Letters to the Editor
-
longer view
bush's longer view includes the view of people dying off in droves during the famines caused by Peak Oil. I am sure he believes what he is doing is right. I would love to see 'the people's' reaction if he ever tried to explain what Peak Oil will mean for the world...
"In order to do evil, he must be convinced he is doing the right thing." [paraphrase]
-
A Long View from a Deep Dark Tunnel
Gates sounds a bit like Harriet Meier gushing over Bush's brilliance. What possibly could Bush's long view be? We've seen nothing from his policies, decisions, and execution associated with his war that even remotely suggest a long view. His long view of Iraq was that hopefully by sending in a few more troops for some period of time that we would prevail. His long view also included probably the most predictable acknowledgment that he's made - that it would result in increased violence and casualities. This is not a long view that gives me confidence. Bush's only mode seems to be to stay within the confines of his tunnel vision and keep pushing ahead regardless of the considerable body (and bodies) of evidence that suggest that this is not working. His hopes and prayers for a light at the end of the tunnel are simply that. Wishful thinking that this will somehow go away. The light at the end of my tunnel for Iraq is dark.
-
Bush's Long View:
“History? We’ll all be dead.”
-
Translation:
The President does not believe in a representative democracy as long as he is president. He is an authoritarian autocrat.
-
long view
"I'm not going to lose Iraq. Someone else will lose, but not me!"
-
Bush does have a longer view
That longer view is his legacy. He believes history (even if it's 200 years from now--see his quote about George Washington*) will prove him right.
Frankly, if it takes 200 years to prove Iraq War Two was a good idea, it's not worth it to me. It's not worth the 3,000 dead American soldiers, the 22,000 wounded American soldiers and the tens of thousands Iraqi civilian casualties. It isn't worth the cost in treasure, lives or American credibility abroad. Not even if it takes only 5 years to prove Bush right.
Why? The American people (some anyway) were sold on the notion that Iraq was an IMMEDIATE threat to our security. It wasn't. If the original goal really was regime change and establishing a democratic foothold in the Arab world, the Iraq War was the exact wrong way to do it. The right way would have involved a true coalition army largely led by the Iraqi people themselves. We would support militarily and economically THEIR attempts to establish their own true unity government.
Well, President Bush, screw your legacy and your "longer view." The American and Iraqi dead didn't get to have a "longer view." That's your legacy.
*"My attitude is, if they’re still analyzing No. 1, 43 ought not to worry about it, and just do what he thinks is right, make the tough choices necessary."
-
Bush Prefers Abstract
The sound of, "the long view," and, "the judgment of History" appeal to W. Bush. He can repeat these cliches for the rest of his life, and never have to admit his imcompetence, failure, evil, and so on.
He always can say that "the long view" just needs a little while longer.
-
"Long view?" pffft
Even if this president was capable of having a long view, it matters not because he has 20/200 vision.
How long is a "long view" anyway? Is it only til the next election cycle so that another can be blamed for "losing Iraq"?
Is it the 20 years it'll take before we rebuild our military again after their sharp edge has been blunted and reputation tarnished?
Is it 100 years?
Or does it extend the endless millennia that will exist after the "saved" are raptured up, which Bush Jr is secretly hoping to set into motion?
-
We must trust in the Fuhrer's wisdom
How do you argue with someone like Bush? I suppose it's a plus that we're not being gassed for disagreeing with him, but in his heart I'll bet he wishes he could.
Can a president be impeached for being a.) incompetent
or b.) stark, raving bonkers? I'm beginning to wonder whether the nation can withstand two more years of this lunatic.
-
Lemme see if I've got this right
Bush was elected to substitute HIS view of proper action regarding critical matters for that expressed by the will of the people (currently running ~three to one against his actions in Iraq), not to mentioned the constraints ostensibly imposed by that "goddman piece of paper" otherwise known as the U.S. Constitution.
HE knows better than EVERYONE else, HE -- this inarticulate dilettante who has documentably made a mess of every adult endeavor he's undertaken.
Depressing. We are ruled by an arrogant madman hell-bent on setting the entire planet ablaze.
-
In general correct, specifically wrong
It is true that presidents should make decisions based on the totality of accurate, good intelligence evaluations, and using their own best judgement, and not rely on public opinion polls to make policy.
However,in the Bush case, his advisors have consistently provided him with a combination of outrightly false, distorted, and misrepresented intelligence evaluations, and he has chosen to exercise no honest, rational judgement of his own on these various recommendations and assessments. He has been blindly obedient to some ideological concoction of his, and has refused to do the intellectual work necessary for a president. He has allowed his advisors to submerge any possible critical thinking on the policy decisions of his government, in a sea of craven political calculations.
-
What is failure?
Someone please ask Gates or Rice:
"Will the President recognize when we fail?"
Ok, the rest of us, the rest of the world are too stupid to take the long view. And Bush's track record on Iraq really, if we are to be honest about it, has been right on the mark. His past reductions and escalations have shown amazing prescience. We're just too stupid to see, to understand. Okay, Mr. Gates, that's a given. We haven't a clue. So to us, this already looks like failure. To many of us, we saw this coming before you lied your way into it. But that's beside the point. This looks failure to us rubes. You geniuses, you diplomatic wizards, foreign relations gurus, what does failure look like? How will we know when we see it?