今天﹐ 美國的2006 年 11 月 7 日﹐是美國期中大選的重要日子﹐關係共和黨對國會參﹑眾兩院的控制權是否能夠繼續掌握。布希和他的共和黨今天要直接與民主黨決戰﹐勝負結果將決定 2008 年他任期屆滿之前他自己與共和黨的命運前途。

如果了解陳水扁政權不過是美國主子布希的一隻看門狗﹐那麼﹐陳水扁與他民進黨的命運前途如何﹐也將在今天﹐間接決定於萬里之外美國布希及共和黨跟民主黨決戰的勝負。

美國總統布希 6 年多來﹐政績不良﹐用人不臧﹐醜聞不斷﹐從來不改．．． ( 看這「四不」﹐有沒聯想到在台灣的另一個傢伙﹖好﹐別再想了﹐太遲鈍了﹗不就是陳水扁嘛﹗ )

美國四大軍報﹐陸軍時報﹑空軍時報﹑海軍時報﹑陸戰隊時報﹐同時刊登「是倫斯裴走的時候了（ "Time for Rumsfeld to go ）」共同社論。這樣連四大軍種全軍種內部都不認同接受的國防部長倫斯裴（ Rumsfeld ）﹐布希日前卻力挺倫斯裴﹐表示倫斯裴將 「繼續留任」﹐做到他布希「總統任期屆滿為止」﹗這種情勢﹑這種口氣﹑這種用詞﹐難道不叫你想起台灣的陳水扁和他的共犯集團民進黨嗎﹖

布希之所以即使民調支持度降到數十年來歷任總統最低點﹐猶不恤人言﹐一意孤行（是不是又與陳水扁有志一同﹖）﹐就是因為他的共和黨控制了國會參眾兩院的多數席次。

觀察事實﹑分析現勢﹑依據民調﹐期中選後﹐共和黨在參眾兩院 ( 至少在眾院 ) 都將成為少數黨。大家都知道﹐傳統上﹐大軍火商都是共和黨的金主。難怪﹐日前﹐布希的爪牙楊甦棣要在選舉前張牙舞爪迫使台灣通過軍購案。一方面選前討好大金主﹐好在支持度上再加把勁﹔二方面﹐若台灣軍購案沒通過﹐共和黨期中選舉又喪失國會控制權﹐這塊台灣軍購的到嘴肥肉就掉了﹗一個「獨立」中華民國的總統陳水扁﹐竟為了沒法花大錢做軍購凱子孝敬美國主子﹐連連喪失國格人格﹑滑天下之大稽﹑創世界外交記錄地向美國總統布希道歉﹐就把這沆瀣一氣吃台灣人民夠夠的陰謀完全洩底﹗ ( 請參考 銘記流言板 (163) 絕不可讓「軍購案」謀殺 「倒扁」 )

美國紐約時報在 11 月 5 號社論中說﹐該報在 7 號選舉日刊登支持的候選人名單中﹐將有史以來第一次不列任何共和黨國會候選人。社論中還有下面這一句頗堪玩味的強調﹕

「這次的選舉﹐其實是針對布希和國會共和黨的公投﹐ 因為他們（國會共和黨）堅持保護布希免於對他錯誤和過失的後果負責。」

在紐約時報社論這一句頗堪玩味的強調中﹐你沒看到其中陳水扁和「他的民進黨」的身影嗎﹖

過去這 6 年﹐布希和「他的共和黨」跟陳水扁和「他的民進黨」二者在行事作風﹑認知事理的每一方面﹐都太類似了﹐簡直是思想精神的「孿生」﹐都是基於民粹的意識形態做利害取捨﹑是非判斷﹗

一定有不少人會說﹐陳水扁跟布希﹐一黃一白﹑一華一美﹑一東一西﹑一大一小﹑一奴一主﹐怎能思想精神類似﹐怎有思想精神「孿生」﹖

大家知道﹐不論膚色人種﹐由基因病變所造成的人體外觀缺陷﹐都是非常相像的﹐因為基因是生命的基礎根本。

以民粹的意識形態做為利害取捨﹑是非判斷的基礎﹐就是一種非常基礎根本的思想精神病變﹐發之而為外在的行事作風﹑認知事理﹐則不論人種膚色﹐其荒謬絕倫﹑蠻橫無理的外觀缺陷﹐都是大同小異的﹗

所以﹐陳水扁看似常常踩布希給兩岸關係畫下的紅線﹐布希也常常作態作勢給陳水扁吃一點排頭﹐但只要陳水扁事後「撒撒嬌」﹑「搖搖小狗尾巴」﹐布希又摸摸陳水扁頭說﹕「下回乖點」﹐就又讓陳水扁過關了﹐如此重複不斷。布希及共和黨認他們必須「壓制中國崛起」﹐所以視與陳水扁政權的矛盾是「內部矛盾」﹐雙方必須共同「反共抗中」的觀點﹐雖然不見得為大多數美國人認可﹐還可算是為了美國利益的愛國主義。但是﹐即使陳水扁所作所為完全違反國政取決於多數民意的基本民主精神原則﹐全家涉貪是徹頭徹尾的惡名昭彰﹐布希還叫他的打手楊甦棣違反基本外交禮儀﹐毫無顧忌地以侮辱中華民國人民與在野黨的發言﹐力挺絕大多數人民都說「是下臺時候了」的陳水扁 「繼續留任」﹐做到他「總統任期屆滿為止」﹐這就不僅僅是 愛國主義作祟﹐而是多多少少與陳水扁臭味相投了﹗

所以﹐在台灣的陳水扁﹐可沒有控制國會的多數席位﹐卻因為與布希臭味相投﹐長相左右﹐而在台灣囂張蠻幹﹗

當然﹐民主黨或共和黨控制國會﹐都會以美國國家利益為最高優先﹐但是在期中選舉後﹐若由民主黨掌控國會﹐布希在伊拉克內戰與北韓核武的爛攤子前﹐恐怕沒法那麼挺陳水扁了吧﹗陳水扁的囂張氣焰多少要扁下去﹐何況﹐陳水扁這個「狗奴才」還沒替他主子布希搜刮到軍購大款呢﹗

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Army Times: "Time for Rumsfeld to go" ( AP)

An editorial scheduled to appear on Monday in Army Times , Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times, calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The papers are sold to American servicemen and women. They are published by the Military Times Media Group, which is a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc.

Here is the text of the editorial, an advance copy of which we received this afternoon.

----------------

Time for Rumsfeld to go

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.