[richlevy]

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.