What next goal is Bush?
 

I am afraid if the North Korea is nest one. Then I don't know if we wil help NK to fight with the USA. I don't hope any war break out again. Every soldier is mother and father's child. I don't want to see the depressed faces and many people lose their home.

It seems like the idea of using regional players to apply pressure against N. Korea is working.

I doubt the Bush doctrine of preemption applies to NK ... They don't seem to have the same connections to terrorism that were vaunted in Iraq.

-sm

I agree, Billy. I hate the way Bush is going around bullying everyone, trying to "clean up" the world.

It's all about fear. Many people in America have been whipped up into a frenzy of fear ever since the World Trade Center attack. It was only one attack, not likely to be duplicated again, but when people are gripped with fear, they don't listen to reason. Then, the fear brings on mass paranoia, and people start looking for other potential threats.

It's all really stupid, and I can't wait to vote against Bush next year.

I agree with you, Juju
 

Juju, I like what you said. The war can not resolve problems. The peaceful dialogue only have influence on problems. Bush would build bad relations with many countries.

The Iraqi war has solved a number of really terrible problems.

Many people died in the war
 

In fact, there may be few terrorists in Iraq. They would escape other countries before the war.

The truth is that more than 100 the US and UK army soldiers diead. More Iraqi everage people have no houses to come back, many people died and lost their families. I would cried when I saw the children wound and died. My heart broke and I can do nothing. Bless God for the peaceful world.

The only problem the Iraq war has solved is the human rights abuses permitted and endorsed by Saddam Hussein's regime. This is the one great, good thing that has come from this war.

Other than that, we are in deeper water now than we were a couple years ago.

The King is dead! Long live George! World domination is too good for you French-loving, anti-American, pro-Hussein Commu-Terrorists.

Hm. Politics forum. Maybe sarcasm's not the way to go.

Don't mind me. I'm just bitter I missed The Daily Show.

Iran anyone?
 

HAHAHA! And the idiocy within the Administration rearts its ugly head once again!
I'm a cynic of sorts, and as I read the rhetoric coming out of the White House right now, I think, "Come on, no one is going to buy this shit for a THIRD time are they!?" The only problem is, it worked the first two times. Crap on a crutch.
Anyone want to place bets on when GWB overextends himself and the Armed Forces take it on the nose because they don't have enough folks where they need them?

Just exactly how much North Korea is a threat is debatable, but Bush and company know Kim Jong-Il has the firepower to back up his threats, so force is not an option. If North Korea does anything overtly stupid, I don't think China would step in to defend them.

China seems much more interested in trade than anything else right now. And, NO, the spyplane did NOT almost start a war with China. It was at worst an international incident. Once again, America and China were more interested in peace and trade.

I don't think anyone is going to stand for Bush "freeing" any more middle eastern countries. The result in Iraq, although good in the long run, was possible only because no one liked or would overtly support Saddam Hussein.

Wow, that's the most naive comment I've heard in a long time. What expert intelligence information do you have access to that suggests such an attack could not likely be duplicated? Please, do share.

"Permitted and endorsed"? You make it sound so passive. We took out a murdering, torturing, power-hungry despot and his cronies. Although hundreds of innocent civilians were probably injured or killed during the war, that pales in comparison to how many would have been beaten, tortured, raped, and killed had we done nothing. That alone justifies the relatively small price of going to war.

And how exactly are we in "deeper water" now? Care to be a little more specific?

Were you referring to the collateral count here? If so I agree. If not, I don't think we know what the "cost" is yet.:confused:

I think it would be more important to ask "What are the goals of Bush's advisors?" Bush picked a lot of 'seasoned' policy makers, some of whom served with his father.

One reason 'nice guy' presidents like Carter, Reagan, and now G.W. Bush have problems is that they really seem to have a hard time with the issue of 'hidden agenda'. While some people had a real problem with 'slick Willy' Clinton, I think that most people would agree that Clinton was clever enough to take opinions from those around him in context to the person holding them. He led his advisors instead of being led by them.

A nice guy like G.W. Bush has a lot of friends, many of whom are influential and powerful business leaders. He has staffed himself with older, powerful men, some of whom have some very solidified views on the future of the US in the world. It would take a very clever, self-assured, and disciplined individual to be able to listen to all sides, find the shades of gray in what can be presented as black-and-white issues, reject the advice of men his father trusted and respected, and even accept compromise when necessary.

I personally don't think G.W. Bush has the chops for it. Which makes me look more to his trusted advisors on future US policy. The only problem is that the men and women who are the voices of moderation, compromise, and de-escalation, are people like Powell, who, while a very competent general, is inexperienced in the position for which he has been chosen and who, in my opinion, is not being listened to enough.

I will grant that almost all US presidents go in weak on foreign policy. You can pick a governor or someone in the national and state legislature, and that person will have had experience with domestic issues. But unless you automatically elect a former US vice president or someone who was on the right Congressional committees, it is hard to find a candidate with a lot of foreign policy experience.

So most presidents need advice on foreign policy. The only problem is that I think this adminstration is taking less and less foreign policy advice from the state department and more from the pentagon and the hawkish crowd of conservative freaks that make up GWB's inner circle.

BTW, I have full ranting rights here because I am eligible to vote and choose to do so. I my opinion, anyone who can vote and chooses not to shouldn't gripe too loud or too often about the choices of the rest of us who did. The hard core conservatives will certainly be bringing out the vote. If moderates and liberals do not have the will to match them, then by Darwinian rules they deserve to win. I do not even suggest that the person vote for the candidate most likely to beat GWB in the next election. Just that they make a public choice and vote their conscience.

Kudos! I believe you've nailed it.:beer:
I've had people tell me they don't vote because their vote doesn't make any difference. When I point out Florida and other even closer examples, they often admit to not really digging into the issues. I tell them to just pick out the main points and make their decision on them. Even if you get it wrong, at least a good turnout may convince the pols that we are watching what they do.

I have no idea what the White House dynamic is, or what it was under Clinton.

The defence industry news (some writing for and some writing about) have been talking about who's got the clout of the week, at the White House. Both between state dept and the military and between factions of the military. Also struggles between the Defence dept and the Pentagon. I think Richlevy has a pretty good handle on it.

Yes, I was just referring to the collateral count. That's the only one that we can really nail down right now. And I can't argue that this assessment may turn out to be wrong.

As far as dollar cost, yeah it will be a lot, but not unjustifiable. We likely won't know of other costs for years to come, but my impression so far is that our relationship with the middle east in general hasn't really gotten worse. Of course that may change if we mismanage the aftermath and cleanup.

I've heard this argument many times before, and I don't buy it -- that G.W. is a mental lightweight who just surrounds himself with smart people. Some of his advisors may know more than he does in their areas of interest, but that's why they're advisors.

The impression that I get is that he's in complete control of his administration. They put on the face that he wants them to. Of course, we can read all the "inside accounts" we want to, but none of us will never know what actually goes on behind the closed doors in the White House. But that's my impression, and I haven't seen anything that changes it.

Quote:

I think that most people would agree that Clinton was clever enough to take opinions from those around him in context to the person holding them.

Um, what? How do you purport to know what "context" Clinton took advice from his staff under, and what makes you think "most people" agree with you?

It's true that none of us know exactly what goes on, and have to make our own impressions. I see a one-track, confrontational White House controlled by ultra-nationalistic hawks. You see whatever you see. The reason I believe that Clinton was the better politician is that even his enemies acknowleged that he was clever. If you look at Reagan, for example, and Iran-Contra, you see a man who did not appear to be in control, who 'forgot' signing off on a covert operation to sidestep a congressional ban using funds from arms sold to 'terrorists', including testimony from a trusted aide.

The toughest situation Clinton had was an impeachment based on lying about receiving oral sex. Susan MacDougal served 22 months for contempt and never gave up Clinton.

It's obvious that Clinton, for all of his personal misconduct, ran a better office and commanded better personal loyalty than Reagan.

Now we are beginning to see resignations from the Bush White House. The key ones will be the moderate advisors, who may give up if they feel shut out of the situations that develop. I think that Powell was overidden on Iraq. He is the one person in the White House who still has a great deal of credibility in the Middle East, even though he has no experience in the State Department. He is probably hanging on to see if the "Road Map" will work.

This is the most confrontational posture the US has taken since the Cuban Missile Crisis. 9/11 gave the government a blank check in terms of security and foreign policy and they stretched it to the limit. You might consider this unwavering resolve and singlemindedness decisive leadership, but I see it as signs of loss of balance in the advice being given in the White House. What you see as a strength, I see as an unhealthy fixation.

Because hindsight is 20/20, we constantly hear "if we had done (fill blank) back then, we wouldn't be having (fill blank) now". Well duh, no shit.
If someone or something is a threat to the U.S., then I say crush them/it like a bug as soon as possible. But having said that, I worry about the administrations perception of what is/will be/might be a threat. That's not a distrust of Bush but accepting how difficult a task it is.
It would be stupid for me to think, no matter how many sources I check, I have all the information available to Bush & Co. The only thing I can do is pay my taxes and watch what happens. Then if I think they're screwing up, vote against them.
Oh my goodness, what's a voter to do?

I think this article by Ron Suskind is interesting. Its gives a bit of gossipy, but I think fairly credible insight into Bush's West Wing and the influence of Karl Rove, with some comparisons to the Clinton administration. http://ronsuskind.com/writing/esquir...rove_0103.htmlSuskind Article

The main critique is based on a letter from John DiIulio to Suskind, apparently a bold desire to address the power of Rove.
the letter

These articles both relate to Bush's domestic policy/political machinery, a source of great concern to me as a citizen and voter, -. Particularly the proposed dismantling to impoverished state control the ridiculously cost effective and stunningly successful Head Start. No Child Left Behind? Yeah, right.

A Bush administration guy tells a journalist that the Bush administration admires the Clinton White House's ability to avoid politics in constructing policy. The journalist writes a story about it, and then the administration guy takes it all back. Hmmm.

But "Natural" didn't refer to Clinton's ability to write policy. Clinton's natural ability was that of the consummate politician, who could walk into any room, determine exactly what that room wanted to hear, and then TELL them exactly that. Klein was the guy who basically revealed circa 1993 that Clinton A) was relentlessly political and B) a total horn-dog who took any and every opportunity to hit on anything that moved, even during the campaign.

Suskind's article rings true in the dynamic of campaigns. The politician is the nice guy everyone loves. The political consultants and other staffers are the ones who are relentlessly and ruthlessly political. The candidates understand the game and are mostly concerned with message and fundraising. The real dirty stuff happens one layer down, or up depending on how you think of it.

Clinton improved the economy progress
 

Little Bush improve the weapon progress. I think in the future the world would produce more weapon for hisaction. It is a bad news for all of us.

Clinton had a good relation with China. In his duty time I can easily apply one USA visa. Now we difficultly get one. The good relation help two side economy and culture progress.

Re: Clinton improved the economy progress
 

You can blame the visa situation on 9/11. I agree that visas should be checked more carefully. I go to Irish/British/Celtic music events, and at least one had to be called off because the visa processing took much longer than expected.

As far as weapons proliferation, I think the war in Iraq will cause problems since WMD's will now be considered the only adequate deterrents to U.S. invasion. Every country in the world is going to want their own little 'peacekeeper'.

I don't follow you logic. Quite the contrary, WOMD have proved to be a magnet for attack.

...or the potential to be close to almost nearly having WMD when you are deemed to be nuts and angry.

TMD/NMD would upgrade the world weapon
 

The enemy would build more powerful weapon to attack the USA if the USA have NMD program. Soon and soon the weapon upgrade. At last it make us live one more dangerous world.

No, I don't agree.

Read Derelection of Duty.

Get back to us after ...

From Amazon.com is this telling little information:
Its rather difficult to give the book any credibity when those who buy the book clearly have that right wing extremist Replublican agenda. Even worse, the guy retired as only a Lt Colonel? Does the name Lt Colonel Oliver North sound familiar?

He could not even get full bird Colonel? Most good military men with lifetime service at least become Brigader Generals. He could not even become a fully bird Colonel. How then is he considered inciteful enough to write a book? Every 20 year military officer I went to school with retired full bird or higher. The author has a credibility problem.

Those Amazon lists are a sales ploy. What they think you might fall for. I've seen some pretty bizarre lists that are no way in hell related to the feature choice. Example, Dr Seuss and Anal sex.

Perhaps the Lt Col wasn't a good military man and got busted for doing the right thing instead of sucking up.(pun intended)

Clearly, huh? How do you <B>clearly</B> know the agendas of the people who buy his book? Maybe they're a bunch of liberals doing a report for class on the "other" side. If that is all the evidence you need to make a "clear" conclusion, many of your other arguments make much more sense now.

At any rate, what bearing does any of that have on the book's credibility?

Quote:

He could not even get full bird Colonel? Most good military men with lifetime service at least become Brigader Generals.

What rank did you retire at?

Hmmm, angry Lt. Col. So if he's upset about Clinton forgetting the codes, where's the expose from the Reagan White House about the president being so out of it he didn't remember ordering an unconstitutional covert operation?

Finding someone in the military who liked Clinton, or any Democrat, is always going to be tough. Deserved or not, Democrats have the reputation for not being as hawkish as Republicans. Personally, I can live with that. Most of what keeps this country together is domestic issues, like keeping deficits down and employment up.

I still find it amazing that a president who was in a virtual coma in his last years in office is remembered fondly. Conservatives always accused Hillary of having too much say in the White House. At least she didn't do it by consulting a psychic like Nancy Reagan.

As far as the accusation about the Clinton administration helping to release one of the 9/11 terrorists, I'll place it in context with the Bush administration mishandling intelligence on the actual attack and the Reagan administration helping to train Bin Laden. It would be nice if there really were psychics to tell us where our actions would lead. Unfortunately, there aren't.

Most of the accusations against Clinton boil down to this, the man is a natural politician. This is both an insult and a credit. G.W. Bush may be an honest man, but he is not a politician. This is both an accolade and a criticism. Because sometimes you need a politician to help keep the wheels on.

Bush is trying to spend his way out of the hole we are in by racking up a massive debt. Our credibility with our allies and neutrals is at a historic low.

Clinton may have been a morally-challenged sneak, but he was our morally-challenged sneak and he racked up less of a body count in 8 years than Bush has in 3. We were able to aid Kosovo without taking responsibility for rebuilding an entire country while Bush has us trying to rebuild two nations.

I'm sure that Clinton really pissed off the Lt. Col. Truman pissed off McArthur even more. Good presidents are not warriors. We are one of the few countries of the world in which the Commander-in-Chief is usually a civilian with no military training. We are also one of the few countries whose military swears an oath to a Constitution and not an individual, because that is their job.

The military is supposed to defend this country and the Constitution. The whole point is for us to win the peace.

9/11 was a shock, but our reaction has not improved the world's stability. I am personally very happy that Iraq is liberated, and I did not like the Taliban at all, but the future price will be high in terms of our credibility. We had more substantial links to Bin Laden than Hussein did, at least when he was a mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and yet we tried to sell the terrorist connection as an excuse for the invasion.

G.W. Bush is a very action-oriented president, and I'm sure that some military men are happy to be able to do something, go somewhere. But the more time our troops are out of this country, the more time they are away from their real job, which is winning the peace by being productive at home.

BTW, I'm not up on code of conduct, but if I remember correctly, members of the military may not publicly criticize their Commander-in-Cheif while in uniform. This means that any President, even Clinton, can always be guaranteed a warm welcome in public by uniformed servicemen and women. It's an easy play. One of the great sacrifices members of the armed forces make is in accepting less of the privileges and protections civilians take for granted while in uniform, including the first amendment. In extreme cases, this has even meant being used as lab rats in experiments with radiation and drugs with maybe an apology years later.

BTW, I heard that the Bush adminstration is cutting veterans benefits. I guess he has to pay for that tax cut somewhere.

Anyway, I know that it has become very stylish to praise the armed forces, but I really do want to thank them. I believe that the Constitution is the greatest American document, and I still remember some of the words to the loyalty oath I swore more than two decades ago (no, I was never in uniform). The Declaration of Independence is ok, but as we can see all around us, it doesn't take much to tear something down in a revolution. Its what gets built in its place that really counts.

I keep hearing Clinton was a bum because he got a blow job or two. As I remember, at the time, the rest of the world didn't give a shit. As a matter of fact they were laughing at us for the whole Bruhaha.
Yeah, I know he lied. He lied when people were asking questions that were none of their business.

Top military people loved Clinton because he got many of their defective weapons systems working (B-1 bomber, B-2 bomber, Patriot missile system, useless aircraft carriers were finally made functional and finally got an airplane that could attack something, etc). Clinton also asked the right questions in meetings. He made, what they regard, as good, decisive, and explicit decisions on Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. Military brass likes that. Clinton kept the US out of boondoggles such as Somolia. Clinton advocated the Powell doctrine which military brass likes.

But relations between the George Jr administration and military are quite foul. Administration had to go to find a new Chairman for the Joint Chiefs. Every current three and four star general was considered unacceptable to this administration. They had to get a general out of retirement because relations between the George Jr administration and military are that foul. Relations between the current joint chief and George Jr administration is about a foul as can be as demonstrated by how often the military opinion had to be expressed among the ranks of retired military personnel.

We know the Joint Cheif Chairman was correct when he said we needed up to 200,000 troops in Iraq to maintain order. Third and Fourth Infantry and 101st Airborne have their tours of duty extended 3 more months because not enough troops were sent - as the joint cheifs predicted and as this administration poo-pooed. Since the Iraq war, we have increased (not decreased) troop strength to 150,000 because as Central Command general said but a few weeks ago - the war is still not over regardless of what the administration is telling the Pentagon. Even worse, we don't have the right troops for the job. Heavy infantry is not trained for civilian affairs and police functions.

Relations between this adminstration and the military are quite foul. Some of what Rumsfled is doing is quite necessary and long overdue. But to say the miliatry likes George Jr over Clinton is totally erroneous. They loved Clinton at the highest levels because the got what they wanted most - except a defense budget larger than any cold war budget. But under Clinton, the military became more agile and more competent with less troops and material. Why could the new military operate in Afganistan? Clinton got them the transports they needed and the advanced weapons they preferred. Military liked both Clinton and George Sr. better than this George Jr administration.

On the contrary, it seems that oil proved to be a magnet for attack - lack of WMDs could not deter and attack. North Korea had nothing to worry about - since they already posses WMDs.