In regards to “Bush deserves credit for many accomplishments”:

It’s truly amazing to me that people are still talking about George W. Bush, after eight long, torturous years. What’s even more amazing is the effort of his supporters to spin the story to alleviate the fault of the Bush Administration for the conundrum in which they found themselves encompassed.

The letter makes light of the spiraling dissonance our country has sunk into, the quagmire generated from Bush and company. Of course, we all know the debauched side of things: the chaos in the world, the annihilation of thousands of people, the economic debacle, the swindling and cheating of hard working Americans. Of all of this, there is no question. I can surely understand the rationale of someone trying to shed light on some seemingly unknown morsels for the masses to envision a different perspective on the hated Bush.

Does Bush really deserve this credit though? For the items depicted in the letter, aren’t these elements of the ideology of what a leader is supposed to do, to help the less fortunate and to defend his/her country to the hilt — in short, to lead?

Tangentially, it’s stunning to discover that Bush “created” jobs. Where are they? Why are so many Americans without work? Since a statistical panacea is presented to go along with the statement, seemingly the proof to back up the verbiage, how can the unemployed acquire these jobs?

If anyone out there has read text such as Freakonomics, it can readily be recognized that statistics are easily fabricated and swayed.

The article discusses the monies allocated to different diseases. Haven’t other presidents ever done this, donated money to third world countries to help in the alleviation of sickness? If others have committed to the same funds, doesn’t it seem a given then that our present and future presidents would do the same? After all, in politics, how would it look if suddenly the United States were to withdraw this funding? When so many do not have affordable health care or even health care at all, how can one say with any conviction that Bush envisioned a “healthier” world?

These numbers aside, what afflicted me as the most brazen statement was that Bush brought democracy to Iraq. I have never heard anything so laughable juxtaposed with the Bush administration. Bush went to war claiming weapons of mass destruction.

When it became translucent that there were absolutely none, Bush had to justify some other reason for the invasion of Iraq. I think anyone with any sort of compassion can understand the brutality inflicted upon the Iraqi people by Hussein. But remember, the US propped this man up when it fit our agenda. We condoned his treatment, his brutality and even supplied the weapons when our adversary was Iran.

I’m not sure about anyone else out there, but after Sept. 11, I was not afraid we were going to be attacked again. I’m not sure how we were attacked in the first place, given the warning signs and the idea that the USA is the most powerful nation in the history of existence. But one thing I felt assured of — regardless of the fear-based color levels — we probably would not be attacked again. It became clear to me that the perpetual terroristic threat conveyed down to us was a fear-based mechanism put forth to keep us in line, to justify the actions of our “leaders,” and to gradually strip us of a few more rights. After all, if you are in fear of your life, what is a little more hassle at the airport, for example?

And if we continuously fear these terrorists, haven’t we allowed them to achieve their agenda? What I did contemplate was: If we were attacked on American soil, did we have enough troops here to really defend our country since so many were on foreign land? I still wonder this.

In regards to democracy being brought to other nations: how can we bring something we, at least at the time of occurrence, did not have ourselves? We, the people, do not rule through our spokespeople. To think this seems incongruous and ignorant. What we have/had, is/was a bureaucracy and aristocracy.

Additionally, France and England apparently tried to prop Germany up in a democracy after WWI, and the nation became so perilous and pestilent that ultimately the Germans grew tired of this way of life, and embraced the words and rule of Adolf Hitler.

Is Iraq embracing democracy now? Do they honestly care about our version of “freedom” when they have the more intrinsic problems of surviving and tending to their family’s immediate needs, such as sustenance and medical attention? If the Iraqi people have any sort of hope, any faint glimmer above the abysmal depths, maybe it lies in Barack Obama. Maybe he can straighten out the tumultuous pandemonium he has inherited.

Jason S Lupoi

Graduate Student

Chemistry