By everybody I meant the outside world (remember your Kennedy example). Even the example of the “we will do whatever it takes to defend Taiwan” was taken back and minimized by Bush’s handlers. And after the spy plane case, China gets the Olympics with Bush only saying “no comment”
In many cases were Bush has decided to push for the dissolution of global treaties, the rest of the world is going around those decisions. Just like Reagan in Lebanon, his true weakness will show in a crisis abroad. (Bush the negotiator in a crisis? Can you imagine that?)
As for the House democrats, the House is still in republican hands, domestically Bush is still strong, and yes, he has a dangerous agenda. But again, outside the US, Bush is not getting along well.
I mostly base my conclusion of the weakness of Bush in history: having no mandate, having a controversial victory, and not being a moderate as promised. In America those things tend to catch up. You can make the point that right now he is not weak, but I think he is beginning to fade. And that could be dangerous for the whole world.
If they could, I’d venture they’d opine that abortion should be illegal.
Also, to say that Reagan just finished what Kennedy began is disingenuous. Between Kennedy’s term and Reagan’s, Communist governments took power in Vietnam (despite US military aid), Nicaragua and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Whatever effects Kennedy’s victory in the Cuban missile crisis had clearly lost its momentum in the ensuing decades. Not until Reagan did that turn around. I’m certainly willing to give Kennedy his due, but to deny Reagan his over Kennedy’s accomplishments is ridiculous.
Guinastasia:
It took both internal and external pressures to bring the USSR down. Not that I or anyone will ever convince you that Reagan deserves credit for anything; “Reagan bad” seems to be hard-wired into your brain.
What evidence do you have that the outside world views Bush in this way?
It may be a matter of opinion at this point, but I think this was part of the Bush administration’s tactic of dropping some deliberate hints to China not to screw with Taiwan, while at the same time not painting the US into a corner. Same thing with Colin Powell’s supposed slip of the tongue during his confirmation hearings, in which he referred to Taiwan by its official name, “The Republic of China”.
How does that convey weakness?
snort Yeah, right. And I’d refer you once again to Vladimir Putin’s willingness to work with Bush to scale back the ABM treaty. He wouldn’t have done that if he thought Bush was weak.
What evidence do you have that Bush will have a crisis like the Marines in Lebanon? Or are you just pulling that out of your ass?
As for Bush in a crisis, I thought he did rather well with the recon plane incident.
A few weeks ago Bush was being written off for Jeffords’s defection and for his apparent inability to control moderates in his own party. Now he has chalked up legislative victories in the patient’s bill of rights, energy policy, and cloning. Even his opponents are acknowledging that he’s done pretty well.
You acknowldege that he’s strong now, but you think he’s “beginning to fade”? Again, can you provide us with any evidence? So far, it just sounds like your wishful thinking.
I implied no such thing. I merely observed that if Putin believed that Bush were a “weak” politician and couldn’t get his way, then there would be no reason for Putin to go along with Bush’s ABM ideas. And isn’t it Bush’s critics who had been saying that we must kowtow to the Russians’ wishes, lest they “re-arm”?
I have no idea what those links are supposed to imply regarding your thesis that Bush is “weak”. They seem to be critical of Bush, true, but that doesn’t support your argument.
No, I pulled my remarks on Kennedy from my (admittedly hazy) recollection of college classes in American history. Where did you get the corresponding ideas about Bush? I hypothesize that their source is indeed “your ass”, but you’re welcome to point me to any more credible sources if they exist.
My silly reasons are only an extrapolation from history, the last time we had a president with all this: no mandate, and a controversial victory in 1876, the media did not let go of those facts and public opinion forced president Hays to promise a one term to heal the nation.
I bring those alt news sites because while I have seen examples of the current media being critical of bush, the curious blackout of those historical shortcomings is pathetic.
Well if history is wishful thinking you are right in your opinion.
Anyhow, sites like Commondreams.org do not create their news; they collect articles from news sources all over. And I do trust them because many sources, like overseas in England, do have to deal with stronger libel laws. Again, I only wring this to attention only to get everybody an idea of what Rutherford B. Hayes had to deal with. And to show the relative easy ride the current president is having with the current credible sources.
Add to that a president that turned to be more compassionate corporate than compassionate conservative and you should know that the many Americans that did not vote for him are keeping score.
It may be a matter of opinion at this point, but I think this was part of the Bush administration’s tactic of dropping some deliberate hints to China not to screw with Taiwan, while at the same time not painting the US into a corner.
[quote]
That’s as favorable a spin as one can put on it. However, US policy towards containing the militarist/expansionist factions in China has historically, and effectively, been based on ambiguity - not letting them know what would happen, keeping them from trying anything. Bush threw that away pretty casually, and now there’s a possibility that the militarist factions, if they ever gain sufficient control, could conclude that he was either bluffing or a fool. After all, there is not much that the US could do about a Taiwan invasion that doesn’t involve radiation, and they’d be reasonable in thinking it wouldn’t happen.
If that statement by Bush was deliberate, there was nothing to gain by it and a great deal to risk. If it was deliberate, a more detailed and direct policy statement would have been more effective.
How does that follow? Putin is following his own interests. Showing cooperation publicly on this matter will enable the old KGB man, into whose soul Bush claims to be able to see, to get a better bargain on something else.
Do you really think the US can go 4 years without having to deal with any crisis anywhere? There’s no telling what they’ll be, but there’s no doubt there’ll be some.
Which was only a “crisis” to the degree his hardline policies made it one.
The “successes” being trumpeted are all in the House. Nothing’s been passed and signed, and it’s doubtful that it will. The Senate has to agree, too. It isn’t just Jeffords this “master politician” alienated; Senators have switched before. No, Bush lost for his pary all control of the legislative agenda, all power to all ability to ram things through on the partisan votes his party has become known for, all ability to get his nominees out of committee (just wait until the next Supreme Court vacancy - his admiration for “Justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas” will cause him endless grief), the list is endless. And it was his own ego and shortsightedness that caused it.
Look, we’re only hearing about this stuff now because things are quiet (with Bush working on 2 months of vacation out of his first 6 in office). The country’s “news” editors are tired of trying to write new “Chandra Levy Is Still Missing” stories for their leads instead.
No more casually than Clinton did in Shanghai in 1998, when he publicly supported the “three noes” that Beijing had demanded of him: that the United States will not support Taiwan’s independence, its admission to the United Nations or a compromise solution that would create two separate Chinas. That was unprecedented and unnecessary, and the Bush team may have felt a need to counterbalance Clinton’s (if you’ll pardon the term) appeasement.
In any case, the strategic situation is changing as much with China as it is with Russia–see below.
That’s just the notion of which we must disabuse them heartily. Look at history: Hitler invades Poland, because he figures the allies have too much to lose and won’t risk intervening. Same with Japan in Manchuria, China proper, and ultimately Southeast Asia and Pearl Harbor in 1941. Same with Stalin and Kim Il-sung in Korea in 1950. Same with Saddam Hussein in 1990. If we let China think we don’t care about Taiwan or can’t afford to intervene, then I predict that we’ve got World War III approaching rapidly down the pike.
Why? I believe that the Bush administration recognizes that militaristic, expansionistic factions are indeed ascendent in China, and the only language they understand is force or the unambiguous threat of force. I believe that Bush also understands that there is far more at stake than just the fates of 21 million Taiwanese–if China perceives that the US is unwilling to protect its friends in Taiwan, than it (China) will likely decide it has free reign to take over major shipping channels and oil resources in the South China Sea. This will cause Japan and South Korea to re-arm (with nukes), and Russia will likely start propping up North Korea again to help deter an expansionist China from casting hungry eyes northward. That thar’s a powder keg, friends.
Of course Putin’s following his own interests. He sees that GWB means business on missile defense and has the political means and willpower to get it done. Hence his surprise coming-to-terms with Bush in Genoa–which I believe is costing Putin a political price at home, at least in the short run.
GIGObuster was asserting that something would happen “just like Reagan in Lebanon”, which seems to go along with his thesis that George W. Bush is a perfect historical parallel with Rutherford B. Hayes. And as I pointed out repeatedly, GIGObuster wasn’t furnishing any evidence that history would repeat itself in this way except for his own, ahem, “insight”. A number of crises will happen, certainly, and we don’t know yet what will happen. We certainly don’t have any evidence that Bush will be exposed as a weakling.
It’s a whole other debate on whether GWB was too hard line in the first few hours of that incident; I seem to recall that he came out strong because the Chinese were refusing to allow any diplomatic access to the air crew at that time. In any case, he got them home with a minimum of fuss and bother, and with minimal damage to US “face”, didn’t he? Isn’t that what counts? Ten years from now, it will hardly be remembered as a “crisis”, or even remembered at all.
Well, I don’t claim to know too much about the ins and outs of Congress, but I tend to give the President the benefit of a doubt when even the New York Times says that “Mr. Bush has done surprisingly well in his dealings with a divided and sometimes difficult Congress”. In the same editorial (registration required), the Times states:
Of course, the NYT goes on to bluster that “the question of whether any of these victories are a good thing is another matter entirely”. As noted on the RealClear Politics board, “when the NY Times editorial board whines like this, you know President Bush is doing things right and making good progress”.
Then I thought: the lack of a good historical record on how Bush will deal with crisis and serious decisions, was one of the reasons Bush was elected. It was like a mantra: the democrats tried to use the Texas record against him, but the republican tactic was to say that the position of governor in Texas was a weak one so therefore not fair to use. Add to that the position Bush had that we should not dwell in past indiscretions, and history is toast as a tool to judge Bush.
I realized that all the rumors of past bush felonies (only an extra DUI was confirmed) was also not a way to go to judge Bush. So, no good political record, no good private one either to use to judge the guy, so we were left with how he behaved in the election itself.
So, on my own and using only “certified” sources I saw this:
I was giving bush the benefit of the doubt that he could be indeed a compassionate fellow, he did sound different.
I saw a Parade magazine article about Bush’s office. In it, a portrait of Bush hero, Sam Houston, the former governor of Texas was featured prominently. Bush described the reason why: Houston refused to raise the confederate flag and was deposed for opposing the confederacy during the civil war. Forward to South Carolina’s election primaries: Bush and McCain were asked about their opinions on the confederate flag issue. Bush replied that it was a state decision alone to use the flag in the capitol or not (notice that he did not say what was his personal opinion).
That was it. Not even a remark on what his hero did! The whole thing sounded more silly when I realized that if Bush had at least remarked on his hero’s actions, he would have gotten more of the black vote (more likely there would had been no close Florida vote), and republicans would have had a powerful weapon against African American efforts to paint Bush as a reactionary republican.
Well, if Bush could forget his hero so easily I thought then that he could forget about my vote. And when the Florida thing happened his former reply about state right issues sounded even more hollow.
In the end McCain changed his opinion, Bush still throws away his hero’s history:
Fair enough. There’s a difference between a planned policy speech by someone who’s clearly in charge of a situation, and an off-the-cuff remark by someone who is, shall we say, not clearly in charge, though.
I agree that’s what Bush believes, but all the facts I know of suggest the opposite - all the growing trade agreements with Taiwan, all the lessening of travel restrictions, more open media, all of which is widely available, if not necessarily reported on Fox. To call the Chinese right “ascendant” doesn’t seem to have the facts to support it - can you provide a factual cite, or just more opinion columns based on Tom Clancy scenarios?
There is still a long way to go, quite obviously, and it’s an error to focus on the problems that still exist. By the US forcing a hard line on policy, isn’t it likely that the militarists/authoritarians will actually be emboldened?
You’re not connecting the dots. How would it be in Putin’s interest to actually support Bush’s missile-defense stuff? How about using that compliance to bargain for something else later, as I suggested?
Please. Your “insight” is superior? This forum is for the purpose of swapping opinions, and this subject by nature cannot have the “evidence” you seek either way. Unless you think the tides of history have changed to the degree that there will not be any crises in the future, you’re on less solid ground than GIGO, pal.
True on the latter point. As to the former, the damage to “face” is debatable - if Clinton had done the same thing, including nonapologetic apologies, the GOP would still be slamming him as slippery and a treasonous appeaser, it certainly seems to me.
Then try learning about it. Since you’ve said you’re happy that even the NYT is admiring of his “progress”, try applying some cynicism there too, regarding their ability to bash Bush for something later. Or better yet, try gathering facts and drawing and stating conclusions for yourself. The Times editorial you quoted said nothing that’s not already in this thread.
Re above: Quoting some right-wing commentary source whose thinking is that anything that pisses of the “liberals” must be good. That’s just juvenile.
Thanks for sharing anonymous rumors of felonies, G. Shades of you-know-who.
BTW you’re wrong about the DUI; it was a misdemeanor. This is a surprising error, since there was huge publicity at the time.
Of course, that Confederate flag was put up by a Democratic governor and another Dem Governor was in office while this controversy was going on. Why blame Bush for an action taken (and not undone) by Dems?
No contradiction. I would have preferred to continue successful ambiguity. IF, however, Bush preferred a direct statement, it should have been clearer. Since it wasn’t, it wasn’t a continuation of ambiguity but a simple “mistake” - the consequences of which are unknowable.
Thanks for sharing anonymous rumors of felonies, G. Shades of you-know-who.
Like the ones about Clinton’s drug running, serial murder of opponents, execution of Vince Foster, ad nauseam?
Depends on the jurisdiction. In many places, it is a felony.
T
There you go once again, still thinking “Democrat” is and furthermore always has been synonymous with “Liberal” and vice versa. The flag was put up only in the 60’s, as an obvious symbol of opposition to desegregation, by the conservatives in power at the time. The Democrats successfully marginalized, and even repudiated, this faction, which in turn was warmly welcomed by the Republicans and now effectively controls that party.
Bush had the chance to denounce the remaining legacy of racial hatred in the South, but decided that the votes of the haters were more important to him. Isn’t that a more accurate reading of the situation?
And december, your accusation that I use anonymous “rumors” like Joseph McCarthy is false, if you check the commondreams.org you will see that the articles are coming from mainstream and alt sources and they are not anonymous, anybody can reach them and send them a piece of our minds if we do not agree on what they say. Contrast that with the many that are not willing to talk about the unfounded rumors they created against Clinton.
Well, **GIGO[/g] I looked at the commondreams web site and found that they declare themselves “Progressive.” I didn’t easily find references to W’s alleged felonies through their search engine.
IMHO if you don’t want to be accused of McCarthyism, your accusations of Bush felonies need to be specific. What did he do? When and where? Who says so? How do they know? What is the evidence?
You’ve made a vague reference to supposed Bush felnies, but without any details, which makes your approach unrefutable.
If you don’t have approprate details, I invite you to admit it, and to withdraw your libel. So far, you’re batting 0 for 1 on the DUI.
If we’re going to bring up allegations of Dubya’s past embarassments, how about the charge that he was AWOL from the National Guard for about a year (1972-1973)? There’s lots of documentation that he ditched his service (many of which are collected at http://www.awolbush.com/), but not a peep from any of his supporters to prove them wrong. Funny how the Republicans were so quick to call Clinton a “draft-dodger,” yet remain conspicuously silent on this.
Well yes, in Maine it was a misdemeanor. I grant you that, notice please that I had decided to drop other rumors from the discussion but I could not forget the impression I got from bush evading the cascade of follow-up questions: like why did he lied to the Dallas news: http://www.dallasnews.com/campaign/092000/205667_bushdwi_03pol.html
And I whish I had more time but I do remember that also that revelation could have put Bush in trouble with the law on licenses, business dealings, court appearances, that required Bush to fill forms with that annoying question of “have you ever been under the influence or arrested” the reason was that someone noticed that those questions were answered usually with nothing, or missing the last arrest info.
Ok having retracted my felony remark I hope you retract your sweeping remark of “Thanks for sharing anonymous rumors” because it looks like one of the sources was Bush’s own cabinet member: http://www.onlinejournal.com/Media/Hicks052301/hicks052301.html
They are indeed many twists in that report, but remember your accusation was that I had created that out of thin air. Now, we can all say now that THEY are the ones inventing that. No trouble at all. But your accusation was that they were anonymous sources. And I was like McCarthy. For all I know many left wing news and websites are also not telling the whole truth, so I do search in many different places. Never base opinions in a few ones. Incidentally my reason why I trust most of that last link is that defamation or other things should have been launched a long time ago against those specific guys (The original writer of the book took his own life recently), but the Karl Rove bit is interesting because it could be denied easily. . . . .Unless they do indeed have the recordings. So in the end I do have to say it may be a lie but they are standing by it and they are not anonymous, and I am not like that like that “guy”.