Lately, it seems as if General Clark, in comparison to the other democratic candidates, has been exceptionally prescient about what the fundamental issues will be in the upcoming presidential election. Specifically, General Clark has repeatedly said that domestic issues notwithstanding, the upcoming election will primarily be about national security, about who is best qualified to lead our nation through the expected troubles ahead.
It occurred to me that the issue of national security is multilayered, that national security is not only about guns, bombs and spiderholes, but is also about other things, some close to home.
One of the biggest problems I have with Bush is that I never know when he is lying and when he is telling the truth. (Assume for the sake of argument that he does sometimes tell the truth. Also, as the General has pointed out, whoever speaks for Bush is Bush speaking: no buck passing.) Right now, as we experience yet another Orange Alert (it sounds like something you would buy at a Dairy Freeze), David Letterman nightly makes fun of it, like it's some kind of joke. The implicit point of his ridicule is that Bush is probably lying, but why?
Rather than digress on whether the current Orange Alert is a stunt, or a real alert, the real point here is that Bush has no credibility. If you lie to the nation about the reasons for going to war, who will believe you when you cry wolf later? My point is that credibility goes to the heart of national security. Bush's lying ways make us less safe.
Of course, we are less safe in a practical sense, because the 250 billion dollars we have and will spend on Iraq cannot be spent on helping defend the homeland. The money we have spent on homeland security is a pittance. This is clearly an underreported issue of national security. Again, we are less safe.
What about Bush's profligate spending and taxing policies that have created 500 to 750 billion dollar deficits for the foreseeable future? Stop and consider that as a nation, we would quickly go bankrupt if no one bought our securities, or they were all cashed in. But who buys up our debt, year after year? The Chinese, of course, even as they manipulate their currency to destroy our manufacturing base. Keep in mind that the 21st Century will be their century, and part of this reason this will happen is they will own us through the debt they are carrying for us. This relationship is insidious, and could very well be the downfall of the United States as a world power. How could this not be considered an issue of national security? Again, we are less safe.
Bush points to the "improving" economy as a reason for reelecting him, conveniently forgetting to mention that the uptick observed is the direct result of consumer spending of tax rebates paid for with borrowed money. If you lose your job, the first thing you do is not go out and max out your credit cards. Lost in the whole discussion of the "improving" economy is the issue of the permanent loss of manufacturing jobs. It isn't just that the replacement service jobs pay less, so the middle class is getting screwed again, it's that the loss of manufacturing jobs is a major blow to national security. What happens when we don't make airplanes anymore? What happens when we don't make steel anymore? We don't make computers anymore. If China invades Taiwan, where will we buy computers? Think about it. Again, we are less safe.
Last but certainly not least, there is the issue of international cooperation. Bush has ruined our relationship with "Old Europe", a group of nations comprising 320 million people, more people than in the United States. How can we be safer, when we insult the very people that are critical to our fighting the real war on terror, you know, the one involving Osama bin Laden? We are distracted by Bush et al suggesting that anyone who says we are not safer for having captured Saddam is both an idiot and a traitor, but then within the space of a week, Ridge issues a Orange Alert saying that we are as vulnerable to attack as we were pre 9/11. What a contradiction. Who's the stupid one here?
The real question should not be "Are we safer today than the day after 9/11?" The real question should be "Are we safer now than when Clinton was president?" To me the answer is obvious. Osama notwithstanding, the policies of Bush and his oil baron cronies have made us considerably less safe.
For national security reasons alone, Bush needs to be removed from office.