Article by Rich Lowry and Response
here is the full article. he's right on some points but i have selected a few in which he is employing the same tactic of absolutism that he accuses bush-haters of.
If he stumbles over his words, he is an embarrassing idiot. If he manages to cut taxes or wage a war against Saddam Hussein with bipartisan support, he is a manipulative genius.
i would suggest that Bush is not an idiot, but also not competent enough for public speaking let alone being president. he is barely intelligent enough to be a governor. he is more intelligent than the average citizen. it is administration (Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Ridge) who are manipulative geniuses. (it is as important to get them out of the white house as it is to get Bush out.)
If he hasn't been able to capture Osama bin Laden, he is endangering U.S. security. If he catches bin Laden, it is only a ploy to influence the elections.
the first statement is correct. the second statement is understandable. it is to be expected that Laden's capture right before the election would be attacked. the american people have been lied to before by this president, so it is reasonable to suspect that will happen again.
If he warns of a terror attack, he is playing alarmist politics. If he doesn't warn of a terror attack, he is dangerously asleep at the switch.
It is the way he warns that is unacceptable. we are told we are safer than ever one moment, and under direct threat the next moment. What are we to believe?
If he says we're safer, he's lying, and if he doesn't say we're safer, he's implicitly admitting that he has failed in his core duty as commander in chief.
It is his duty as the president to make us safe. He has the most important job in the world. there is no room to say "he's doing the best that he can" if its not good enough.
If he adopts a doctrine of pre-emption, he is unacceptably remaking American national-security policy. If the United States suffers a terror attack on his watch, he should have pre-empted it.
There is not an absolute in this situation. It does not have to be one or the other. He could have not imposed a doctrine or pre-emption, and imposed a doctrine of diplomacy. or perhaps a doctrine of multi lateral cooperation in which we had the support of the UN or other major countries. Iraq posed no threat to the US. The only threat was from Saddam towards the people of Iraq. if we have decided to "free" every country under dictatorship: let us free North Korea! (who actually possesses WMD). hold up. there's no oil in N. Korea! how is Dick Cheney's company Halliburton going to make money on that war?
Bush's economy hasn't created new jobs. If it has created new jobs, they aren't well-paying jobs. If they are well-paying jobs, there is still income inequality in America.
that's just true. his sarcasm is lost.
If he doesn't admit a mistake, he is bullheaded and detached from reality. If he admits a mistake, he is damning his own governance in shocking fashion.
this is only an issue because of the amount of mistakes his administration has made. if a politician were to make a few mistakes, level with the public and admit to the mistake, explain what happened and what his new plan is: there is no way the public won't continue to follow him/her. because that politician has been honest. if Bush were to admit mistakes and be honest now, it would be futile, because he has lied in the past. trust is difficult if not impossible to rebuild.
If he loses in November, the voice of the American people has spoken a devastating verdict on his presidency. If he wins, he stole the election.
if he wins, his administration has been successful in keeping much information from the public. it is not a matter of agree/disagree, it is a matter of know/don't know.
anyways, a fun fact: the author of this article wrote a book exposing the Clinton administration as "one of the most damaging ever for our nation." yea, that $219 billion surplus was really damaging...