You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #4: Well, I think ... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
gulliver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-03 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Well, I think ...
Edited on Thu Nov-20-03 10:37 PM by gulliver
... it has its roots in our oil consumption requirements and the socially and politically careless way our oil companies and government go about satisfying them. The root of the problem is non-partisan.

But then you have to get to the solution and choose a direction. That is where Bush has made catastrophic mistakes. After a good start in Afghanistan, he started to go haywire. From the middle of the war in Afghanistan until now, Bush has made disastrously foolish moves.

He didn't try to address the root of the problem, oil and good neighborliness with the Muslims. Instead, he sent mixed messages, ironically under the guise of being clear-spoken. He "clearly" said that the people attacking us "hate us for our freedoms." Now that is clear all right -- clearly wrong. The word "plain-spoken" is applied to Bush, but "bald-faced" is more appropriate.

Bush was even "less clear" than usual about why we were going into Iraq. Rather he was clear in what he said, but what he said was wrong. And the things he didn't say, such as the intent to re-engineer the Middle East, turned out to be half-baked. And it is because he didn't say his real motives that he now finds himself (and we find ourselves) in the expensive and deadly pickle we are in. Had Bush not spoken of WMDs, a nuclear threat, and an Al Qaeda link, there would have been no war.

The proof of a president is in the pudding. Under Clinton, we never had anything remotely resembling the kind of daily carnage we are now seeing under Bush. I don't think it is possible to argue otherwise. Could Clinton have tried to improve things in the Middle East more than he did? Possibly. But he definitely tried hard, and he definitely had the problem under far better control than Bush now has.

Unlike Bush, Clinton did not have a 9/11 attack to wake up America to its danger in the Middle East. Had 9/11 happened under Clinton, he would have used its lesson much more wisely than Bush. And, yes, the attack that happened in Turkey today would not have happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC