Thursday, December 18, 2008

Lame duck ducks!!

I don't consider myself a big fan of George W. In fact, like many others in the US, I do believe he is at fault for a lot of our economic pain.

But I have to be fair and applaud him for his gamely handling of the shoe-throwing incident at Iraq. I have to admire him for his fantastic ducking reflexes and his diffusing the situation immediately afterward with the joke about the shoe size. I must especially commend him for the White House press secretary, Dana Perino's recent press conference when she said that Bush had requested the Iraqis to desist from overreacting to the incident.

Much has been written about the shoe throwing incident. Perhaps, the one of the most vitriolic articles about this is written by one of the New York Times writers, Nicholas Kristof - "Paying down the deficit with whizzing shoes". I know I laughed when I first read the blog post, but as I started reading the comments in response to that blog, I started feeling a bit uneasy. There was a deep undercurrent of anger in many of the responses. Now, who am I to judge what people feel is George Bush's legacy to the US? But I still felt a certain sense of disquiet at Bush's image in this country. Much blame has been laid at Bush's door. I am sure a lot of it is well deserved.

But this actually begs a larger question: wasn't the US constitution written to protect the people from a despot? How is it that Bush became so powerful that he could do all the damage that he is reportedly accused of? Why do we assume Bush and only Bush is culpable in the mess that is left behind at the end of his era?

Where is our share in all this? Is not omission also a part of commission? Are the people themselves not responsible? Who voted Bush into office, not once, but twice? Who looked the other way or convinced themselves that he was "protecting" the country when he set up Gautanamo Bay and when he instituted the Patriot act? Who voted for Bush because they felt he was perfect for being one of the most powerful men in the world, simply by virtue of the fact that he was someone they could drink a beer with? Who allowed the congress to renege on their responsibilities to the people by continuously allowing Bush / Cheney to do whatever they wanted with the legislation? Who ALLOWED the Constitution to fail?

WE, THE PEOPLE!

No comments: