| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Bush a man for his time |
| 2004-10-04 |
| Article from a think tank. Ignoring the fact that the think tank is defeatist regards Iraq and thus suggests Bush is bad, the analysis suggests the thinking president will have problems deciding where as Bush will act and do it. Now of us who thinks that this is what is needed then the only thing is to make sure the intelligence to Bush is right and he will act. So far the intelligence has been crap. Hopefully it will improve and the war will be won. One can be sure that if Kerry wins things will heat up all over the place just to test him. Where as if Bush gets it then things may cool down as the resolve of the US citizen will have been proven. Heaven help us if Kerry wins. America will have been defeated by its own. Just like the Tet offensive did back then, and Somalia and Beirut |
| Posted by:Dave |
| #5 This reminds me of William Manchester's characterization of Churchill as a believer in "the supreme virtue of action." Kerry is a believer in the supreme virtue of inaction. Or, as one of our regulars put it here a few months ago, the man who does nothing, does nothing wrong. Which is why Kerry loves the UN so much: once you dump a problem in the UN's lap, you can be sure that no action whatsoever will be forthcoming. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-10-04 1:09:20 PM |
| #4 What really brought me up short while reading this "analysis" was the statement that Kerry "does not choose sides on the basis of a clearly defined ideology". Huh? Kerry is a Democrat. He is a Massachussetts liberal. He is a Progressive (i.e., a Commie wearing a smiley-face mask). He is a leftist peacenik, molded in the anti-Vietnam War Movement, the Nuclear Freeze Movement, and the pro-Sandinista movement in Congress back in the 80's. He is, and has been at least as far back as his 1971 Senate "testimony", an ardent "World Government" advocate who wants U.S. military forces to be directed by the U.N. To say he doesn't adhere to a "clearly defined ideology" is clueless, at best. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-10-04 11:28:26 AM |
| #3 What a putrid bunch of hooey. Nineteen UN resolutions is too few and not enough certainty for an invasion of a historically belligerent country that straddles some of the biggest oil fields in the world? This "analyst" must not have heard about the invasions of Panama, Grenada and the Dominican Republic, none of which involved UN resolutions (this doesn't even cover the whole list of pre-emptive American interventions). Pre-emption is in the American tradition. The problem is that Bush I made it somehow illegitimate by going to the UN in order to shill for a few tens of billions of dollars to pay for Desert Storm. I can not understate the extent to which Bush I screwed up American foreign policy by going the multilateral route. Bush I was almost worse than Jimmy Carter in this respect, by establishing a precedent of going the UN route that has throttled America's freedom of action. This time around, Bush II went the UN route and got bupkis for his efforts. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-10-04 10:50:16 AM |
| #2 That is a realistic succinct analysis. All hell will break loose. We will be tested across the globe. |
| Posted by: John (Q. Citizen) 2004-10-04 10:29:54 AM |
| #1 "One can be sure that if Kerry wins things will heat up all over the place just to test him." That's stating it VERY mildly; I'd put it more like "all Hell's gonna break loose." And they won't just be testing him, either; they'll be playing for keeps. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2004-10-04 10:24:02 AM |