Is it just me or does he continually show himself to be very willing to take shortcuts, both with respect to morality and just plain hard decision making?
His choice of Gonzalez as Attorney General, for example, is rewarding a person who, if news reports are correct, has a history of turning in shoddy work of a nature that would be embarrassing to someone who cares about judicial fair play. Since at least some of this involved torture and preludes to executions (while in TX), doesn't GWB share some of the blame for not taking the job seriously?
His education secretary was caught cooking the books on the so-called "miracle in Houston" upon which the No Child Left Behind program was based.
The International Committee of the Red Cross reports that is has held meetings with the Bush Administration to discuss the mounting evidence showing that the US has (perhaps) thousands of detainees in "undisclosed locations" where they are not given access to Red Cross workers.
The evidence keeps coming out that people higher up the food chain encouraged, if not actually ordered, the prisoner abuse in Iraq. No-one in a leadership position has faced anything like the discipline being meted out to the various guards (who, of course, deserve whatever the military justice system throws at them).
The illegal detention of "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo Bay without access to legal representation or the ability to confront accusers and/or the evidence against them went on as long as the Administration could get away with it. There was no real attempt to provide a fair system of justice, or even access to the prisoners until they were forced into it by the courts, and to a lesser extent, public opinion.
How are these the actions of a moral man?
How is it that this man could be "God chosen" to be our leader?
What does it say about America today that this man can be embraced by a majority of the population?
If he is acting in an immoral fashion, and he represents us, aren't we also acting in an immoral fashion by keeping him?
I'm really interested in how people in the conservative movement justify the above and think this man deserves to lead.
I'd be VERY interested to hear OSC's take on it. Maybe he could write an essay over on Ornery or something that deals with the mounting criticism of Gonzalez and Bush's actions with respect to death penalty cases back when he was Governor of Texas.
I sure would love to read it.
I can't even imagine what a defense of Bush would sound like.
quote:How is it that this man could be "God chosen" to be our leader?
I could tell you, but the last time I advanced a theory it angered the moderator.
quote:What does it say about America today that this man can be embraced by a majority of the population?
Be fair. Kerry did not lose that badly, and I highly doubt everyone voting for him could have been said to be "embracing" him. I know people who think Bush was just the lesser of two evils.
quote:If he is acting in an immoral fashion, and he represents us, aren't we also acting in an immoral fashion by keeping him?
Thankfully, he does not represent me or anyone else who voted against him. Unless I state otherwise, no one represents me even if I did vote for them. Supporters of popular election of leaders just claim that the politicians represent their voters and/or their subjects to create buy-in.
Of course, I am not a conservative, but I could not let that stuff about representation go by without protest.
Posts: 281 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
*keeps remembering a statement made by 11th grade history teacher in the 80's about president's being known as weak and incompetent because they weren't willing to 'hose' the next guy - i.e., Jimmy Carter - and President's known as strong and competent - and embraced as such - because they WERE willing to 'hose' the next guy*
posted
Short answer: because just enough people voted for him based on absolutely none of those things you point out.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You simply have a different opinion of what constitutes moral behavior. Just as an example, I don't consider the holding of detainees in Guantanamo to be illegal or immoral.
I also consider abortion, terrorism, affirmative action, and other actions and threats to all be far more immoral than the worst I think of Bush's actions
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the sake of playing devil's advocate. Terrorists are the ones who decided to change the rules by killing using roadside bombs, assasinations, RPGs, hit and fade, using civilian populations and mosques for cover, not wearing a uniform but instead blending into the crowds and getting their own people killed.
No they don't get the same protections given to American citizens, and since they won't even play by internationally recognized rules, they don't get the same protections that the Geneva Convention grants most people. I know that it's all high and mighty to treat your enemy with compassion and fairness even when he treats you with nothing but dishonor, but at what point do we stop and say "We're fighting an enemy that wants to kill us, and the point of war is to win, not to be the nicest guy in the war."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nathan ALWAYS gets the Extra Special Security Search.
We can't figure out why. But since new security measures were instituted, he has gotten the Extra Special Treatment every single time he flies.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But wouldn't using those sort of tactics throw our credibility out the window? Not to mention if you are not talking about potential terrorists, but the very people we are claiming to "help." It isn't very thorough (sp) to go after only suspicious looking people (IE, Dark skin Arab looking types) Besides, isn't the point of this war to-Liberate Iraqis and win their hearts and minds?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be interested to know if you believe that a democratic as president, or even just anyone but Bush would have issues like these? I don't mean these particular issues but other things that cause some group of citizen's blood to boil.
I get the impression from so many people (don't take this as speaking about you Bob, as I haven't really ever discussed anything with you) that this is just justification of prior beliefs. I suppose I shouldn't say that all presidents will have issues, as I only remember Clinton (and don't want to bring him into this), but I seems to me that they must. Perhaps Bush more so than ususal? I don't really know. Or is it perhaps that these things are more evil than issues that other presidents have had?
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nathan does wear a beard. I actually haven't flown since 9/11. I like to consider myself moral- though I realize many here would disagree- but I'm not hardworking and Bush wasn't my first choice for president. I think Dean should have won.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not only does he have a beard, but he has a very particular kind of beard. Combine that with this look, and of course he gets searched!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It isn't very thorough (sp) to go after only suspicious looking people (IE, Dark skin Arab looking types)
Who should we look at? The whole point of 'going after them' isn't to hassle people, but to identify those who aren't just getting on plane but are up to other stuff. So you think we should take the time to hassle grandma, as a part of policy? (yeah it happens, speaking idealy.) Thereby wasting time and effort to hassle people that are statistically less likely to be hits?
The whole point of profiling of any kind is that it helps to identify people who are statistically more likely. So who should we be looking at? Pale skinned, blond hair, blue eyes? We should go after the types that have been more likely in the past. While this is purely reactive, I'm not sure what else would work better, as we can't effectively give everyone the Extra Special Security Search.
While a realize people find this offensive, for reasons I understand, I don't know why we should force ourselves to fight with one hand tied behind our back.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: That is becauseyou aren't in danger of being considered a possible terroist because of your racial characteristic, are you?
We either have laws or we don't, and if we do our Constitution says they must be equaly applied to us all.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Look, I'm not going to argue this whole subject for a number of reasons among them being that I already have and am tired of reiterating myself and as far as I'm concerned I won the election and that entitles me to not have to put up with this anymore. Suffice it to say that I , and other people who voted for Bush do not think the Guantanamo situation is "immoral."
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm neither particularly moral and I'm definitely not hard-working, but I'm guessing that most people who are major supporters of Bush are because of his hardline stance on the War on Terror. It's almost like watching an episode of 24--Jack Bauer is cool because he goes after the terrorists with absolutely no mercy. He's dangerous to them. Bush is perceived the same way. He'll stop at nothing to stop the terrorists.
Other possibilities: I'm guessing that some people support Bush because he's Republican. Party affiliation, Republican and Democrat both, can blind us to the faults and merits of a candidate. Yeah, it's stupid, but it happens. There were all sorts of nasty things said about Clinton while he was in office, and part of it was because he was a Democrat. Now the Democrats are saying the same sorts of nasty things about Bush. And so it goes.
Also, Bush's stance on traditional evangelical issues such as abortion and gay marriage make him popular. (Four years in office and he hasn't actually accomplished much about those issues, so I've decided that the President's stance is somewhat irrelevent. There's the Supreme Court to consider, though. And I understand that some people care about their leaders' ideologies, even when they don't translate into concrete results.) Providing money to religious organizations for charity work is also well-received by a pretty good chunk of the American public.
Then there's the religious language Bush uses. I'm torn between wanting to believe that no one is so cynical as to fake something like this--and the suspicion that any highly visible public figure who is this outspoken is using religion as a tool. And I really don't care what kind of faith he has, I guess. I don't believe that Christians make inherently better leaders.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush uses nice simple patriotic languages. He makes most Americans feel very good about themselves and feel that the country can do no wrong. Unfortunetly there is the reality of the situation. His policies on terrorism cannot, will not and do not work. They only create more terrorists and fuel for their hatred and rage. It is not in the least bit acceptable to detain people in Guantanamo Bay on the basis of them being Arab, makes no sense at all. Not every Arab is a terrorist. To treat these people as such is simplistic and rather hypocritical if you claim to represent freedom. It's a pipedream. A nice little fairy tale world that will be destroyed right in front of you if something is not done.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
1) Many of them had done nothing wrong -- at least nothing that there was any evidence of. Granted a small number of those who were recently (finally) released did show up in terrorist camps, but who's to say their experiences of our hospitality didn't drive them into the hands of the opposition? I know if I were treated like that, I'd be ready to fight back.
2) These are the detainees that we TELL the world about. Sure, some people may need to be held incommunicado until we can figure out who they are and whether we need to treat them specially, but that doesn't explain the reports coming out about the US (possibly, of course) snatching citizens of countries like Germany and holding them in secret locations. Except that the snatches were illegal, of course. Ooops, he's a car salesman and NOT a terrorist -- dump him somewhere...
And then, there is this:
from the Washington Post:
quote: President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
I'm sorry, but accountability isn't a "moment." It's an all the time, everywhere you go.
I thought the Conservative movement was concerned that people fail to take personal responsibility for their actions. Isn't that true? If so, how does the above statement at all align with that?
quote:No they don't get the same protections given to American citizens, and since they won't even play by internationally recognized rules, they don't get the same protections that the Geneva Convention grants most people. I know that it's all high and mighty to treat your enemy with compassion and fairness even when he treats you with nothing but dishonor, but at what point do we stop and say "We're fighting an enemy that wants to kill us, and the point of war is to win, not to be the nicest guy in the war."
The point where we surrender the moral high ground and decide to be just like them, I guess.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I also consider abortion, terrorism, affirmative action, and other actions and threats to all be far more immoral than the worst I think of Bush's actions
Affirmative action is more immoral than holding people incommunicado, without proof and without charges? It's worse than abusing prisoners? It's worse than shooting a disarmed, wounded enemy in the head and calling it "a mercy killing?" It's worse than purposefully misinterpreting intelligence information in order to steer our country into war?
It's worse than spending a scant 30 minutes deciding (as the last resort) whether a condemned person is granted clemency or not? It's worse than going ahead with the execution of a mentally retarded man? Or a man whose defense attorney slept through key portions of his murder trial?
And finally -- isn't that statement really just another brand of moral relativism?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a second... He really said that? That statement is so.. moronic, simply because he won by a small margin. It's not like it was 70% 30% or 90% 10% I do NOT approve of his methods and policies...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:as far as I'm concerned I won the election and that entitles me to not have to put up with this anymore.
So now that GWB has clearly won an election, all dissenters should simply fall in line? Get behind the commander-in-chief?
I think you've forgotten how democracy works.
---------
Just so we're clear, my original draft of this post would have gotten me banned. Your post upsets me a lot more than this reply shows.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, in other words, once again Bush refuses to acknowledge the possibility that he might be wrong? That he is not some form of demi-god who knows anything, it's the opposite. Some of the things he has been doing are illogical and completely wrong.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have little patience with someone takes the stance of "Gee whiz, I just didn't know" over and over again. The excuse wears thin. We are responsible for seeking out knowledge, especially of things for which we have assumed explicit responsibility.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:No they don't get the same protections given to American citizens, and since they won't even play by internationally recognized rules, they don't get the same protections that the Geneva Convention grants most people.
The fallacy that people fail to recognise when they argue that it is alright to deny terrorists, or "enemy combatants", the right to fair trials and due process, is that those rights are not there to protect terrorists in the first place. They are for the protection of the innocent.
Without these basic rights, justice becomes arbitrary and an individual caught in the wrong place or at the wrong time is put in a classic Catch-22 situation. Since he is accused of being a terrorist he is denied the very rights that would make it possible for him to prove that he isn't. We don't have to prove that a terrorist is a terrorist, because, uhm well, he's a terrorist. It baffles me that anyone would think this is acceptable.
And don't think that this isn't what is going on. The Guantanamo facilities have been in place for over three years and although there has been talk about military tribunals, we've yet to hear about any convictions. And this isn't because the US government enjoys looking bad in the eyes of human rights advocates. Although there certainly may be individual cases where a trial is undesirable for other reasons, the most likely scenario is that for the vast majority of detainees there simply isn't enough evidence of criminal activity to make a trial worthwhile.
But since they are all terrorists, what's the need for trials anyway, right?
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I couldn't think of a better word for that statement... It just strikes me as obnoxious and maybe a bit arrogant. I really dislike the idea of having a person in office who cannot even entertain the notion that maybe, just maybe they might be wrong about a few things...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, did I specifically call him a moron? No, I said his statement was moronic because a little more than 50 precent of the population voted for him that automatically makes his actions right. This isn't the case. Even with terrorism hanging over our heads, their are still certain actions and policies that are unacceptable. I resent being lumped in with this man when I feel that what he is doing is wrong on so many levels.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm concerned I won the election and that entitles me to not have to put up with this anymore
No it doesn't. We have courts for some very important reason...because civil liberties are the backbone of our way of life, and they are the reason our govermant exists.
No one,..not Bush, Cheney, or Ashcroft....has the right, either morally or legaly, to chnge that.
And he had one of the smallest margins of victory in history.....it only looked large compared to the previous one. Hardly a resonding mandate to override the Bill of Rights.
I really don't have a problem with treatign convicted terrorists differently...as you say they aren't playing by the same rules as us so they don;t enjoy all the protections we do...but "innocent until proven guilty" isn't qualified with "if that is convienent".
And your stance says a lot about your morals, or lack of them when they aren't convienent to have.
BTW, I would have the same problem with this n matter HWO won, so this isn't Bush bashing to me. If Clinton, or another Democrat had done these things they still would have been immoral.
posted
SOrry, Dag, but I only selectively read hatrack. I often don't encounter "previous" posts, and since you're referring to abortion, there's a zero percent change I read the thread in question.
That said, I'd like to note that your statement on kerry is misleading, and deliberately so.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While if bush and cheney gets their way America might turn into something like a dictatorship (unlikely too many people are pissed off unless a dirty bomb goes of in a massive oil reserve) but frankly nothing will ever work to stop the terrorists. America is not an aroused totalitarian state that can lock itslef up so well that nothing can get in and never will be. The best thing for the states to do is to get more foreign support for peace actions, start pressuring countries to dismantly their dictatorships (except where its impossible unless you have nuclear war) and try to compromise with various arabic/islamic groups and factions.
Course the limit to this is Israel, nothing can co-opt Israels right to exist. We draw the line there and no farther, not one step back.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, And in least 2 cases I disagreed with that characterization. John Kerry has said he didn't think that he was authorized to use coercive force to stop abortion. His position was never that he thought it was ok to kill people on a whim. What you said isn't just a misrepresntation, it's a misrepresentation you've been called on before.
Which is really besides the point anyway, because this is not the all or nothing situation that some people seem to make it out to be. You can vote for someone and still have problems with the way they do things. Someone can be more moral than someone else and still have major moral failings.
George Bush won the election because the majority of people who voted preferred him to John Kerry. That's fine, but he's not running against John Kerry anymore, so supporting him and excusing his failings based on the fact that you think that John Kerry would be worse isn't responsible (if it was even during the election). Our responsibilities as citizens of this country don't end after we've cast our vote. It's our job to keep our leaders accountable, even (or maybe especially) if we voted for them.
For example, Alberto Gonzales is going to be the next Attorney General. The Democrats are far too weak to stop him, especially considering that he's hispanic. Maybe you think he's a good choice. But if not, if the torture thing and the death penalty thing make you worried, you can and should express your disapproval to the Bush administration, making note that you're one of those decent, moral Christians and that's why you are troubled by this decision.
I know quite a few people who actively worked on the Kerry campaign who were planning on giving him a month to celebrate the victory and then start tearing into to him. I would have hoped that the same spirit would be there on the Bush side as well.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, yes, it is misleading. Since I know your ability with words, the only assumption is its deliberately misleading.
Bush thinks its good to kill people.
Now, what do I mean by that statement? And can you puzzle it out from what I've said, or am I trying to state that Bush doesn't have objections to anyone killing anyone else?
The appearence of the phrase, in both cases, and the way it will most likely be interepreted, is that Kerry won't stop any murder, and Bush views murder as a moral positive.
Neither of those positions is true.
But thats the interpretation that should be made from the sentence you wrote... that Kerry won't stop any murder.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As opposed to Bush who doesn't do anything in particular about abortion but gets to sit back and get your votes anyways because the other guy would at least acknowledge how he was going to act?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And again, saying that it's not your place to prevent something doesn't mean that you think that it's ok to allow it. Being elected to office in our country (at least theoretically) doesn't give you license to do whatever you want. There are rules governing what you can and cannot do. John Kerry's stated position, if you look through the crappy way he expressed it, was that he didn't think that he could outlaw abortion and be okay within these rules.
I don't actually believe that he was that principled. I think it was possibly a personal choice and definitely a politcally motivated stance, but the principle of what he's saying is really freaking important. We don't elect kings. You don't get to do whatever you want because more people voted for you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I was raised Catholic, and I believe that a child is a life. I would never abort a child, nor would I allow my wife to do so (as if I even have a say in the choice...but that is another topic.. )
But I also believe that it is wrong to force women to bear children when they are not willing to do so. It is every bit as wrong, IMO.
So there is no clear choice where everyone is a winner. That doesn't mean I think that everyone should get an abortion, but that I see no possible way of refuting their right to do so without doing them equal harm.
There is a gray area there, regardless of your ability or willingness to see it.
And it doesn't mean that I support killing peopel on a whim.
posted
If Kerry really lacked as much in morals/ethics as you seem to wish to saddle him with, he'd have lied either about what he believed or what he was going to do. Actually, as he is good with words (a bit too good), it would definitely have been the second. All he'd have had to do to get most people would be to say that abortion is a terrible thing, as he believes, and that he would begin to take steps that would reduce the number of abortions in the country in the eventual hope that it would no longer need to be legal.
You're alleging a terrible moral gap and then assuming he's either too stupid too lie (something not particularly supported by the evidence) or for some reason lacks the same moral gap when it comes to lying.
I rather think his positions might come about because he acknowledges that one's personal beliefs and one's beliefs about free will and independent action can be hard to reconcile, even when the answer seems obvious. Humans are beings of contradiction.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: as far as I'm concerned I won the election and that entitles me to not have to put up with this anymore.
NFL, that is precisely the vibe I get from Bush and his staff, which is part of why I'm so concerned.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
I was not aware that not electing an opponent meant the public endorsed every action one's administration officials had taken.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag - that was very naughty. I thought I was losing my mind when I clicked on page 2 and it took me back to the original post. Scrolling through I realized what had happened . . .
Y'know, interpretation is a lot like possession - everyone has their own particular stance on the way they see the world, and that's really okay. As folks debate/discuss their different interpretations, then there is opportunity for other folks (such as me) to ponder on the words and different stances and where we sit in relation to those ideas.
Just in keeping with the MLK commemorations this weekend, civil rights didn't happen overnight. And it's a good thing those activists kept restating, over and over and over again, what they so passionately believed in - or the movement may never have "happened."
Just a thought -
And one more - as I was reading Lyr's description of terrorist tactics.
The original inhabitants of this particular continent used very similar tactics in their efforts to preserve their homes and lives. Early on, the revolutionary war soldiers adopted those tactics and were roundly criticized by British military for not standing up to be mowed down. And I believe it's pretty standard to use strike and disappear, and hit where it's least expected and most vulnerable, sors of tactics when the opposing side drastically outnumbers you . . .
just some early a.m. thoughts to go along with the coffee . . .
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, the fact that you care enough to voice your frustration is very noble, but I would like to answer your question a different way:
I believe myself to be somewhat moral person, I work hard, but I do not enjoy or dislike whomever our flavor of the next four years happens to be.
We have said this before. The administration is significant, but the President very rarely makes a public decision that instantly directly alters how I live my life on a daily basis.
For all the shenanigans you point out that have occurred in this administration, I would expect them to occur to some degree in any administration.
This is politics. There are no good guys versus bad guys but rather "Issues A versus Issues B" (insert Agenda if Issues does not work) in my most sincerest, most honest opinion. Although many of our politicians are heroes that should be commended and honored, they choose to operate in a corrput system that demands certain courses of action that are sometimes morally questionable.
There are no more Mr. Smiths go to Washington. So I embrace the chaos of our Federal Government and brace more for the changes that occur at the state level, which affect me so much more than federal changes.
The nail that sticks up the highest is the one that is hit first.
-Old wise Japanese saying as transcribed from a fortune cookie, I think.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
The ironic thing about this is that it is the exact opposite of what is true: Bush won because the candidate opposing him was too wishy-washy in his opposition to Iraq and the War on Terror in general - and the Democrats were not gutsy enough to nominate someone really willing to directly oppose Bush's strategy.
Just look at opinion polls before the election, or Bush's own campaign strategy. Majorities claimed Bush was doing a poor job, especially in Iraq. His favorability rating was below 50%. Rather than touting any accomplishments in Iraq, Bush focused a campaign on attacking Kerry's past and character - illustrating that even Bush's team knew themselves that they would lose if Bush was being judged on Iraq. In the end, the reason the swing voters swung slightly more to Bush was because Kerry could not manage to give a coherent and consistent opposition to him - at least not until too late in the campaign. Had Kerry been more direct and clear in declaring Iraq wrong all along, he would not have been a flip-flopper, and he would have won.
I, too, find it profoundly troubling that people made such a judgement - that'd they choose to reelect someone who has done what Bush has done, even with such a poor campaign from the opposition. I think part of the problem is we always seem to have to learn our lessons the hard way, rather than preempting problems. To use a recent analogy, we wait for the tsunami to hit before we realize we should have put a warning system in place. It seems to happen that way every time.
I think, eventually, Americans will learn that we can't afford to simplify things in the way Bush always tends to, but it might only be after something like 9/11 or worse forces us to recognize that mistake. If that occurs we all lose big time in the short term, but I guess we also all win in the long term if we come to learn from our mistake.
I'd prefer to win in the short term too, though. I live in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., and I won't be too happy if Bush's tactics result in some WMDs being set of in my backyard.
quote: I'd prefer to win in the short term too, though. I live in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., and I won't be too happy if Bush's tactics result in some WMDs being set of in my backyard.
I really believe that something of that magnitude will not happen, and if it does, I believe that the US would seek out a resolution to the War on Terror with even more ferocity and finality. Public manipulation, in an Orwellian sense, scares me more than anything.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
