posted
I think the real truth lies in the likelihood that the Bush Doctrine was not an intuition at all but was an integral part of the administration's emerging foreign policy, not so incohate regarding preemptive maneuvers against state sponsored terrorism as it has been portrayed in some quarters, although a quantum leap perhaps where Iraq was concerned, a leap or stretch that is rightly still being questioned and studied and critiqued.
I have no doubt that among his advisors Bush dragged some of them kicking and screaming to see his point of view while others wondered why it had taken him so long to see the light.
I liked your exchange with Phil about the kind of people that the president surrounds himself with. Perhaps we don't vote, at least the first time around, with such considerations in mind, but the people the presidents appoints to office will definitely show his wisdom and character and thus could very well effect his re-election the second time around. Certainly you might know a person by the friends he or she keeps.
Because it seems to be Bush's desire to surround himself with the best and the brightest (and not necessarily those who walk in ideological lockstep), I think one can assume that he listened to plenty of advice concerning a reaction to 911. Even if he didn't, he would soon be faced with having to do so since the presidency is not a dictatorship. He must, to some extent, persuade his cabinet since his top officers can certainly undermine his efforts by the latitude they have in carrying out his orders. Or they can simply resign and do him damage. But I think it's also safe to assume that he gave his top advisors some of the same motivational wisdom that he gave to all of us in his speeches following 911. There's a certain type of sincerity that is difficult to fake and I don't think one can just say he had good speech writers.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK, I am going to have to 'fess up before w.c. blows my cover. Yes, I have been baiting you, Brad. I have been drawing you into a passionate defense of the human faculty of intuition, getting you to adopt ideas and to express them in words that will come back to haunt you when we move back into the spirituality forum where Phil and I will relentlessly coerce you into acknowledging 1) Maritain's intuition of being, 2) the role of intuition in the leap of faith and 3) the feminist critique. Women everywhere will welcome the new champion of their cause --- the primacy of women's intuition!
Darn! Foiled again! As many a Scooby Doo villain has said "If it wasn't for you darn kids I would have gotten away with it." But seriously (I think), having one's words come back to haunt them is part and parcel of understanding "the feminist critique".
I wonder if those words will come back to haunt me?
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Replying to: Does it matter? Is critical thinking the only type of thinking that will legitimize important decisions? Could not a person's "gut instincts" (assuming such were in play in this case) be based on a lifetime's worth of critical thinking?
My point was not that critical thinking is the only process for arriving at sound decisions, but that when it is lacking, the decision-making process is severely impaired. I did mention that I think Bush has good moral instincts, owing largely to a good upbringing, but you need much more than that to formulate foreign policy or to make good decisions regarding war and peace. You need "discernment," which is actually an art, of sorts, drawing on all our faculties of knowing (including intuition--Bush's least developed function--and feeling), not to mention consulting with others whose views and approaches raise concerns different from one's natural bent. You need prudence as well, and patience to wait for clarity.
The parenthetical point above about intuition needs to be underscored, for it is intuition that surfaces new possibilities, novel and creative ways of doing things, solutions that reason alone just doesn't come to in its usual deductive processes. I just don't see much intuition in Bush nor in anyone surrounding him except Colin Powell. Although Powell puts on the best possible face and is nothing but a "good soldier" in supporting the President, rumblings from his staff have indicated that he's frequently discounted in staff meetings.
Every human being has limitations in some areas, and that includes George W. Bush. I've only been pointing out those that I see, and I could certainly be wrong about them. Somewhere above I mentioned that the ISTJ personality type seems to fit him very well; that may be the best type for these times, considering all the disparate forces in society. ISTJs can plod along and do what they're convinced needs to be done, almost impervious to criticism. That's a strength, but as with everything else, it has a shadow side. I think we've seen some of the latter in Bush, which doesn't mean he's a bad person, only limited. When you're Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation in history, it would be good for one to know what those weak sides are, however, and to lean on others for counsel in those areas. The problem is, that most ISTJ types have a very difficult time thinking that other perceptions different from theirs have much validity.
[ March 20, 2004, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
LSU's Chancellor has just been hired as U. of Washington's new President and he will likely be voting Republican
JB, I'll take all the LSU guys or gals that you got. But frankly I'm reminded of a comment by Marx (Groucho, in this case): "I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member". I hope that means the University of Washington is steering towards a balanced view of education and not that this person from LSU (or that all people from LSU) so readily fit into their mold.
As for constantly being forced to give speeches and articulate and defend ideals and ideas, do you REALLY think Bush has been better prepared by Texas politics than YOU have been by years of Shalomplace, MacFixIt and Thalo.net?
JB, I find that I can learn things fast here because you, W.C., and Phil are not playing "gotcha". I confess I have not always reciprocated.
And not having had the resource of Barbara Bush at my disposal, I confess that Shalom Place is better preparation for life than Texas politics. MFI and Thalo.net are/were necessary stops along the way to understanding. The final destination will no doubt be as editor of NRO. I first have to learn how to slouch in my chair and look as disheveled as Buckley.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phil said: My point was not that critical thinking is the only process for arriving at sound decisions, but that when it is lacking, the decision-making process is severely impaired.
Well, perhaps I'm guilty of talking past your point somewhat, Phil, in order to make my point (whatever it was). I readily acknowledge the importance of critical thinking.
I did mention that I think Bush has good moral instincts, owing largely to a good upbringing, but you need much more than that to formulate foreign policy or to make good decisions regarding war and peace. You need "discernment," which is actually an art, of sorts, drawing on all our faculties of knowing (including intuition--Bush's least developed function--and feeling), not to mention consulting with others whose views and approaches raise concerns different from one's natural bent. You need prudence as well, and patience to wait for clarity.
I agree. Perhaps my own preferrence is to think that "real" intelligence isn't a deliberative process, per se, but a combination of intuition and critical thinking, and probably a number of other things, including emotional intelligence. I'm not saying you disagree with that. But perhaps where we might disagree is on the ranking of these different types of intelligence; what should come first, where one should start, that sort of thing. I tend to think a truly intelligent and wise person will "intuit" which type of technique is needed in a certain situation more than another. But I also realize some people are more deliberative while some people are more instinctual – perhaps drawing on lessons already learned (if not via critical thinking at least by experience).
I just don't see much intuition in Bush nor in anyone surrounding him except Colin Powell. Although Powell puts on the best possible face and is nothing but a "good soldier" in supporting the President, rumblings from his staff have indicated that he's frequently discounted in staff meetings.
That's interesting, because I see Powell as the least intuitive of the bunch. He seems more wishy washy to me. I suppose that I should point out that evidence of intuition to me is when I hear someone talk smoothly, coherently and intelligently when engaged in an impromptu discussion. I see that strongly in Rumsfeld and Cheney and certainly in Bush in regards to terrorism. Of course, I've heard Powell give some terrific interviews. He's no dummy. But that's not to say (I hope) that intuitive=ideologue. It just seems to me that if one has a solid foundation, certainly and probably built up by a fair amount of critical thinking, then one will, by definition, be somewhat more intuitive and thus clear and concise. Perhaps I'm simply redefining intuition as the ability to draw seamlessly on the fruits of experience, critical thinking, and other forms of intelligence.
That's a strength, but as with everything else, it has a shadow side. I think we've seen some of the latter in Bush, which doesn't mean he's a bad person, only limited.
I agree. I think 911 was an event that reached deep into Bush and pulled out the best parts of him. It's an event that really engaged him. I posted an NRO article just a few posts back that might have been written by me if I had the talent. It's fairly critical of Bush and I agree with it pretty much whole-heartedly. I wonder if these other subjects just don't interest Bush as much so therefore he goes for a more consensus (aka "muddled") approach. Maybe he views such issues as opportunities to satisfy his "need for approval" or "need to be liked" which is inherently human, particulary in regards to politicians.
When you're Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation in history, it would be good for one to know what those weak sides are, however, and to lean on others for counsel in those areas.
Well, the good thing is that Bush is surrounded by some very smart and forceful people, including, but not limited to, Powell, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
One small clarification I'd like to make, however: That's interesting, because I see Powell as the least intuitive of the bunch. He seems more wishy washy to me. I suppose that I should point out that evidence of intuition to me is when I hear someone talk smoothly, coherently and intelligently when engaged in an impromptu discussion. . .
LOL! Well, that "wishy-washiness" is actually a sure sign of intuition, at least as it's understood in Jungian typology. Intuition is alert for possibilities, is imaginative, and attuned to the inner meaning of things. It can take intuitives awhile to sort through all the possibilities of a situation, and to discern which among them is the best route to go. For this, they use their thinking or feeling function.
The opposite of intuition is sensation, which is attuned to the world of the senses, details, and facts. The assurance you hear in some of the people you mentioned is because they operate more on the level of facts, which they sort through using thinking or feeling (the former in the case of Rumsfeld and Bush). Hence, they come across very self-assured, their opinion based on facts, but often totally oblivious to (and even impatient with) the possibilities implied by these facts which the intuitive sees.
[ March 20, 2004, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Phil ]
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brad Nelson: LSU's Chancellor has just been hired as U. of Washington's new President and he will likely be voting Republican
JB, I'll take all the LSU guys or gals that you got. But frankly I'm reminded of a comment by Marx (Groucho, in this case): "I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member". I hope that means the University of Washington is steering towards a balanced view of education and not that this person from LSU (or that all people from LSU) so readily fit into their mold.
Your hopes are thus dashed re: this hiring, then --- it marks, rather, a homecoming for one of your alumni
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
How did we end up with a Republican administration governing like Democrats? Politics must be part of the problem. Most of the departures from Republican orthodoxy look like bids in an electoral auction aimed at assembling a winning coalition in November. But winning is not an end in itself. You win elections to enact a conservative agenda. That, President Bush has not done.
Perhaps below is the answer but you'll need to use your intuition
There's just no way for a representative government to take root in Iraq if it ignores the clerics, anymore so than a representative government could have arisen among all thirteen colonies if the interests of the slave states had been ignored. It's an ugly, pragmatic reality sometimes, but it's a reality that is headed in the right direction I think.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I forget. Is this another lesson concerning intuitive feminism (aka "who needs a wife when I've got JB throwing my words in my face")? But you are surely teaching me another important lesson should I ever wish to pursue politics: Learn how to say much while saying very little.
But seriously folks, I strongly believe what Rush and others have said: Conservatives do best when they don't run away from their principles. When they water them down in order to try and please everyone then they are defeated.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your hopes are thus dashed re: this hiring, then --- it marks, rather, a homecoming for one of your alumni
I guess I missed whether this person was a native of Washington or Louisiana. Doesn't matter. Isn't there some magic rub-off value for just having been in the state of Louisiana?
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brad Nelson: Conservatives do best when they don't run away from their principles. When they water them down in order to try and please everyone then they are defeated.
Principle-centered approaches serve everyone well. There is something worse than watering them down, though. Kerry's about to show the world the consequences of lacking a core.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is easy to fault the tourists for their foolish purchase decisions, but a close look offers a kinder view. These were people who had been brought up on the rule "You get what you pay for" and who had seen that rule borne out over and over in their lives. Before long, they had translated the rule to mean expensive = good. The expensive = good stereotype had worked quite well for them in the past, since normally the price of an item increases along with its worth; a higher price typically reflects higher quality. So when they found themselves in the position of wanting good turquoise jewelry, but not having much knowledge of turquoise, they understandably relied on the old standby feature of cost to determine the jewelry's merits. (pp. 6-7)
In other words, they relied upon their intuition.
JB and Phil: Isn't that confusing intuition with common sense (even a faulty common sense)? Or their expectations? Or their perception of value? That seems a broad definition of intuition as if intuition is nothing more than the exercise of habit. Somehow I've always imagined intuition to be – yes, a shortcut a times – but more a direct link to knowledge that is not so easily obtained or quantified by simply shuffling facts and figures. I guess if this is how the experts define "intuitive" then I can have no further argument.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Brad, intuition is used by so many people in so many different contexts that I have no clear appreciation of what it actually entails myself.
In other threads, waxing more philosophical, we discussed certain approaches to knowledge that rely on primary principles, especially the laws of noncontradiction, of identity, of the excluded middle and the principle of causality. Those laws and principles cannot be rationally demonstrated but Maritain suggest we can know them to be true through abstract intuition.
Another characterization of intuition in Maritain's epistemology is that it is a pre-philosophical knowledge, which is an approach to knowledge, not entailing a proof or demonstration but, rather, a spontaneous, inchoative natural reasoning which cannot be expressed in words. This includes such basic pre-philosophical presuppositions as a belief in reality's intelligibility, a belief in our own ability to interpret reality, a belief in the existence of minds other than our own. We know these things intuitively but that is not to say this knowledge is in anyway inferior to empirical knowledge. Martain would say that certain truthsare grasped by the common sense before being the object of philosophical concern.
Jung's intuition differs in some ways. He did say that what is rationally correct is too narrow a concept to grasp life in its totality and give it permanent expression. It might be thought of as unconscious thinking, sensing and feeling, entailing all of the psychological functions in undifferentiated form (often equated with the soul complex).
In a very real sense, then, it is good intuition that allows one to move effortlessly and seamlessly through certain of life's tasks, both the mundane (driving a car) and the sublime (choosing among the many different fundamental axioms of philosophical systems). Intuition is a form of perception, unconscious perception. We mustn't forget that Jung counts intuition as one of the conscious functions, hence it can better be characterized moreso as a bridge between consciousness and unconsciousness for the other functions to travel?
What can be easily overlooked is that intuition, like the other functions, can be developed. It has been treated as having different levels:
quote: The Five Levels of Intuition
The intuition function at level one, like the feeling function, is in its most undeveloped state. Because intuitions are not recognized or owned at this level, it is usually expressed in the form of a "suspicion" [jb snipped]
At level two, intuitions are found to have meaning. What were originally hunches and suspicions to be avoided and feared are now seen at this level to have a functional purpose for providing new insights, innovation, and problem solving. [jb snipped]
At the third level, intuition is seen as linked to the creative process; there is an attempt to harness the intuitive function. Techniques are devised to do this, such as the brainstorming method [jb snipped]
At the next level, that of level four, the intuitive function is recognized as the capacity to shift paradigms which is a more advanced state of creativity, according to Fudjack and Dinkelaker. [jb snipped]
At the fifth level, the intuitive function involves the appreciation of the world as a symbolic creation that is ultimately self-transcending and connected with the "ground" of pure unmanifest potential (possibility). The individual is capable of continually stepping out of their own paradigm and into new frames.
The author thus observes:
quote: What may be surprising about the intuitive function is that the concepts and phrases used to invoke that faculty are well beyond the simplistic definition of intuition as hunch or suspicion. [jb snipped]
I have been cogitating, recently, on the role of intuition in our approach to paradox, so some of these distinctions are rather top of mind even as I wait for my intuitive insights to bubble up from my unconscious so I can write a Shalomplace post about same -- related to my consideration of conjunctio in the kundalini forum. Once I do that, we can better grasp how Dubya operates vis a vis his Jungian functions and their levels of development.
By the way, Brad, you get a Gold Star for teasing out the nuances of Dubya's deliberative processes re: critical thinking, intuition, consultative process, etc
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The real question in this depthful consideration of the candidates, which is beginning to rival the depth of our pre-Iraq War analysis, is Should Republicans Be Allowed to Marry?
Scientists in the current issue of the journal NURTURE announced the discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is genetically determined. This caused uproar among traditionalists who believe it is a chosen lifestyle. Reports of the gene coding for political conservatism, discovered after a decades long study of quintuplets in Orange County, CA, has sent shock waves through the medical, political, and golfing communities.
Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans' unnatural disregard for the poor and frequently unconstitutional tendencies resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics -- a remarkably high percentage of Republicans do have authoritarian domineering fathers and emotionallydistant mothers who didn't teach them how to be kind and gentle.
Biologists have long suspected that conservatism is inherited. "After all," said one author of the NURTURE article, "It's quite common for a Republican to have a brother or sister who is a Republican."
The finding has been greeted with relief by Parents and Friends of Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame themselves for the political views of otherwise lovable children, family, and un-indicted co-conspirators.
One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy on hearing of the findings. "I just knew it was genetic," she said, seated with her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would never freely choose that lifestyle!" When asked what the Republican lifestyle was, she said, "You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston and San Diego on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich, you know." Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early age but did not confirm it until they were in college, when they became convinced it wasn't just a phase they were going through.
The NURTURE article offered no response to the suggestion that the high incidence of Republicanism among siblings could result from > sharing not only genes but also psychological and emotional attitude as products of the same parents and family dynamics.
A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted Republican at least once -- or often dream or fantasize about doing so. Polls show that three out of five adult Democrats have had a Republican experience, although most outgrow teenage experimentation with Republicanism.
Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating conservophobia. They argue that since Republicans didn't "choose" their lifestyle any more than someone "chooses" to have a ski-jump nose, they shouldn't be denied civil rights, which other minorities enjoy.
If conservatism is not the result of stinginess or orneriness (typical stereotypes attributed to Republicans) but is something Republicans can't help, there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the military or even high elected office -- provided they don't flaunt their political beliefs.
For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a different future.
In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicanism altogether.
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Intuition is a form of perception, unconscious perception. We mustn't forget that Jung counts intuition as one of the conscious functions, hence it can better be characterized moreso as a bridge between consciousness and unconsciousness for the other functions to travel?
Yes, that's very helpful. It's difficult to describe my experience of reality, but let me just say that my conscious mind often feels as dumb as a post. I rely, I think, on intuition to reach down into that hidden stew of facts, conjectures, beliefs, and ideologies that have been gathered (seemingly quite indiscriminately, like grass and other detritus in a grass catcher), to then bring forth something hopefully new and/or intelligible. I don't "get" a lot of things that might be quite obvious to other people. Sometimes it can be something quite simple, but if it doesn't "resonate" with something deeper down then I just stand there looking like Homer Simpson.
So I can definitely see intuition being defined as either unconscious perception or as a conscious bridge between consciousness and unconsciousness.
The Five Levels of Intuition is an interesting concept. From my standpoint, I don't view intuitions as inherently true or false, although some obviously wind up being more useful than others. Intuitions, at least for me, are just (or seem like) random little theories that pop into existence. As soon as I try to expand on them in words then many of them are immediately proven to be useless (but not necessarily erroneous – they could come back later with meaning) and evaporate on their own to be replaced quickly by others. Strangely, this process works better when writing. When speaking (although I'm not a total dufuss) I often don't let go so quickly of non-useful intuitions or ideas that and will often run on for a while trying to make them make sense. On the other hand, when a few intuitions *do* hit the mark I've been told more than once that "Man, I wish you'd written all that down." So intuition to me is both fun and frustrating. But it's always important.
Thanks for scoping all that out, JB. (And for the gold star.)
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The real question in this depthful consideration of the candidates, which is beginning to rival the depth of our pre-Iraq War analysis, is Should Republicans Be Allowed to Marry?
LMAO.
One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy on hearing of the findings. "I just knew it was genetic," she said, seated with her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would never freely choose that lifestyle!" When asked what the Republican lifestyle was, she said, "You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston and San Diego on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich, you know." Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early age but did not confirm it until they were in college, when they became convinced it wasn't just a phase they were going through.
That's just comedy gold. Did you write all that?
A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted Republican at least once -- or often dream or fantasize about doing so.
Stop it. You're killing me. That's really good stuff. I tell ya, there's much room for exploration there. My pop-up theory has always been that anger drives most people to one party or the other – at least initially. If so, then it's just a matter of describing the different types of anger or to whom they might be directed. It might even relate to the external/internal locus of power paradigm. I tend to think Republicans get mad at other individuals for complicating their life. And I tend to think that Democrats get mad at collections of people or organizations for complicating their lives thus, for Democrats, it's always "the system" that is corrupted and in need of correcting by ever new and/or bigger systems. For Republicans it's the one idiot whose irresponsible behavior is in need of correcting and don't beg off on responsibility by blaming it the system.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
It was another set up whereby I would both deny writing it or knowing who the author is, denying that I could be THAT funny, inviting the rejoinder from Brad: You are funny, jb!
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of paradoxes, here's The Churchill Paradox by Andrew Sullivan. I hinted once at this point of view once, and started to articulate it, but managed only a blurry glimpse – if that – compared to what Andrew, in my opinion, has so brilliantly articulated:
quote:Wartime leaders have always faced the worst fear: defeat in battle. But in democracies at least, war-leaders also confront another danger: success. The qualities that make for great statesmanship in wartime - determination, a single focus on victory, a black-and-white conviction of who is friend and foe - can often seem crude or overbearing when peace comes around. The most dramatic example of this in Western history is, of course, Winston Churchill. It is no exaggeration to say that, without him, Britain may well have been destroyed by Hitler. He was the difference between victory and defeat. But almost the minute that victory was declared, the voters turned on their hero. He lost the post-war election. Even more striking, he lost it in one of the biggest electoral landslides in Britain's parliamentary history. He wasn't just defeated. He was buried.
I wonder if the lesson of Churchill now haunts the office of Karl Rove. For something not completely dissimilar seems to be happening to George W. Bush. Since just after the capture of Saddam, Bush's ratings have been in free-fall. And this is less surprising than it appears. The paradox of the war against terrorism is that the more the president succeeds, the more politically vulnerable he gets. The fewer the terrorist incidents, the more remote the fear, the less necessary the war seems and the more dispensable the war-president appears. If the president responds to this by insisting that the enemy is still powerful and dangerous, he runs the risk of seeming to concede he hasn't managed to curtail the threat. Or, worse perhaps, he seems as if he's whipping up fear and panic for his own electoral advantage. And after the failures of intelligence with respect to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, his credibility on unknown threats is already eroded. After a while, if no new terrorist incidents occur, it's lose-lose for a war-president.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
Announcer: Fact: Bush cuts key education programs by 27% Fact: Bush slashes job training by 24%.Fact: Bush cuts child care for 365,000 kids. Fact: Bush guts first-responder funds by $800 million dollars. Fact: Bush cuts clean-water funding by nearly 40%.
Stop Bush from ballooning the deficit. Sign the petition now.
-----
So let's see: if Bush wasn't cutting those funds, we'd have a smaller deficit?
Do they just not think people know what those words mean, or that they don't know simple arithmetic?
While there's some truth to some of the ad's points, it's a Chicken Little kind of scare tactic. Also, the point about DOE spending getting cut is a boldface lie. It's increased dramatically under Bush.
posted
Notwithstanding your valid points re: Kerry's veracity, that DOE funding, per some conservative standards, would be an indictment of Bush, nothing to be proud of?
Don't you know it's gonna be alright-John Lennon And you will know that all manner of things shall be well-Julian of Norwich Posts: 2881 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notwithstanding your valid points re: Kerry's veracity, that DOE funding, per some conservative standards, would be an indictment of Bush, nothing to be proud of?
My ears were burning. Did someone call? Well, the philosophy behind Bush’s spending seems muddled at best. I can make little sense of it other than to assume he’s trying to take away the Democrats’ issues ala a Bill Clinton, and that’s not a very complimentary comparison to make – if one values principle more than re-election politics.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush's DOE spending is related to his No Child Left Behind policies, which Senator Kerry among many others applauded. Now, however, Kerry has "reservations," most likely because it was Bush's idea and not his. The DOE funding is to help the states implement the program; the states claim it's not enough. Kerry agrees, of course.
-------------------- "The Light shines on in darkness . . ." - John 1: 3 - Posts: 7539 | From: Wichita, KS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Here's Daniel Pipes' assessment on the 911 evaluations. I post it here for how it may bear upon the elections.
----------------------------------
Who's to Blame for 9/11. I have little patience for the current partisan bickering over who's to blame for letting the 9/11 atrocities occur, a debate right now at fever pitch.
My view, which I expressed in a bitter piece on Sept. 11, 2001 itself (and which appeared in the Wall Street Journal the next day as well as in the National Review Online on the very afternoon of 9/11) was that
The tactical blame falls on the U.S. government, which has grievously failed in its topmost duty to protect American citizens from harm. Specialists on terrorism have been aware for years of this dereliction of duty; now the whole world knows it. Despite a steady beat of major, organized terrorist incidents over 18 years (since the car bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut in 1983), Washington has not taken the issue seriously. I purposefully used these neutral formulations ("U.S. government," "Washington") rather than blame Democrats or Republicans because I felt then and do now that the blame was bipartisan. Further, it had much to do with the permanent bureaucracy. Beyond that, it resulted from a societal negligence. Here is how I put it a few weeks later, noting the many deaths that took place at the hands of the jihad against America:
The sad fact is, 22 years and 600 dead did not get the country's attention. Americans blithely ignored those specialists on militant Islam and terrorism who pleaded for vigilance and warned of horrors to come. This national obliviousness explains how Americans found themselves so embarrassingly unprepared for the events of September 11. (I now count not 600 but 800 dead.) And here is how I put it in April 2002, reviewing the 22 prior years:
although Americans were repeatedly attacked, they barely responded. One can hardly blame the militant Islamic groups and governments for concluding that the United States was weak, demoralized and ripe for attack. The population was feckless, distracted and complacent, the government incompetent. The country as a whole was unprepared before 9/11 and it serves no good purpose to score partisan points. Far more constructive than these stale and dishonest debates would be seriously to address the U.S. government and people's overly euphemistic and timid, sometimes myopic and inconsistent responses to the internal threats they face, even now. (For a personal account of one such experience, see my article, "The U.S. Institute of Peace Stumbles.") (March 26, 2004) Permalink
IP: Logged |
posted
Pipes said: Despite a steady beat of major, organized terrorist incidents over 18 years (since the car bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut in 1983), Washington has not taken the issue seriously.
Well, at least part of this time period came before the collapse of the Soviet Union in December of 1991. In a very real sense it might have been on the back burner for valid reasons. We already had our hands full. But clearly this excuse vanishes beginning in 1992. And unlike Pipes, I very much blame Democrats - in particular, Clinton. It's very much in vogue to run up the moral equivalent argument, that both Clinton and Bush ignored the terrorist threat equally (Clinton for eight years – Bush, supposedly, for a few months). But Clinton very much dropped the ball. He was offered Osama bin Laden and refused to take him on legal grounds. Clinton has said as much. He was offered to us by the Sudanese government but was refused because Clinton didn't think we had a strong enough legal case against him. Again, we get a president thinking like a lawyer instead of a leader. Beware of Kerry's equivocation on the fine points. Do you want four years of that? The most Clinton did was to lob a few cruise missiles and to continue the policies of the previous administration in regards to Iraq. That's hardly cutting-edge or proactive stuff.
Arguably, with the mess and inaction that Clinton left behind, with the obvious record of terrorist attacks on the U.S, at home and abroad, Bush might be expected to put all these pieces together and to act. He could have done more and didn't. For that he is culpable. But as Rumsfeld points out in his testimony below, this is a difficult thing. And we should point out that when terrorism happened on Bush's watch, he *did* act, and acted vigorously.
quote: Further, I believe that the actions taken since September 11th in the global war on terror, and the international coalition assembled to fight that war, would have been impossible to achieve before the September 11th attacks.
quote: Think about it: after September 11th , the President made the decision not simply to launch cruise missile strikes as the U.S. had previously tried. Rather, he decided to deal decisively with the terrorist network responsible for the attack — and to hold not only the perpetrators to account, but also the regime that had harbored, aided, and supported them as they trained, planned, and executed their attacks.
The President rallied the world, and formed what is today a 90-nation coalition to wage the global war on terrorist networks. He sent U.S. and Coalition forces — air, sea, and ground — to attack Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban regime, and destroy that al-Qaeda stronghold.
Within 26 days of the attack — on October 7 th , the air campaign against Taliban and al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan had been launched. Within 38 days — on October 19th, the U.S. military had forces on the ground in Afghanistan. Within 59 days — on November 9 th , Mazar-e-Sharif fell to a coordinated assault by Afghan and U.S. forces, aided by precision strikes from Coalition ships and aircraft. Within 63 days — on November 13, 2001, Kabul was taken — and Afghanistan was liberated. In short order: The Taliban regime was driven from power; Al-Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan was removed; Nearly two-thirds of their known leaders have now been captured or killed; Today a transitional government is in power in Afghanistan, which is transforming the country from a safe haven for terrorists to a coalition ally in the war against terrorism. And a clear message was sent: henceforth there will be a price to pay for harboring terrorists.
These were bold steps — and today, in light of September 11th , no one questions those actions. Today, I suspect most would support a pre-emptive action to deal with such a threat, if it had been possible to see it coming. Today, our remarkable military success in Afghanistan is largely taken for granted, as is the achievement in bringing together countries like Pakistan, India, Uzbekistan, and Oman into a 90-nation coalition.
But imagine for a moment that we were back before September 11, 2001. Imagine that a U.S. President had looked at the information then available, and gone before the Congress and the world, and said: "We need to invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and destroy the al-Qaeda terrorist network," based on what little was known before September 11th.
How many countries would have joined in a coalition? Many? Any? Not likely.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
. Shalom Place
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
