All Roads Lead To 'Bridge To Nowhere'

You probably think I always say the current President Bush says ONLY dumb things or tells lies only. Not true. For once, he IS right (not just too Far Right). We DO need more (or at least better) roads. OK, STOP. That is as far as I can Yield to his point of view, which is too driven by extreme agendas, instead of middle-of-the-road policies. And, yes, enough with the bad traffic puns. Let's get back on course. (Sorry, can't resist!).

This latest highway bill will probably do some useful road building, some repairs, some new stuff, but does it matter how great a road is if it goes to Nowhere, or as in this case, to the $231 MILLION Dollar bridge to nowhere that will be built in Alaska?

What road are we on? As a nation. With Bush, it's "My Way Or The Highway" except, in this case, the highway our nation is on, is going his way, the wrong way --- and there's no two ways about it.

I know we do not have job security, or even security in the subway. Many of us have no medical insurance (health security) nor do we have financial security. Even he says social security is a mess and security around the world is even worse for us Americans.

So, the only hope we have is to make a brighter future for kids here. A road for smart, hardworking people to reach an environment in which high-tech, high-quality, high-paying jobs ensure our economic well being, and standards of living.

Bush says this bill will create jobs of the future.

THAT has me worried. Really worried.

We put man on the moon (forget Bush's now totally MIA plans to visit Mars). We built F16s, Stealth bombers, nuclear weapons, microprocessors, laser surgery, microsurgery, software, operating systems, artificial intelligence, speech recognition, telephones, the Internet and all the jobs Bush can promise are road building crew or bulldozer assembly plant jobs?

Should we allow our nation to stay on this road? To Nowhere?

I say, No. Let's take the next exit behind the Bush.

Forget The Generals, Rumsfeld Knows Best

As I continue my (valiant or futile?) effort to catch up on my reading, I read with interest a recent news item that Donald Rumsfeld (the charming and infallible Secretary of Defence under our even more infallible President) is at odds with the top brass of the Air Force.



Apparently, the Air Force top brass - who have spent their lives working in and running the air force - are not the ones whose opinion counts on what kind of weapon systems we should be getting.



Given an expected "reduction" in military spending (when, in fact, our total bill on military operations, thanks for wars we chose to start, is increasing) the air force leaders want to get a lot of the Raptor aircraft that are incredible fighting machines. They have even shown a willingness to take a reduction in the number of JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) planes they will get, as long as they can get something like 500 Raptors.



However, Rumsfeld (whose brilliant military planning we are all witnessing on live TV in Iraq every night, and whose clear thinking was exposed when he blurted out that the fourth hijacked plane had been shot down in Pennsylvania) wants to kill off the Raptors and get more of the JSF.



What I find bothersome and distrubing is the logic behind this great man's thinking. The Raptor is more suited for air combat against a great adversary - so, I guess we do not expect China, or Russia, or others, to ever miltarily be a threat to us (or our allies). The JSF is more suited for supporting roles in ground attacks.....



Maybe I am wrong, but, that sounds disturbingly like a plan for us to ignore the resurgence of big military powers like China and Russia one day, while we focus on starting more wars with countries where we can simply go in and bomb our way to the targets Haliburton gives us.



In My Humble Opinion, both approaches are wrong and dangerous.



What do YOU think?



Imran Anwar.

http://www.imran.TV