A Question For Bush Bashers

[Vandal-1]

In the Clinton era a vast expansion of socialism was occurring within the courts under the auspices of the CSA,Public education,medicine and welfare.The effects of these policies served to errode constitutional liberties of all fathers in america to their children,to their right to bear arms,and to the privacy of their financial records. It was masked as a "national healthcare plan" and a war against 'deadbeat dads' and 'domestic violence'.I was glad to see Clinton go
and a non-socialist administration enter the picture,especially one who would defend our rights (or what was left of them) from the interest of radical femminist and homosexuals.
But while this has been a good thing,
1)The constution was not preserved with regard to the Patriot Act.
2) Claims of Iraqii nuclear arms were not substantiated
as a justification for the cumbersome occupation and thus far the real culprits Suadi Al-Queda have not been dealt with
3)No revitalization of a North American industrial base
has been encouraged to deal with future contigencies where we are unable to import from the pacific rim or lose facilities there.
4)Initiatives that encourage the developement of fuel cells and other safe non-petroleum fuel scources,which would reduce dependance on the unstable Mid-east
and reduce Arab influence ..to my knowledge are non-existent.
I know that Oil is a strategic rescource but a substantial body of evidence exist that this administration is unreasonably tilted in the favour of the Oil companies and defending their foriegn interest at the cost of American integrity and lives,both now and in the next decade.
I am not going to say that this position is stupid,but in the long run it will not sustain our needs,instead it is likely to involve us more deeply in a war against a protracted islamic movement,but not solve our root problem as Oil junkies.
Bush is not wholly condemned in the eyes of this citizen
but he needs to recognize that our military is but one tool in the box.You can't fix everything with a hammer Sloww,and ya can't just go out and buy another after ya break it (international relatioinship)
Thank you V-1

[The Templar]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I guess what I'm asking is, which is it?
Whichever suits your argument at that particular moment in time, is the only possible answer.
A sly moron, isn't an option.

Bush is both moronic and accomplished. Not all intelligence and ability is the same.

Bush is an ideologue and religious zealot. Here's where the moron factor comes into play. Because God speaks to him directly (or whatever) Bush does not think his ideology can be wrong. Tax cuts not working? Let's have more tax cuts! Apparenly Bush doesn't realize that he and his drunken daughters live on the same planet as the rest of us and that environmental damage will harm them just as much. Mock our allies, then we have no one to turn to. The man just keeps plugging away with the same plans no matter how many times they fail. This is the moron side. Add to this his lack of any serious education or deep thinking side.

Bush, however, is fairly wily and clever. Much like a trapped rat. He knows how to surround himself with the right people, how to spin events, and how to inspire people. He knows how to take advantage of a situation, and turn a losing position into a popular one. These are different skills than knowing how to bring a vision into being.

Think of it this way, an engineer brings a vision into being and a PR person sells people on that vision. Bush is a good PR man, but a poor engineer.

When people call the man a moron, they critique his weaknesses. When people call him clever, they lament his strengths. This fact does not make moron/clever inconsistent at all. The talk is about different facets of the same gem if you will.

Pretty rinky-dink, if you ask me.

Huh?