Idyllic? I Wish!

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

US Presidential Elections

George BushJohn Kerry

I'm currently watching the BBC coverage of the US Presidential Elections, which coincidently is being streamed over the internet because its more reliable than trying to watch it over freeview digital. At first, after knowing what the USA have been doing during the war in Iraq, and the previous occurrences of the last few years I was firmly against George Bush and believed that he should have been "completely thrown out of government".

Following this decision I also watched the documentary "Fahrenheit 911" - by Michael Moore. After watching this I was even more against George Bush and his re-election. His first actions during the events of 911 disgusted me, and he should have been more pro-active to the situation. Even BBC news in the UK paid more attention to the disaster than he did.

So until recently my feelings were what a lot of people were feeling; along the lines of "Anything but Bush". This was based on the previous two paragraphs. However, looking at the opposition, of which there is only one other candidate who has a chance to compete - John Kerry. This man seems to be 'worse' than Bush. Watching him on TV he is even less committal to his decisions than Bush. His policies actually seemed to be based on Bush's policies with certain details changed. He was also trying to state things that would just 'please' others that oppose Bush. Changing policies to appease voters may be a simple tactic for gaining voters, but the changes that he is proposing are unlikely to be beneficially, let alone plausible.

After reading so much material recently, I have changed my mind back to George W. Bush. Looking back at him, he hasn't been that bad of a president. I think that trying to remove terrorists from the world is a noble thing to do, although maybe its not his responsibility.

Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, whether or not he had weapons of mass destruction (hereafter named: WMD). The fact is that if he had been truthful maybe other countries would have trusted him and maybe he would have stayed as 'president' or 'dictator' or whatever term you wish for him.

However, after the tragedy of 911 there comes the issue of Osama Bin Laden (Hereafter OBL). OBL was identified as the perpetrator of the 911 attacks, and this started the US' assault on terrorism. However after a period of time, Afghanistan was 'released' from his control, and OBL suddenly disappeared, apparently into some random mountain range. Shortly after this occurrence the USA suddenly shifted its war onto Iraq and its supposed WMDs. Since then how much have you heard about OBL? Well the answer as far as I'm concerned is: "Jack Shit". That is until the other day... Suddenly Aljazeera TV releases a video apparently from OBL which shows him making more threats against the USA. This brings a really important point back into the medias attention : Where is OBL? All this time, all this money (tax payers!), and the world's #1 enemy is still at large. Saddam Hussein has been removed from power, Iraq is under USA control, as is Afghanistan, yet OBL remains at large. The question really remains - is there something more sinister about the whole OBL issue???

So after all my blabbing about a country I don't actually reside in, if given a vote for whom is to be the president of the USA, I would have to vote for George W. Bush, if only because the opposing candidate is actually worse. (Much like I'd vote for Tony Blair again, only because the opposition is actually worse). Choice of two evils it seems.

So who will win the US presidency? In hours (hopefully), we will find out the next president of the United States of America.


Post a Comment

<< Home