Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (3156)	3/6/2002 3:05:52 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Bush is irresponsible. I'd call him wasteful. The notion of thrift never crosses his mind. He can't live on a budget. so he has pushed the US into debt which could last a decade, according to an article in The Los Angeles Times. Who really knows how long we will be in debt? W's solution to problems: start a new war and cut taxes, once again, for the wealthiest Americans. They don't need a tax cut. Middle class Americans and those who lost their jobs need help. Bush refuses to help. Hastert and the Republicans in the House sit on a bill that would extend benefits to the unemployed unless they can get a bigger tax cut for the rich. Now, I hear Bush has put a high tariff on steel so automobiles, houses, appliances will cost even more.

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (3156)	3/6/2002 3:08:23 PM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15516

The Bush Doctrine: War for the appearance of purpose " The Middle East is the most bloody example of the disconnect between Junior Bush's blurred vision thing and the reality on the ground. His non-responsiveness to the meltdowns in Argentina and Colombia betray the same void of leadership. Bush told Argentina and its collapsing economy exactly what Washington told New York City when it went bankrupt in 1975: Drop dead. He is showing the same indifference toward Colombia as that country flirts with civil war. " News-Journal editorial n-jcenter.com The presidential profile has become a staple of front pages and cover stories since Sept. 11. Virtually all the profiles have the same flattering tone summed up by USA Today's headline back in October: "Same President, different man in Oval Office." How different is difficult to grasp because every other profile compares George W. Bush to a different president. He's been compared to both Roosevelts (Teddy's big stick, FDR's big commitments), to Woodrow Wilson (morality and American exceptionalism), to Harry Truman (folksy), John Kennedy (gutsy), Ronald Reagan (knows evil when he sees it) and of course to the first George Bush, although why, besides a family resemblance, is yet unclear. The comparisons work either as the gratuitous flattery that usually wallpapers a war leader's first months, or more likely as fillers of presidential tonnage Bush himself lacks. Because to be so often compared to so many presidents should signal alarm, not self-confidence. It speaks of a void at the center of power that must be made up. In some cases it is. Afghanistan comes to mind, even if what began as a war on terrorism is, for lack of a clear victory on that front, turning into an old fashioned war of conquest, a pudding looking for a proof. In most cases the void isn't being made up at all. The Middle East is in flames. Israel and the Palestinians are in a full-fledged war, with women joining the ranks of suicide bombers on one side and Israeli tanks and bombers going after Gaza and the West Bank as ferociously as they once did Southern Lebanon. The United States never allowed violence to escalate to this point before, at least not in Israel and the occupied territories. Yet the Bush White House is treating the Middle East as if it were just another matter that should resolve itself. But laissez-faire is no policy. The Middle East is the most bloody example of the disconnect between Junior Bush's blurred vision thing and the reality on the ground. His non-responsiveness to the meltdowns in Argentina and Colombia betray the same void of leadership. Bush told Argentina and its collapsing economy exactly what Washington told New York City when it went bankrupt in 1975: Drop dead. He is showing the same indifference toward Colombia as that country flirts with civil war. The Bush Doctrine, meanwhile that brief attempt at defining a moral vision against an axis of evil that proved as doddering as the axis itself has been shelved in favor of this administration's best trick: war. As Afghanistan turns, Iraq seems fated to be next. War, especially war against a ragged but resilient enemy, at least projects the appearance of purpose while obscuring failures of leadership. In peacetime, George W. Bush would have been best compared to the amiable Calvin Coolidge. It is not peacetime, although it is certainly not wartime, either. It is that gray area Bush has badly defined as a war that may have no end, in territories that may have no boundaries, against enemies that may have no allegiances (and in some cases no uniforms). No comparison to previous presidents works, because none has put the United States in such an unwinnable corner before. A few have projected the same arrogance and the same vague certainties as Bush has in his war on terrorism. But they had competition on the world stage. The Bush White House has none, and an "exaggerated sense of power and mission," in William Fulbright's words, is a monopoly's worst enemy. News-Journal editorial n-jcenter.com