lord of the blog

« Responses | Main | The media and the people »

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

USA elections

This is very good news about the Democrats. I am not sure how much George Bush will change but if it signals the long overdue dismissal of Donald Rumsfeld it can only be a major step in the right direction.

How strange that you say Rumsfeld's resignation is long overdue. Is there anyone in the British government who should take responsibility for the mistakes in Iraq and resign? Never mind a resignation, a parliamentary inquiry would do. Nope, nothing like that is on the table. If Rumsfeld should resign then Bush's other poodle, Tony Blair, should also resign.

If my understanding is correct of the vote for the Iraq War it went something like this...Democrats in the Senate voted 29 FOR, 21 AGAINST. The house approving 296-133. It also passed with a wider margin than 1991 which allowed Bush Snr to get Iraq out of Kuwait.

Of course the party in power are more to blame, but much like in the UK support was from both major parties, even if it was divisive of their internal party members.

Bush has been at best an average president, at worst a poor one. It is worth noting some figures...

GDP in 2000... 10,190,700
GDP In 2001... 10,383,100
GDP in 2002... 10,881,600
GDP in 2006... 12,485,725
GDP in 2007 (predicted)... 13,228,391

Now of course he has done terrible things in power, the deficit has risen etc. etc. but people should be a little more realistic in their assessment of just how poor a president he has been.

In the UK we expected a changeof direction after the tories had gone, we didn't get one.

What's to change in the US, where every politician is, one way or another, bought and paid for - much like here.