Bush Is a 'Radical Ideologue'

I agree with Fonda except for her choice of the word "radical." The correct term for a right-wing zealot is reactionary.

Well, I was talking about the political spectrum: Communist, radical, liberal<moderate>conservative, reactionary, and fascist.

Many people use the term radical to denote any extremist, right or left. Reactionary is "extreme conservatism in politics." Bush is more of a 19th century president than even a 20th century president, mush less a 21st century one. There's nothing new about Bush's policies. Pick up a history book, it's full of the same failed policies.

To call Kerry a reactionary is laughable, you've got your spectrum mixed up. Kerry is moderate to liberal. Nixon was more liberal than Kerry. Relative to Nixon in Nixon's time, Bush would be definitely reactionary, but in the present-day political mood shift to the right Bush would be conservative to reactionary.

At any rate, in my opinion, Bush is at best imcompetent and at worst a disaster for the country. But it will take future historians to see that clearly.

It's Kerry's who's the reactionary, saying, "What are you doing? We've never done it that way before."

Brandon9000 wrote:

It's Kerry's who's the reactionary, saying, "What are you doing? We've never done it that way before."

Actually, I think he's saying 'we've done it that way before -- and it turned out to be a huge mistake'.

FreeDuck wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

It's Kerry's who's the reactionary, saying, "What are you doing? We've never done it that way before."

Actually, I think he's saying 'we've done it that way before -- and it turned out to be a huge mistake'.

When did we have an avowed policy of pre-emption of potential future foes?

Brandon9000 wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

It's Kerry's who's the reactionary, saying, "What are you doing? We've never done it that way before."

Actually, I think he's saying 'we've done it that way before -- and it turned out to be a huge mistake'.

When did we have an avowed policy of pre-emption of potential future foes?

Grenada comes to mind. But we kicked some butt there, didn't we! we should do that again. Find some tiny nation without any resources and just beat the crap out of them, teach them a lesson they will never forget.

Castro had become bold in the post Vietnam War period. He had sent Cuban advisors to the African country of Angola and became even bolder with communist gains in Central America. After Nicaragua fell in 1979, the tiny island of Grenada, led by Maurice Bishop, began to lean toward communism. Castro sent in a small army of workers to construct an air strip at Point Salinas capable of handling the largest of military aircraft. Castro then began to stockpile huge amounts of arms and ammunition. Grenada had become a supply base for communist expansion in the Western Hemisphere.

After Bishop made moves to restore relations with the U.S., the pro-Soviet faction of his party, led by Bernard Coard, placed him under arrest on Oct. 13, 1983. Bishop supporters broke in and freed him. General Hudson Austin consequently had his Grenadan troops fire on the crowd, recapture Bishop then execute him on the spot. Austin then established himself as the head of a military junta.

President Reagan watched in horror. His hidden agenda was to reverse communist gains in this hemisphere. The Medical School for American college students on the island gave him the excuse to act. On Oct. 21 the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States appealed for the United States to intervene. Reagan had the international support.

Do we have a written national policy of pre-emption now? I was under the impression that it was all based on precedent.