Bush or Blair?

[Old Hippie]

"...Ultimately we are all at fault since both countries elect them and/or their parties...."

 

No, we did not elect him!

[chuckwoww]

 

If Bush is as stupid as people say and he's a prop for the neo cons who are pulling the proverbial string and are puppet masters to Bush the puppet, then this country's decline is on a steep decline instead of the gradual one that I thought. He's smarter than we give him credit for. If for nothing else by being smart enough to surround himself with people who are smarter than he is.

 

 

I think Bush has a pretty good idea how US politics work and how to talk to his base. He's not stupid in that respect. And a lot of people like him because he is kinda folksy and anti-intellectual.

 

But he's also ignorant when it comes to foreign affairs and human nature. He thought it was possible to simply depose the Taliban and Saddam and impose US style democracy on the Middle East. He still believes it. OK, maybe it's just good old American optimism but it's not working.

 

[Tiger Moth]

If for nothing else by being smart enough to surround himself with people who are smarter than he is.

 

 

Have to disaIgree with this. All he did was bring back his daddy's old cronies. Hardly intellectually challenging.

 

And, the one independant intelligent voice, one with actual on the ground experience, Colin Powell, was treated with disrespect and ignorned.

 

I can't seem to recall, exactly what military action did W, Cheney, Wolfowitz participate in?>

[zzzz]

"...Ultimately we are all at fault since both countries elect them and/or their parties...."

 

No, we did not elect him!

 

I guess you're referring to the fact that Bush won the last election w/ less than majority of popular votes. Lots of people think that he stole that last election.

 

[Flashermac]

The Democrats should be ashamed for letting the Republicans steal elections. That was always the Democrats forte. Just shows how the Dems are in decline.

 

 

[playtheblues]

The following from an interview with Bush by David Brooks (IHT,

Sep 15, 2006).

 

"A leaderâ??s first job is to project authority, and George Bush certainly does that. In a 90-minute interview with a few columnists in the Oval Office on Tuesday, Bush swallowed up the room, crouching forward to energetically make a point or spreading his arms wide to illustrate the scope of his ideas â?? always projecting confidence and intensity.

 

He opened the session by declaring, â??Let me just first tell you that Iâ??ve never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions,â? and he grew more self-assured from there. I interview politicians for a living, and every time I brush against Bush Iâ??m reminded that this guy is different. Thereâ??s none of that hunger for approval that is common to the breed. This is the most inner-directed man on the globe.

 

The other striking feature of his conversation is that he possesses an unusual perception of time. Washington, and modern life in general, encourages people to think in the short term. But Bush, who stands aloof, thinks in long durations.

 

â??I got into politics initially because I wanted to help change a culture,â? he says, referring to his campaign against the instant gratifications of the 1960â??s counterculture. And he sees his efforts today as a series of long, gradual cultural transformations. Like many executives, he believes that the higher you go, the further into the future you should see, and so his conversation is filled with speculations about the long-term effects of deep social trends â?? the current religious awakening or the politics of volunteer armies.

 

All of which prepares him to think about the war on terror as a generations-long struggle. He asked us to think about what the world could look like 50 years from now, with Islamic radicals either controlling the worldâ??s oil supply or not. â??I firmly believe that some day American presidents will be looking back at this period in time, saying, â??Thank goodness they saw the vision,â?? â? he said.

 

Sitting between busts of Lincoln and Churchill, he continued, â??My hope is to leave behind something â?? foundations and institutions that will enable future presidents to be able to more likely make the tough decisions that theyâ??re going to have to make.â?Â

 

â??Ideological struggles take time,â? he said, explaining the turmoil in Iraq and elsewhere. He said the events of weeks or months were just a nanosecond compared with the long course of this conflict. He was passionate on the need for patience and steadfastness. He talked about â??inviolateâ? principles written upon his heart: â??People want you to change. Itâ??s tactics that shift, but the strategic vision has not, and will not, shift.â?Â

 

He was less personal and less assertive when talking about those tactical decisions made day to day.

 

We are now at a moment when many of the people who support his long-term goals, and who have stuck with him as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, fear the war is irreparably lost. The general view among many Republicans is that Bush set out grand goals, but never committed resources commensurate with the task.

 

Bush was pressed about Iraqi troop levels repeatedly during our interview. His general response was that during Vietnam, tactical decisions were made in the White House. â??I thought it was a mistake then, and I think itâ??s a mistake now.â?Â

 

So on troop levels and other tactical issues, Bush defers to Gen. George Casey, who is in Iraq. He asks questions but does not contradict the experts. If Casey asked for two more divisions tomorrow, Bush would deliver, regardless of the political consequences. But Casey does not ask (and maybe none are available).

 

What if Casey is wrong?

 

â??Then I picked the wrong general,â? Bush says bluntly. â??If heâ??s wrong, Iâ??m wrong.â?Â

 

When asked if he should have expanded the military back in 2003, to give the current commanders more manpower, Bush used words that were uncharacteristically jargon-ridden: â??The notion of warfare has changed, and therefore, weâ??re modulizing the army so that it becomes more operational and easier to move.â? That sounds more like a transformation briefing paper than the president.

 

In other words, when Bush is strategizing goals, he is assertiveness on stilts. When he is contemplating means, he defers to authority.

 

And the sad truth is, there has been a gap between Bushâ??s visions and the means his administration has devoted to realize them. And when tactics do not adjust to fit the strategy, then the strategy eventually gets diminished to fit the tactics.

 

Or worse."

 

"This is the most inner-directed man on the globe" .I think that inner-directedness is a thing he has in common with Blair. But

the question "who is worse" I don´t want to answer, since it implicates that both are "bad". What I can say is that I share the critical view of the NY Times an others on Bush´s Iraq policy, tax cuts and so on.

 

As to Blair, it was not a long time ago since I thought he could become the leader of a modernization of Europe.

[chuckwoww]

I don't think there's any doubt that he has an empirical vision.

[AF16]

Quote : All of which prepares him to think about the war on terror as a generations-long struggle. He asked us to think about what the world could look like 50 years from now, with Islamic radicals either controlling the worldâ??s oil supply or not. â??I firmly believe that some day American presidents will be looking back at this period in time, saying, â??Thank goodness they saw the vision,â?? â? he said.

 

 

 

 

...

 

You mean ... it was about the oil ... I feel so cheated, dirty ... i need a shower.

 

Who could have imagined that it was the oil ....?

[AF16]

 

If Bush is as stupid as people say and he's a prop for the neo cons who are pulling the proverbial string and are puppet masters to Bush the puppet' date=' then this country's decline is on a steep decline instead of the gradual one that I thought. He's smarter than we give him credit for. If for nothing else by being smart enough to surround himself with people who are smarter than he is.

 

[/quote']

 

I think Bush has a pretty good idea how US politics work and how to talk to his base. He's not stupid in that respect. And a lot of people like him because he is kinda folksy and anti-intellectual.

 

But he's also ignorant when it comes to foreign affairs and human nature. He thought it was possible to simply depose the Taliban and Saddam and impose US style democracy on the Middle East. He still believes it. OK, maybe it's just good old American optimism but it's not working.

 

 

Blair have thrown all his eggs in one basket. He can not back out now. He know though .. he knows that he traded a war against help in the Israeli/Palestine issue and ... Bush did not deliver his end of the bargain. He know he has been fucked ... and he can do nothing. He is finished. All he can do is to claim that he were right and keep on barking when Bush tells him to. Sad end to what was a good career up untill Iraq.

[Steve]

Agree his foreign policy views are wrong. My point was about some thinking he's too stupid to know how to get elected and stay elected. He did get elected and stayed elected and no one can be so stupid that they are led by the nose to the presidency and are simply pawns of a group of people and their ideology. Its thinking he's that stupid that one gives him the advantage. One tends not to take that person seriously.