Bush's critics criticize so many things about him: he's not smart, he looks goofy, he takes a long vacation at his ranch when he should work in Washington. He mixes religion and politics too freely. His supporters mix religion and politics too freely. He's not articulate. Okay, so we know you don't like the guy. None of these criticisms is relevant. None of them gets at the question of results. None of them evaluates the president's performance with the single standard that matters: do his policies accomplish what the president himself says he wants to accomplish?
Let's take Bush's predecessor for purposes of comparison. A lot of people didn't like Clinton. He played around with an intern in the White House while his wife was traveling and lied about it. He did a lot of other dumb things before and after he became president, mostly because he couldn't keep his pants zipped up. Clinton admired Kennedy's leadership, and he seemed to emulate Kennedy's treatment of women, too. But no one that I know of ever said that Clinton was incompetent. Whatever you thought of his private missteps, he clearly knew how to do the job. It didn't matter whether he was a Baptist or a Catholic, whether he'd been a Rhodes scholar or a C student, whether he took long vacations or short ones. Not once during the impeachment proceedings did Clinton's opponents in Congress claim that he was incompetent.
Bush as a leader is clearly out of his depth. He cannot reason his way from the situation we are in to a desired outcome. The people he has selected to help him cannot do it either. The things he says are not true. He makes things up. Few people trust him. He's untrustworthy not because he's a schemer and a double-crosser, but because he doesn't know how to make judgments about the information he receives. He's energetic and he's shrewd about how to appeal to people's fears and prejudices, but he has poor political judgment. Poor judgment leads to a host of failures and deficiencies. Among other things, it explains why Bush's statements about the war in Iraq have so little connection with what's real.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Cult of Death Revisited
Hello Steve,
It is interesting to revisit what you wrote in Sept/04. Some comments: The enemy has no "organisation" - just separate little cabals of fanatics - except they are larger in Iraq - we are fighting them where they are - and thus we are attracting them to where we are in Iraq - including here in the US and UK - they will come here anyway - they have not been at all deterred from that - so we wait.
We effectively destroyed any willingness of other countries to help us - the fanatics are too separate to destroy their arms - they have no central base except maybe a supply of explosives - we would be surprised I believe to find out who is supplying them - you cannot destroy a fanatic's morale - they have cell fones and the internet to communicate - and they can act wherever and whenever they please because they are not cohesive - and finally - we know very little about who - when - where - etc, and no way of finding out anything definitive.
We are in a terrible mess - I don't think even 500,000 troops on the ground in Iraq would solve it - things would have been solved to some extent had we stayed in Afghanistan and neutered Osama.
Al Greffenius
This article by David Brooks on the attack in Beslan is good. So is the article by Paul Krugman, also published today at http://nytimes.com.
If our enemies are as Brooks describes them, and he describes them accurately, here are the implications for the war we are in:
- We have to destroy our enemies' organization, not arrest or kill them one by one.
- We have to fight our enemies where they are, not wait for them to come to us.
- We have to have much assistance from other countries and other organizations to fight and destroy our enemies where they are.
- To defeat this enemy, we have accomplish the same things that warfare has always had to accomplish: disarm the enemy fighters, destroy their morale, destroy their ability to communicate and to act. Usually success in these activities involves killing many fighters, but it also involves sustained operations against the entire enemy organization.
- Lastly, to be successful in any of these things, we have to know our enemies well: where they are, who they are, how they operate, what their plans are, what their strengths and weaknesses are, where their resources are.
All five of these points are so obvious that it feels awkward to write them down. But, since we finished the war in Afghanistan and launched the attack on Iraq, we have not paid attention to any of them.
It is interesting to revisit what you wrote in Sept/04. Some comments: The enemy has no "organisation" - just separate little cabals of fanatics - except they are larger in Iraq - we are fighting them where they are - and thus we are attracting them to where we are in Iraq - including here in the US and UK - they will come here anyway - they have not been at all deterred from that - so we wait.
We effectively destroyed any willingness of other countries to help us - the fanatics are too separate to destroy their arms - they have no central base except maybe a supply of explosives - we would be surprised I believe to find out who is supplying them - you cannot destroy a fanatic's morale - they have cell fones and the internet to communicate - and they can act wherever and whenever they please because they are not cohesive - and finally - we know very little about who - when - where - etc, and no way of finding out anything definitive.
We are in a terrible mess - I don't think even 500,000 troops on the ground in Iraq would solve it - things would have been solved to some extent had we stayed in Afghanistan and neutered Osama.
Al Greffenius
This article by David Brooks on the attack in Beslan is good. So is the article by Paul Krugman, also published today at http://nytimes.com.
If our enemies are as Brooks describes them, and he describes them accurately, here are the implications for the war we are in:
- We have to destroy our enemies' organization, not arrest or kill them one by one.
- We have to fight our enemies where they are, not wait for them to come to us.
- We have to have much assistance from other countries and other organizations to fight and destroy our enemies where they are.
- To defeat this enemy, we have accomplish the same things that warfare has always had to accomplish: disarm the enemy fighters, destroy their morale, destroy their ability to communicate and to act. Usually success in these activities involves killing many fighters, but it also involves sustained operations against the entire enemy organization.
- Lastly, to be successful in any of these things, we have to know our enemies well: where they are, who they are, how they operate, what their plans are, what their strengths and weaknesses are, where their resources are.
All five of these points are so obvious that it feels awkward to write them down. But, since we finished the war in Afghanistan and launched the attack on Iraq, we have not paid attention to any of them.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
CBS News | A Bad Week For Protesting Mom
CBS News | A Bad Week For Protesting Mom | August 16, 2005:
"The campsite has close to a thousand white crosses, each representing GIs who, like Sheehan's son Casey, were killed in Iraq.
While Sheehan has gotten a lot of support in her vigil, and has been joined by dozens of sympathizers, she's also sparked some opposition.
Monday night, a pickup truck tore through the rows of white crosses.
The crosses stretched along the road at the Crawford, Texas, camp, bore the names of fallen U.S. soldiers."
"The campsite has close to a thousand white crosses, each representing GIs who, like Sheehan's son Casey, were killed in Iraq.
While Sheehan has gotten a lot of support in her vigil, and has been joined by dozens of sympathizers, she's also sparked some opposition.
Monday night, a pickup truck tore through the rows of white crosses.
The crosses stretched along the road at the Crawford, Texas, camp, bore the names of fallen U.S. soldiers."
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Someone Tell the President the War Is Over - Frank Rich
Someone Tell the President the War Is Over - New York Times
What lies ahead now in Iraq instead is not victory, which Mr. Bush has never clearly defined anyway, but an exit (or triage) strategy that may echo Johnson's March 1968 plan for retreat from Vietnam: some kind of negotiations (in this case, with Sunni elements of the insurgency), followed by more inflated claims about the readiness of the local troops-in-training, whom we'll then throw to the wolves. Such an outcome may lead to even greater disaster, but this administration long ago squandered the credibility needed to make the difficult case that more human and financial resources might prevent Iraq from continuing its descent into civil war and its devolution into jihad central.
Thus the president's claim on Thursday that "no decision has been made yet" about withdrawing troops from Iraq can be taken exactly as seriously as the vice president's preceding fantasy that the insurgency is in its "last throes." The country has already made the decision for Mr. Bush. We're outta there. Now comes the hard task of identifying the leaders who can pick up the pieces of the fiasco that has made us more vulnerable, not less, to the terrorists who struck us four years ago next month.
What lies ahead now in Iraq instead is not victory, which Mr. Bush has never clearly defined anyway, but an exit (or triage) strategy that may echo Johnson's March 1968 plan for retreat from Vietnam: some kind of negotiations (in this case, with Sunni elements of the insurgency), followed by more inflated claims about the readiness of the local troops-in-training, whom we'll then throw to the wolves. Such an outcome may lead to even greater disaster, but this administration long ago squandered the credibility needed to make the difficult case that more human and financial resources might prevent Iraq from continuing its descent into civil war and its devolution into jihad central.
Thus the president's claim on Thursday that "no decision has been made yet" about withdrawing troops from Iraq can be taken exactly as seriously as the vice president's preceding fantasy that the insurgency is in its "last throes." The country has already made the decision for Mr. Bush. We're outta there. Now comes the hard task of identifying the leaders who can pick up the pieces of the fiasco that has made us more vulnerable, not less, to the terrorists who struck us four years ago next month.
Post at http://blog.radioleft.com
Radio Left :: Will the Media Marginalize Cindy Sheehan At Some Point?: "Re: Will the Media Marginalize Cindy Sheehan At Some Point?
by iluvbush at 04:16PM (CDT) on Aug 13, 2005
Re: Will the Media Marginalize Cindy Sheehan At Some Point?
by iluvbush at 04:16PM (CDT) on Aug 13, 2005
this woman cimdy is mentally ill it is against the law to exploit such persons you left winged animals have also lost your minds as well your promoting such a thing is just wrong and unjust it is clear by most people that she is in fact mentally ill how does one sit there placing irational demands on our great president as far as her son being killed in the war that is the chance that all americans take when they infact join the military at times people die during a war thousands of people have died for many centuries in the usa fighting in war how many people do you actually think have reacted the way in which cindy is acting none besides her this is an outrageous example of your liberal stance on all things you liberals are so non reality based that it is just unamerican we as americans when we are small children are generally taught that tamtrums are not appropriate nor are demands i mean what will you and other lib organizations encourage next her to take someone hostage i am just annoyed and now on your homepage you are asking for air time on the media why would you promote such crap that is in fact what you are doing
most importantly cindy will soon end up in the psych ward as she clearly needs to be now and later she will lawyer up and sue all of you who have exploited her that is just the way you libs work once you do not get your demands met you then sue i will bet everything i have on the lawsuit happening then again you will all blame our great president for that as well you people are just sick to encourage this woamn who is clearly mentally ill to continue her outrageous behaviors you as humans should be encouraging her to be seen by a shrink instead of promoting your own agenda of bush bashing i also saw no where on your site where you have made any mention of the fact that bush has met with her why has noone mentioned that but that is so typical of you libs to not promote the truth i am so annoyed by your site and failure to state the truth and failure to protect this womans rights as a mentally ill person shame on all involved who continue to exploit her
tina vasudeva-ny email iamsosnobby@aol.com
by iluvbush at 04:16PM (CDT) on Aug 13, 2005
Re: Will the Media Marginalize Cindy Sheehan At Some Point?
by iluvbush at 04:16PM (CDT) on Aug 13, 2005
this woman cimdy is mentally ill it is against the law to exploit such persons you left winged animals have also lost your minds as well your promoting such a thing is just wrong and unjust it is clear by most people that she is in fact mentally ill how does one sit there placing irational demands on our great president as far as her son being killed in the war that is the chance that all americans take when they infact join the military at times people die during a war thousands of people have died for many centuries in the usa fighting in war how many people do you actually think have reacted the way in which cindy is acting none besides her this is an outrageous example of your liberal stance on all things you liberals are so non reality based that it is just unamerican we as americans when we are small children are generally taught that tamtrums are not appropriate nor are demands i mean what will you and other lib organizations encourage next her to take someone hostage i am just annoyed and now on your homepage you are asking for air time on the media why would you promote such crap that is in fact what you are doing
most importantly cindy will soon end up in the psych ward as she clearly needs to be now and later she will lawyer up and sue all of you who have exploited her that is just the way you libs work once you do not get your demands met you then sue i will bet everything i have on the lawsuit happening then again you will all blame our great president for that as well you people are just sick to encourage this woamn who is clearly mentally ill to continue her outrageous behaviors you as humans should be encouraging her to be seen by a shrink instead of promoting your own agenda of bush bashing i also saw no where on your site where you have made any mention of the fact that bush has met with her why has noone mentioned that but that is so typical of you libs to not promote the truth i am so annoyed by your site and failure to state the truth and failure to protect this womans rights as a mentally ill person shame on all involved who continue to exploit her
tina vasudeva-ny email iamsosnobby@aol.com
Friday, August 12, 2005
Why No Tea and Sympathy? - Maureen Dowd
Why No Tea and Sympathy? - New York Times:
"The White House used to be able to tamp down criticism by saying it hurt our troops, but more people are asking the White House to explain how it plans to stop our troops from getting hurt. "
"The White House used to be able to tamp down criticism by saying it hurt our troops, but more people are asking the White House to explain how it plans to stop our troops from getting hurt. "
Thursday, August 11, 2005
George F. Will on the 1980 Presidential Debate
George F. Will: Carter wrong to accuse me of stealing his briefing book: "Even though, as a columnist, my support for Reagan was well-known, my participation in his debate preparation was as inappropriate as it was superfluous -- after three decades of public advocacy, Reagan was ready. "
