I always thought that the weapons of mass distruction went to Syria along with the truck loads of gold. However, if they did go there what is Bush to do. After all the flack he took with going into Iraq. No way he would have gotten backing to go into Syria so why bring it up and look even weaker in the eyes of the middle east. Going into Iraq was the right thing. Staying there to set up democracy in one nation that is really three nations was a mistake. Should have had a controlled split up with our forces staying mainly in the Kurdish North where our only allies in what is called Iraq are. As for the UN. It is a mistake to give your foes power over you and then support them with your funds. Perhaps today we need to just have a partnership with nations who do not want to destory our way of life and who do not destory their own people. As for caring about what other nations think of us. We lost our bravo which China now has and the message should be "you should care about what we think of you" The troops are doing a great job but if we are going to keep them on the ground in harms way then their job should be made safer by letting them be more dangerous. By the way looking at their lack of a land army and undertooled navy I would not consider France a world power but unfortunally they are a nuclear power which means they will not defend themselves but they could blow up the world out of spite.
Opinions are like ...... True leaders are seldom very popular after all the dust settles. True leaders make tough decisions. They often do what they believe they have to do, and many of their constituents simply don't appreciate their tough and sometimes painful decisions. At least, at the time. Winston Churchill was voted out of office by the British after WWII. Charles DeGaul remained prominent in French politics. Go figure. I strongly suspect that President G.W. Bush will be considered a capable and inspired leader in 50 years or so. History will treat him well. I also assume that former President William Jefferson Clinton will be regarded as somewhere between Neville Chamberlain and Warren T. Harding. Finally, in my opinion, the American public is simply not informed or motivated sufficiently to demand that their "leaders" do the right things, and the right times, that is before big problems appear (eg. New Orleans and Katrina, Islamic terrorism, American nuclear power). QD
Dear Quick Dog, I read your post yesterday and thought about it quite a bit last night. I couldn't quite believe you think that Bush will be considered a capable leader in 50 years or ever for that matter. I mean, you are entitled to your opinion and all but, come on. He and his administration have been asleep at the switch at every possible moment in both terms. Can you even name one instance where he has been anything but reactive to a situation? You could site the Iraq war as a proactive moment in his life but we all know how that is going. It has gone from an early expectation of establishing a Middle East democracy to more recent expectations of securing the road from Baghdad to the airport. From the Palestinian crisis early on in 2001 where he didn't do a thing diplomatically until after 9/11 to the current situation where he had to be jerked off one of his frequent vacations by a natural disaster and finally, finally managing to react to a well reported approaching storm. Somehow, I just can't put the word "Leader" and George Bush together in my mind. What exactly is your standard for a great leader? By any definition of the word, George Bush is nowhere in sight. I believe that he has a reasonable amount of personal resolve and strong personal convictions but those qualities alone don't make a great leader. I can't even begin to get my mind around the numerous failures of the Bush administration. But, I guess as long as he and his supporters retain the ability to deny reality, he is destined to be remembered as a great leader...in their minds anyway. If you want to know how he'll be remembered in the future...My guess is as the president that was asleep at the switch. Or possibly, pass the buck Bush. My opinion anyway. Civilly yours, Mone1305
I think that Bush is a horrible leader. With that said may I add that I thought that Kerry was a non-leader who would have surrended to the french and Clinton was a traitor for giving our missle and space technology to China. We need another Truman, a democrat, or Ronnie: the last great president,a republican. Steve: I don't like the Bears, or the cubs. But I will root for the white sox.
Maybe we just expect too little of our leaders these days. I don't remember the last election where I wasn't choosing from the lesser of two evils. It seems with each successive election, the leadership gets more and more pathetic. Not just in this country but in most if not all of the major political powers in the world. The biggest fools out there are the people that are so blind that they throw their unyielding support behind one party or the other with the unquestioning belief that their choice is the only possible choice and the other guy is pure evil. It sort of reminds me of the way teenagers think. Black or white? Good or evil? War is peace...and from there, slips off into an Orwellian abyss Yes, there have been great leaders in the past but the truth of the matter is that whether or not they were truly great really depends on which side you’re on and who got to write the history. Historical spin drives historians crazy. These days, people can't wait for history to decide what will be thought of them so they manufacture the image and market it like so much merchandise. Prepackaging our view of historical events can only push us further from the truth and closer to our own undoing. All those that ambled along like a herd of sheep will be the ones asking most vocally "How did this happen". Hopefully there will be someone left to say, "You got the kind of leaders you asked for".
Just curious, but do you remember the last time you had any thing positive to say about any of them? When? What might that have been?
Hatred is always based on emotion. Support for someone or an idea is usually based on a foundation of knowledge.
Any of who? Political leaders? If you look back a few short posts, I said some kind things about George Bush. Now I'm curious...Have you ever posted a comment in this forum without assuming the moral high-ground? Emphasis on ASSUMING.
I did as you requested and looked back for some of that praise you heaped upon our President. Found a few and here they are: “he’ll (President Bush) be remembered...as the president that was asleep at the switch.” “Or possibly, pass the buck Bush.” “I just can't put the word "Leader" and George Bush together in my mind.” “He (President Bush) and his administration have been asleep at the switch at every possible moment in both terms.” If slamming President Bush wasn’t enough, you went after those who support him in his efforts. Remember this: “I guess as long as he (President Bush) and his supporters retain the ability to deny reality, he is destined to be remembered as a great leader...in their minds anyway. ( I underlined the only praise you gave) Guess I would have to agree with QD when he said, “Support for someone or an idea is usually based on a foundation of knowledge.” As for assuming “high-ground”, I have but one answer. It would seem that those who are the most defensive are the people who assume someone else is doing a better job of exactly what they are attempting to do when responding to forum posts.
We had 8 years of Bill Clinton who would bite his lower lip and state, "I feel your pain". He would talk about action, but that is all he did...talk. "Don't make me mad or I will bomb a few warehouses on Sunday morning...just make sure nobody is there." Give me a man that acts instead of speaks. You may not like his actions, but at least Bush acted on 14 U.N. resolutions and countless, "Do make me mad" condemnations. When you are dealing with the "religion of peace", actions speak louder than words. The only thing this part of the world knows is violence as words or threats are basically laughed at. Think about this...if Bush had done nothing and terrorists linked to Iraq attacked us...YOU would be going crazy that he was not defending the United States as per the oath he swore upon when he took office. And yes...the 9/11 commission report has a number of links between islamic terrorists and Sadaam's government so we punched him before he could set his sights on our homeland. Evil wins when goods does nothing. At least somebody is not going to wait for France or Germany to give us premission and that is good enough for me. The rest of you can try to "talk" with the religion of peace, but for me...that area of the world is the cancer of the world and needs to go.
Now if I think harder, Ford did a great job for the job he had and that was a transitional president and if one looks at Nixon's record he really was a great president as well. Remember he did not order the Watergate breakin he just thought the whole matter would go away until it took a life of itself. Now why do I think that Nixon was great. Off the top of my head 1. Under his direction the RICO act was installed as a tool to attack organized crime. But then he had his own problems so his administration never had the chance to push it (Wasn't used till many years later under Guliano's direction as top Fed prosecuter in Southern New York. 2. Going into his second term, Nixon spoke of the importance not being dependent on Mideast oil and the dangers of feeding so much cash to the mideast for it's oil. 3. He bombed north vietnam one christmas as a message of what we can do. Perhaps if the press didn't attack this measure, we could have done more bombings and won the war as a stalemate instead he took what he could get and got us out of vietnam. 4. He sent troops, some air power, covertly to fight Pol Pot in Cambodia. Turns out Pol Pot won when our press and druggies got us out and over a million Cambodians were killed by Pol Pot for he wanted a mindless society were he was the only brian. So he killed teachers, doctors, accountents, small business owners, anyone who wore glasses, etc... He even killed the hookers. That one I even couldn't figure out. Oh they were small business owners, silly me. 5, He made terms with Mainland China, a reality we needed to face, but the terms were we were still numero uno and hands off of Tawain. The list goes on and on.
Well I hate to quote myself but if I could broaden your selective reading a tiny bit you could see the following content: "I believe that he (George Bush) has a reasonable amount of personal resolve and strong personal convictions...” That comment wasn't followed by anything nearly as flattering but it WAS a compliment just the same. You see, I don't see Bill Clinton or George Bush as polar opposites. They both have good points and bad points. It's just harder for those on political crusades to acknowledge this fact. Bill Clinton did a lot of wonderful things for this country and a lot of embarrassing things to the office of the presidency. George Bush did a lot of wonderful things for the wealthiest Americans in this country and also sent a hell of a lot of young people to their deaths in a questionable war. Am I understanding you correctly that ANY criticism of the president is wrong? I hope that isn't what you are saying. That would be seriously disturbing. "Guess I would have to agree with QD when he said, “Support for someone or an idea is usually based on a foundation of knowledge.” I guess you are saying that if I don't support George Bush I am lacking in knowledge or just plain stupid. Could not that same knowledge base lead me to a different conclusion? I also don't understand why you launched this personal attack on me. I spoke/wrote a very generally worded critique that didn't attack anyone specifically. I purposefully spoke about the perception of some as not to offend anyone specifically but struck a nerve in you anyway. For this I am sorry. What I am not sorry about is my personal perception of the reality of the current political situation. I call it as I see, feel, and experience it with no apologies. If that touches a raw nerve in you that forces you to attack me on a personal level, well, maybe you should examine your own unresolved issues. You said: "As for assuming “high-ground”, I have but one answer. It would seem that those who are the most defensive are the people who assume someone else is doing a better job of exactly what they are attempting to do when responding to forum posts". I'm not the one who tries to sum up the people here that put themselves and their opinions out there with one or two glib sentences. Several of us write at length about our personal philosophies just to be sniped at by the great gray breaded one on top of Olympus. I'd like to see you put yourself out there for a change. You're not doing a job at all...You're phoning it in.
"phoning it in"...was that a personal attack? I'm not one to do personal attacks on you or anyone else on this forum. Could this be your immagination running overtime? In fact, I'm just a little bit sorry for anyone so insecure that they make dubious assertions just to spread their brand of negativeness. oops, there I go again, using that moral high-ground... sorry about that, didn't mean to upset you again.
The problem with most political discussions is that most people don't seem to know enough to formulate non-emotional, factual, arguments. Political discussions ought to be framed in accurate historical perspectives, with factual citations and references. No one who has a historical perspective of our current situation could possibly blame G.W. Bush. His response to Islamic terrorism is unprecendented in modern American history. You have to go back to the Barbary Pirates for comparison. The problem I have in laying out a thorough and concise argument is that to do so would require several hours of compilation and references. I am doing it now, but it takes time. Many people in Europe and America conveniently forget the chronic indiference that principle players in the Clinton Administration and in Europe showed in retarding the proliferation of ballistic missiles and advanced weapons in the third world. The Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, and Pakistanis each provided significant help to Iran in their quest to develop ballistic missiles and atomic weapons. Clinton basically sold the American farm to the Chinese communists. Now G.W. Bush has to deal with the worldwide problems. The terror situation as it exists today is the result of many events and expedient (poor) political decisions. In good faith, Bush is attempting to deal with issues and problems that have been ignored since the Jimmy Carter years. It is a very complicated situation.
You guys Bledsoe much the last few seasons, its about time the Bills management woke up and stopped the hemeraging With crack(at every bit of preasure)shot out of the way, you may have a ray of hope.....until Tom Brady comes to town
