1. We are in a Vietnam like war with a definite beginning but seemingly without an ending. To date, few of the objectives of that war have been accomplished.
I don't think that is an accurate statement. The war really is not like Vietnam. Its nature is very different. The one simularity is that it doesn't have a definite ending. In fact it would have been easier for Vietnam to have a positive definite ending. However a lot of things have gone very well.
Also I don't see how you can count the existance of this war as a strike against Bush. He didn't create it. America was attacked. If Gore, or Nader, or Clinton, or Dole, or Bush Sr. or Reagan was president we would still be in the same situation, and I can't see how any of them would have been a lot more effective.
2. The economy is floundering and there is now renewed talk of a double dip recession. There is little this administration has done to counter this threat.
A normal cyclic downturn that started while Clinton was still president. The situation was made worse by the fact that it followed a real bubble. I don't see how Bush can reasonably be blamed for it. It would make a little more sense to blame Clinton, but really that would not be totally fair either. As fir doing something to counter it, Bush has pushed through tax cuts. I will agree that the tax cuts kick in to slowly so they are not idealy structured to deal with the downturn but they are positive. Other then that there often isn't a lot politicians should do. If they get to involved in trying to micromanage the economic cycle 9 times out of 10 they will cause more harm then good.
3. America's economic clout is in jeopardy....thanks to a lack of corporate integrity and mismanagement. Bush's administration is late to the game and only now is beginning to realize the negative implications of this mess. And many perceive that Bush and his cronies may well be part of the problem.
All of this lack of integrity didn't start the day Bush was sworn in to office. Its been festering for years but just gets exposed by slowed growth or recession and the bursting of the stock market bubble. The evidence that Bush and his cronies have been part of shady deals or are otherwise "part of the problem", is less then the evidence against Clinton and his cronies.
Also its an exageration to say "America's economic clout is in jeopardy". I see more pain comming from this, but corporate scandals are nothing new and they wont wreck our economy or destroy our economic clout. And the fact that discovery of shady accounting now has a dramatic negative effect on the value of a stock should help discourage this kind of thing in the future, probably more then new regulation will, although I imagine we will get that as well.
4. The American dollar is in free fall partly due to the flight of foreign capital because of number three. Again the Bush administration has been remarkably silent when it comes to this issue.
The answer is mostly the same as #3 because this is presented as a consequence of 3. If you are focusing on the change of the dollars value, rather then the reason for the change I would say that I don't see what our government should be overly concerned about or take strong actions against exchange rate fluctuations in most cases.
America's foreign policy appears to be in some sort of checkmate. Our oldest allies with the exception of Britain appear to be confused by Bush's rhetoric, and his administration after almost two years has failed to get the Israelis and Palestinians to the peace table.
Our European allies just disagree a lot with Bush, they would disagree a lot with me as well. I don't see that as a fault of Bush. As of Israel and the Palestinians that has been going nowhere for a long time.
6. After years of trying to reduce military spending, Bush is now pushing to resume increasing defense spending, particularly on such pie in the sky systems like star wars. Coincidently, we as a nation have become much more militaristic and talk of ignoring the sovereign rights of other nations without concern or reservation.
Bush is calling for reasonable increases in military spending in light of the years of decline, new threats that America faces, and the small percentage of our GDP that the spending will cost. Only a very small part of the increase will go to the vitally important area of missile defence. As for violating other countries soverignty you would have to get more specific if you want a response.
7. Due to numbers 1 and 6, the country has begun to run budget deficits once again,
The level of the deficits might be different but with the economic slowdown and 9/11 we would be running a deficit whoever was president, including if you where president. I do wish Bush had tried harder to clamp down spending but any changes would have only been at the margin. Post 9/11 spending was going to go up (and a lot of the increase was non-military). Post 9/11 and post the bursting of the bubble revenue was going to go down. When you get a war combined with an economic slowdown deficits are to be expected. If the economy turns around and starts growing strongly again and the deficits do not shrink or end then I will blame Bush (and congress).
Granted some of this stuff was inherited but Bush
has been in power long enough that that can no longer use that as an excuse..
Most of the problems where either inherited or imposed from the outside (and to an extent inherited. Al Qaida has been acting like it was at war against the US for awhile, the US just didn't return the favor until 9/11).
"in power long enough" for the real reason to have to be Bush might have to mean in a second term. These things don't turn on a dime.
Tim |
