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.
With the exception of setting up an Afghan gov't friendly to us, what has gone right? Have we captured bin Laden? Have we eliminated the Taliban from Afghanistan? Are we comfortable fighting in this terrain? Do we see an end to the mess? We are in the same position as the Russians. How long were they in Afghanistan before they called it quits? And the worse part is we are picking up the tab for fixing their damage as well as our own.
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.
I didn't say I blamed him for the war although he did jump in with both feet like he was Capt. America.
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.
I am not blaming him for the recession but rather what he has not done to correct the problem, and I am looking at tactics a little more complex than tax cuts.
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.
First off, this issue has been burning brightly for the past year with little intervention on the part of Bush. Furthermore, its not Clinton's cronies who are CEOs, but rather Bush's.
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.
Foreign capital is leaving this market in droves, and the dollar is declining consistently in the face of a strong Euro and Yen. The lack of corporate professionalism is precipitating these trends and coupled with the questionable voting practices in the last presidential election makes us look to be no better than a banana republic. On top of all that, we are running deficits again for the first time in years which ultimately will require the gov't to compete with the money markets, forcing interest rates back up. That was the very thing that the Clinton administration managed to reverse during its tenure, and was extremely critical to the longevity of the last economic expansion.
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.
Your lack of concern echoes the Bush administration's position. Unfortunately, the markets are very concerned. And frankly, I think that should be taken seriously.
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.
And why do you think that is?
I don't see that as a fault of Bush.
Of course not, its never Bush's fault. Well, who do we blame......Clinton? Carter? FDR? Every Dem president since the beginning of time? Get a clue........our current president is responsible for our current muddled foreign policy. His administration has divergent views as to what approach should be used in Israel. Apparently, Powell and Cheney are at odds with each other. We have managed to piss off our European allies because his administration sees them as effete snobs. So what if they are snobs, you don't kiss them off. This whole thing stinks and its up to Bush to get his people in line and get them working in sync, and patch things up with the only true allies we have.
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.
Get it.....the American people do not want star wars. We can't afford it and its not a reasonable increase in defense spending.
ted |
