NEWS: The Most Compelling Moral Issue of the Day?

I agree with the premise. Unfortunately, if Bush were a SMART and COMPETENT asshole, instead of a STUPID and BUMBLING asshole, he really would be the right guy to fuck over the terrorists. Unfortunately, he has accomplished the almost unbelievable feat of allowing wild-eyed Muslim terrorists who abuse women and strap bombs to children to gain the world's sympathy. In short, Bush is just an in-bred fuck-up. I'll take Plan B (whatever it is).

I'm entirely at a loss as to what evidence there is that Bush may be well suited to solve any pressing problem in the world today.

I mean, really, I just don't get it.

I'm far less worried about Bush being an "asshole", which some might argue is an essential prerequisite for anyone running for national office. I'm far MORE worried about Bush being 15 different shades of incompetent.

the first time I read this, I only got as far as this paragraph:

"We might as well credit the president for his one great accomplishment: replacing but with and as a basis for foreign policy. The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, and we got rid of him. "

before I stopped reading in disgust. Then I figured, 'if I'm going to comment on it, I'd better read the whole thing.'

So I did, and my opinion didn't change. This article might even be reasonable if it didn't completely ignore the fact that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 and that what we're doing in Iraq is so far, only creating more terrorists, giving more people around the globe reason to hate us.

The most frightening thing about this presidency for me has always, even in 2000, been the Bush family's blatent disregard for death tolls in other countries when searching for one trophy leader. Bush Sr. did it in Panama as CIA chief and earned us a rebuke from the U.N. I was afraid from the beginning that his son would pick up where he left off.

I'm from Texas and I understand the impulse to respect those who take the hard line, stay the course, travel the tough road, and come out shining. But there has to be some good reason for any course of action this extreme, and more importantly, there must be a respect for human lives of every color, religion, and nationality. That's what's missing from all of this, and that's what makes this war such a disgrace.

His incompetence and ignorance of the world is what worries me most. He does not and never has had the world view that is necessary to be the President of the United States. Granted, he came into office with the intention of withdrawing America from foreign affairs. Unfortunately, if you want to be a super power you can't pursue isolationalism. I honestly believe that foreign policy was too difficult for him to grasp so he tried to ignore it.

My own impression was that Bush arrived in power with two blueprints for policy:

i) Domestic: "Got some taxes I can cut?"

ii) Foreign: "Got someone I can pick a fight with?"

Of course, he forgot that on (i) the idea of cutting taxes in perpetuity is you're also meant to restrain spending, otherwise you're just shifting the tax burden across time rather than actually reducing it, and on (ii) he tried to turn the situation presented by 9/11 to attack someone he pretty much wanted to attack anyway.

What a guy.

I really don't think his policy position is any more sophisticated than that.

I think the biggest moral issue in America is abortion, but that discussion is best left to another thread.

Interesting article.

The comments posted so far reflect that we have a wide range of worldviews here.

I think that your reaction to this comes down to that. And the weight you put on different issues.

If the problem to sole is "There are too many muslims who, currently, can't really be radicalized into terrorism and we need a plan to push those people off the fence", I'd say he's spot on our man.

If the problem is the impending retirement of the baby boomers and the complete lack of infrastructure being built into the SSA to support this transition in demographics, I'd say we're SOL.

So, recruit teoorists - gets my vote
Keeps me from paying the SSA piper all in one lump sum - no vote

My problem with this article is that the author swallows the baseless presumption that terrorism represents an ideology that can be combated. The difference between the war against fascism that characterized world war 2 and the war on terrorism is that fascism is a belief system, one espoused by multiple governments at the time. It represented a coherent target and one that we knew could potentially be defeated. Terrorism is not any sort of ideology, but instead a methodology. To eliminate terrorism would mean eliminating the circumstances that creates terrorists in the first place. Whether it's economic inequality, political boundary issues or religious differences. It would mean pleasing everyone at once - an unrealistic and naive goal, and one that even if we were to achieve would not be immediately obvious.

I understand the author's perspective. I don't agree, however. Iraq is not the homeland of the terrorist group responsible for the attack on 9/11. W made it clear that the reason we were invading Iraq was to force compliance on the nuclear arms agreement. The proof offered was nothing more than aerial photos with arrows & circles on them. That doesn't hold water. And neither does the author's premise for supporting G.W.!!!! Hundreds of innocent Iraqi citizens are at the mercy of the harsh treatment of our military. What did they do to deserve that? Honestly? Just because they live in another country, whose leadership is too liberal with violence! I think we have no business being over there bombing people & destroying a land we are now "rebuilding". Once we let them alone, they will more than likely fall into the hands of some other violent group or leadership. We should have left them alone. Why America always tries to be the world's watchdog I'll never understand. We've done a poor job on that. There are horrendous crimes that happen in other countries all the time. If we don't have any resources there to be imported, we just leave them to their own discourse.

I totally agree with a few of the other comments here. legionnaire makes a very good point! Terrorism is not found in the ideology of any specific country. It is anywhere & everywhere that people join together under a fanatcism that they believe justifies death- not only of the participants but their unsuspecting victims. The war on terrorism will never be won, in my opinion. That could only happen if people became peaceful worldwide. That isn't going to happen, no matter how much some people wish or pray it to be. People are always combative. It is in our nature.


We did not get rid of Saddam Hussein!! Read this article! He's simply been tucked away in a prison. He could still plot against our leaders or others with cooperation from outsiders. I'm quite surprised that he wasn't shot on site when he was found!

My problem with G.W. is that he has tried (nearly successfully) to dictate what moral values every citizen of this country should have. I find that to be unforgivable, offensive & against the freedoms that our country was founded upon. He has been the most un-American President to date because of that. He has attempted to repress our rights. I want him out of office for that particular reason.

[Edited on Jul 29, 2004 8:42PM]

EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID.

I think that's the world's shortcoming, not Israel's. I mean Bush's.

Isadore

We are the world's watch dog because T. Roosevelt tried to put a check on Japanese Agresion against Russia. We are the World's Watch Dog because every time we have become isolationist since then some really screwed up things have taken place in the world. World War One, the Sino-Japanese War, World War Two, Ethinic Cleansing in many places. Sometimes we try to stay isolationist while at the same time getting involved overseas (Korea and Vietnam).

Sometimes we aren't isolationist and we get involved in the right place at the right time. Kuwait, Somalia and Kosovo in the early 90's. Regardless of how they worked out we needed to be there.

If we don't step in, the rest of the world will hate us. But when we do step in, they hate us. The United States is seen as a force for good and evil by most of the people in the world. But because we are so large and so rich they expect everything to get better the very instant that we begin to act. Whether it be the Peace Corp or a U.S. Army Special Forces ODA (Both projects of JFK) America is reaching out all over the world.

I believe in my heart that pretty much regardless of who is the President that America will generally do the right thing and for the right reasons. Have a lot of bad desions been made over the years by Presidents because of bad inteligence? Yes. Any student of the Cold War knows that. But to call him a fool or worse for believing the people who are 'experts' and who give him their best guess is wrong.

But I guess I hold the average American in a higher light then some of you.

You want to be mad or outraged about something? Read up on what happens in China every day. You want a better future, get out there and protest them. Save your moral outrage for them, don't waste it on the President.

this is news? ...wow. "pundit claims bush is asshole" yeah. i can see it all over the papers.

For the past fifteen years I've been calling for war against Saddam Hussein. I wanted the US and UK to stop pussyfooting about with their constant bombing, and actually get on and do something. The "coalition against terror" was the perfect opportunity, and Bush managed to fuck it up.

Terrorism has increased, the US has lost most of the support it had and, as Souljacker says

What world are you living in? Who the hell sympathizes with Muslim terrorists except violent Muslim fundamentalists themselves?

Sure, there are many of those in the world. But "the world" as a whole definitely has no sympathy for them.

The fact that Bush has a big part in making the world a worse and less safe place is true, but that opinion has - for most people - nothing to do with sympathy for terrorists.

Look at the sympathy that Palestinians get vs Isrealis.

You don't know who Robert Kilroy-Silk is, but here's a link to a story you might find interesting:

BBC report of Killroy-silks anti-arab comments

Contrast that with Tom Paulin who said that Jews in the West Bank are Nazi's and should be shot. He still appears on BBC television.

Your media maybe. Over here there's a lot of support for the Palestinians. Even the terrorist Palestinians.

Huh? Terrorism has increased under Bush. The US lost 'the war against drugs'; 90% of the worlds supply of heroin comes from post-invasion Afghanistan. Why do they think 'the war against terror' will be any different, especially now they've lost sympathy from most Islamic states?

[Edited on Jul 31, 2004 by demetrius_z]

[Edited on Jul 31, 2004 by demetrius_z]

I have to go read it now, but I thought I'd add that this is a rad observation:

(from Sean)
" He has always struck me as a small man, or at least as a man too small for the task at hand, and therefore a man doomed to address the discrepancy between his soul and his situation with displays of political muscle that succeed only in drawing attention to his diminution."

When Bush first went to war in Afghanistan in response to 9/11, pretty much the whole world was behind us. Even most Muslim fundamentalists — even ones who didn't like America — realized that we were well within our rights to strike back against the people who had attacked our country. But now the perception is changing to one where America is the aggressor, and those who fight against America are looking more like brave Davids going up against Goliath.

That's not to say that the majority of people in the world sympathizes with Muslim terrorists, but we're making it a lot easier for them to find sympathy.