is Bush really the problem?

Where Bush is a large player in this is in that he gives the full weight of his office to the destruction. But, I have long felt that Dems, along with Repubs, are walking us along that path. It may be a matter of degree between the opposing parties: the big difference is, the Repubs will cinch it now, while the Dems put on a face of token resistence. In the long run, Nader may well be proven correct that it doesn't matter appreciably which party holds power. If I am to be enthusiastic about any Democrat I have to see more of what Gore delivered in his latest speach. But, there has to be follow up and dogged perseverence for me to get excited. As it stands I will vote for any Democrat this election. After that - we'll see.

<smiling> This is a heartening forthright statement by dys, IMO.

Political persuasion aside-- One man, President or not, could not claim responsibility for the changes that have occurred since Bush's election--whether they are viewed as positive or negative.

I do think trying to pin the country's ills on one man, as though he were acting in a vaccuum are short-sighted and rather small minded.

Its my opinion that the Bush administration thought the Patriot Act was necessary in the face of 911--and thought their rights had to be extended to protect the US, due to our open immigration. It is in times like this, we rely on 'the protectors of Civil Liberties' (the Dems?) to challenge sweeping clamp downs. In my view, the Republicans did what they could be counted on to do-- react strongly and swiftly to address national security. The Dems didn't step up. This could have been one of the many instances where the two parties successfully balanced one another. Only one party showed up.

In other words, I think the Patriot Act should have been challenged. At least parts of it. And whoever challenged it shouldn't have shrivelled in the face of anti-patriotism charges.

Dys:

My original reaction to this was no, but on second thought ... I have to agree with you!~!

Anon

A fine tune it is, too, dyslexia. The Chief Executive may propose and champion policy - in fact, that's pretty much his job. However, without the assent and cooperation of two legislative houses, each composed of two distinct political parties, the Chief Executive cannot implement policy (apart from Executive Orders, and even those can be rescinded by legislative action). Who is President matters a helluva lot less than who goes along with the President.

I wouldn't get in any vehicle he was driving.

I just wish I could get off this bus he's driving over the cliff.

we're all bozo's on this bus

When I die, I wanna go just like gampa did ... peacefully in my sleep. Not panic stricken and screaming like the passengers in his car. :wink:

My gut feeling about President bush has always been that he was a delegator on one side and one who seeks wise counsel on the front end of the decision making process. Not exactly damning characteristics for a leader, but President bush is no Clinton/Carter scholar either. Wishful thinking on my part would demand that an ideal American President would be of a type combining scholarly knowledge, take charge attitude, and a real world knowledge of diplomacy with no adversity to thinking out and finally proposing a presidential doctrine that can be consulted when trying to determine a course of action through varying situations. Ideally Theodore Roosevelt comes to mind, as does Tony Blair. PM Blair has been much maligned but he does possess a vision for the future of Euro-American relations, which is to say, at this point, a world vision.

Pres. Bush's administration does not seem to be able to pull together a coherent strategy for international relations. This administration has so far seemed to handle the DPRK thing correctly forcing China to use its considerable influence in this instance. However, I am somewhat dismayed at this administration's seeming inability to come up with a comprehensive strategy in Iraq and in addition Afghanistan seems slipping back into the poppy farming clutches of former warlords. What was the deal with Liberia? The last time we saw this paralysis of indecision was in the UN Security Council shortly after Secretary Powell's show and tell dissertation.

To my mind it is almost as if this ship of state has luckily drifted in and out of international squalls without, so far, encountering any really dangerous shoals, but the operative word here is luck and simply hoping for the best with a reactive international policy is not my idea of leadership.

I might also say that seeking wise counsel is only part of the decision process, in addition, one must decide its value and be willing to apply deep discounts if it seems self-serving or biased. The president must always remember he is to chart that course which is best in serving U.S. national interests and not that of any particular group of sages. This is where a president with a tool kit full of personal knowledge, a vision employing real world diplomacy, and the intelligence and wisdom to form such strategies is held at a premium.

So, is Bush the problem? Well if he wishes to be known as a leader he must take responsibility and therefore the answer is yes. Recent actions and behavior of Pres. Bush and those in his administration show that GW does indeed work and play well with others but does not necessarily demonstrate leadership. Regarding the faulty intelligence report about yellowcake, the President accepted George Tenet's mea culpa but not his resignation. Same goes for Condi. Then the President rightly claimed his responsibility. True leadership would argue for the chronological reverse.

JM

well jim, first of all, love your music.

but your comment about the incoherence of bush foreign policy is very easy to understand, because it is not based upon the traditional paradigm of the "nation/state," and protection and welfare of the citizenry.

if it were, then the bushevik adminstration would not have allowed the obvious incoherence you illustrated.

the busheviks and the GOP in general are not involved in defending the nation as a whole. instead, they are defending, thru the US military and fiscal actions of this government the economic power of multi-national corporations.

the basis for all actions by the busheviks has at heart the sustainence and continuation of economic power by those who have it and who support the efforts of the busheviks in the looting of this country.

using this prism, observing what the busheviks are doing is really quite rational, allbeit treasonous.

You got that right, kuvasz.

kuvasz,

Good to hear you appreciate my music but unfortunately there really isn't that much appreciation for renditions of "Light My Fire" hummed thru a wax paper covered comb.

JM

I prefer the Whiffenpoof Song on comb and wax paper. Mellow.

I believe that members of both sides of the aisle have lain down and allowed this to happen like disgusting pussies....but make no mistake that Bush and his evil crew are behind it 100%. They masterminded all of this purposefully, including the media blitz that successfully painted anyone who didn't go along as a traitor and unpatriotic American.

So although members of both parties should be ashamed for their disgusting self interest and lack of balls.......it is GWB and crew behind all of it, and they have been successful. Things are EXACTLY as they want it and the American people be damned. We don't matter to GWB and his crew any more than the lowliest Iraqi camel herder.

I agree with Bear.

From a practical point of view, would the present position of the Democrats be improved if they had dug in their heals and opposed the patriot act?

At the time the bill was being debated, I wanted the Democrats to oppose it tooth and nail, but they did not, either because they approved of it, or because they feared being labeled unpatriotic.

Should they have opposed the bill, and if they had, what would have been the result (I assume the bill would have passed even with the Democratic leadership against it.)?Would we be standing tall and looking good right now, or would the Republicans have succeeded in labeling us as soft on terrorism?

What is most unfortunate Hazlitt is that we should live in a world run by people that makes it necessary to view something like the passage of the Patriot Act in terms of net gain politically. It is a wrong piece of **** document and that is the only way it should be viewed and should have been the only basis for objective judgement.

I realize that sounds naive, but it's true none the less.

If we act without principle we are going to be judged as spineless anyway. Why not make it count for something?