good for the company becomes good for the politician. When and why did money become the major reason politicians make the decisions they do? Our country is probably in one of its most troublesome times internationally, economically and socially. With all of our troubles in tow, our supposed representative government continually seems to neglect the wishes of its people.
Last Tuesday, President Bush vetoed the spending/withdrawal bill on Iraq, which, I'm sure, came as a complete shock to everyone. As of April, 3,316 U.S. soldiers, an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians and almost 100 journalists have been killed. Seems like things are going well, as I'm sure everyone can see. And that's just it; everyone knows this is a total mess. An estimated 28 percent of Americans believe we can still win this war, with the rest of the U.S. population thinking it was a total mistake. So where is our representative government now?
We elect members of Congress to vote in a combination of three ways; based on what their constituents want, what they think is right and what their party thinks is right. That said, how can we continue to have such a firm divide on Iraq war funding? The people want out, the Democrats want out, and I find it hard to believe most politicians believe thousands of people dying everyday is a good thing. But, I almost forgot — our country runs on greed.
Our politicians are failing us, and so is our slow, cumbersome government. The initial vote on the Iraq bill barely went through Congress, only to be shot down by President Bush. Why is it that half of our "representative" government continues to vote in favor of a war that just over a quarter of Americans feel is winnable? All I ever hear about is the great strides that are being made in Congress, and how they are making bipartisan decisions. I don't see it, do you? My guess is that it goes back to that whole money thing.
I don't know how many times it has been said, but it's time our government becomes accountable for their options. There are two ways to do that. One, vote every ignorant politician who has voted for this war out in the next election. Or two, politicians need to show the American people that they are truly in tune with their constituents' desires and get the hell out of Iraq. This situation is beyond money, and if politicians don't see it, they should be the ones on the front line. Party lines should have, long ago, been forgotten. Money and big business should have been forgotten. Re-election campaigns should have been forgotten. Lives should not have been forgotten.
We have reached a point in this war that can no longer be ignored, for it is only a sign of what is to come. No matter what the government or mass media feeds to you, there are hidden intentions and motives. The times of watching the news and commenting on how brainless you think this war is are over. Every American citizen is closer to becoming a number that abides by the law of the land than ever before, and it is utterly sad that we all seem content with it. This so-called free country is getting closer by the day to becoming a dictatorship. We can all watch as the once "Greatest Country in the World" becomes the greatest brainwashing country in the world, or we can make forceful demands and not accept sugarcoated BS. This is our country, not our government's country. Do something.
Ben Patterson (bpatterson@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in political science.
Anonymous (May 4, 2007 @ 9:25am):
The bill would never have gotten thru congress without the twenty-some billion in pork barrel projects.
That alone would reason to veto the bill.
Anonymous (May 4, 2007 @ 10:16am):
get your facts right were does it say the 72 percent of american people believe the war in iraq to be a mess. IT DOESNT and if terriosm wasnt being fought over their now then it would be right here EVERYDAY
Anonymous (May 4, 2007 @ 10:26am):
I didn't read your article but I did read the title...and wrote this.
- Germain E. Stemme
Anonymous (May 4, 2007 @ 10:43am):
Bush is a putz.
Anonymous (May 4, 2007 @ 11:03am):
Ben Patterson (bpatterson@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in bad journalism.
Anonymous (May 4, 2007 @ 12:59pm):
"Our politicians are failing us, and so is our slow, cumbersome government."
Now there's some breaking news!!! What a "dog bites man" line that is.
It's only news when our politicians don't fail us.
Anonymous (May 4, 2007 @ 1:15pm):
How can anyone on this message board argue with what is being said? This is a total fuck up of a war, who cares if pork is an issue. People are dead because we have a government full of idiots only concerned with their own necks.
Anonymous (May 4, 2007 @ 3:37pm):
"who cares if pork is an issue"
Bribing public officials is wrong.
Anonymous (May 4, 2007 @ 6:06pm):
As a conservative, I have to say the fact the Bush has only used the veto pen twice in 6 years is a reason to bash him, NOT the fact he did veto this legislation that should have never even made it to his desk.
Anonymous (May 4, 2007 @ 7:39pm):
10:16 - where is your evidence that terrorism would be here everyday if we weren't in iraq?
yeah, that's what i thought.
Anonymous (May 5, 2007 @ 4:19am):
I'm too stupid to read...but I wrote this anyways.
- Germain Q. Stemme
Anonymous (May 5, 2007 @ 9:32am):
Terrorism will start to happen in the US, and on a much wider scale than in New York City and Washington DC on Sept 11.
Within 10 years you'll see IEDs going off in places where people have no hope or have agendas that aren't catered to in the US. Just watch for the Muslim slums of Detroit or the illigal-immigrant-rights groups in Aztlan--er--I mean the American southwest. There will be minorities in each of these constituitencies who will want to engage in organized violence (war through terrorism.)
The knowhow for these types of terrorist operations will spread as soon as American forces disengage from the Middle East. It will take some months for the Jihadis and Iran to digest the remains of the rump state of Iraq, but given time, people, oil money, and a few nukes (probably supplied by remnants of the AQ Kahn network in Pakistan), we'll be in the thick of fighting again in no time.
This global war on terrorism is global, and it will affect all of us, and affect us deeply and personally.
As for comment at 7:39pm: Terrorist groups in the past have tended to collaborate. There is substantial documentation that groups as disperate as the Irish Republican Army and the PLO have worked together with common tactics and seperate goals throughout the 1980s. Indeed, al Qaeda is not a terrorist group per se, but rather a network of such groups, each with its own agenda. There have already been al-Qaeda linked terror cells found in the United States, and certainly these groups will become more active after experiencing victory in Iraq. They have motive, means, and opportunity.
In this war there is no disengagement, redeployment, or whatever euphamism du jour. Only retreat. And when that happens, the war will continue. And we will still be fighting.
--Iraq (2005-2006) and Afghanistan (2004) veteran and UW-Madison graduate (2002)
Anonymous (May 5, 2007 @ 9:50pm):
"This is a total fuck up of a war"
So which war is you favorite? Which one went really well for everybody?
Anonymous (May 5, 2007 @ 10:00pm):
"This global war on terrorism is global, and it will affect all of us, and affect us deeply and personally."
"terrorism" is just a method - we are seeing a flareup in a war that has been going on for over a thousand years.
It's just "SUBMIT or DIE" time again.
Perhaps the Franks are waking up - we'll have to wait to see.
***
Yet even in the Balkans, all is not peace and poetry. The ominous presence of Wahhabi missionaries, financiers, terror recruiters, and other mischief-makers bespeaks a fresh offensive in that tormented land. From the new Wahhabi seminary in the lovely Bosnian city of Zenica, to the cobblestone streets of Sarajevo's old Ottoman center, to the Muslim-majority villages in southern Serbia, extremist Sunni men in their distinctive, untrimmed beards and short, Arab style breeches (worn in imaginary emulation of Muhammad), accompanied by women in face veils and full body coverings (a bizarre novelty in the contemporary Balkans), are again appearing, funded by reactionary Saudis and Pakistanis. They aim to widen the horizon of global jihad--witness the revived campaign of terrorism in Morocco and Algeria. In the Balkans, their targets are both Sufis and traditional Muslims.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/612zecct.asp
Anonymous (May 5, 2007 @ 11:09pm):
May 5, 9:32, you are either shell shocked, high, or hysterical.
The fact of the matter is if we leave Iraq the far more likely scenario is a Pan-Middle East War than them following us here and doing what you said. What you were talking about is more along the lines of McCarthyism, and we know what that leads to.
And honestly, if there is a Pan-Middle East Civil War, let them deal with their own problems.
Anonymous (May 6, 2007 @ 4:42pm):
Way to go, champ! If we can, during the apex of the proposed Pan-Middle East civil war, 'let them deal with their own problems,' maybe we can remain safe for a couple (or more years) but it seems strange that the same people who predict this war also use the deaths of Iraqis when totaling fatality figures.
If you're so concerned with the preservation of human life, maybe you should rethink your stance on leaving Iraq.
Anonymous (May 6, 2007 @ 5:12pm):
"American friends... can rely on our friendship ... France will always be next to them when they need us."
With an amazing 86% turnout, the French elect Nicolas Sarkozy as their new president.
Hurrah, vive la France!
dada (May 6, 2007 @ 9:09pm):
Bush and the Generals
Michael C. Desch
From Foreign Affairs
It is no secret that the relationship between the U.S. military and civilians in the Bush administration has deteriorated markedly since the start of the Iraq war. In 2006, according to a Military Times poll, almost 60 percent of servicemen and servicewomen did not believe that civilians in the Pentagon had their "best interests at heart."
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86309/michael-c-desch/bush-and-the-generals.html
...instead of asking for more troops, as they did in the run-up to the war, many senior commanders in Iraq began to argue that the United States needed to lower its profile and reduce its footprint. Less than 40 percent of troops supported an increase in force levels, the Military Times found. General John Abizaid, the current head of Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in November that he did "not believe that more American troops right now is the solution to the problem" in Iraq. In response to prodding from Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), Abizaid explained that he had "met with every division commander, General [George] Casey, the corps commander, General [Martin] Dempsey [head of the Multi-National Security Transition Command in Iraq]. ... And I said, 'In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?' And they all said no."
+++++
But we know better than the Generals, right?
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
