Fool me once...we got fooled...again.
Sometimes I get frustrated with the whole process and find myself favoring the philosopher king route over democracy. Of course I always base this on the assumption that I'd be invited to join their ranks. But then I wonder what would happen if I wound up on the outside because of some superficial and ultimately meaningless trait, like height (fucking sperm banks). So democracy it is.
Your question about leadership qualities segways nicely into a couple of points I'd like to make. Namely, that any public official who howled about the "rule of law" during the Clinton impeachment, and is now crying that perjury and obstruction of justice are mere technicalities is a rank hypocrite. Outing Valerie Plame was treacherous, if not technically treasonous, and immoral, if not technically illegal. The whole "Clinton only lied about a blow job" line is perfectly valid here. You are a clever sophist my friend, but there is simply no squaring this circle. And really, what's with this insane Republican/fundamentalist notion that morality is to be judged primarily, exclusively even, by two metrics: one's sexual behavior and acceptance of ancient myths?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that Bush is a better person, and a better president, simply because he hasn't cheated on his wife. It's irrelevant. Let's be clear here: NOTHING the right went after Clinton for was legitimate. You don't like how he handled Kosovo, Bosnia, Rwanda, Colombia, welfare reform, etc...that's fair. But the 8 years of constant garbage attacks were not. The GOP went miles beyond criminalizing politics; in fact, they more or less criminalized being Bill Clinton. Yet somehow outing an undercover CIA agent who worked on the black market for weapons of mass destruction--an act that any reasonable person can agree ran contrary to the nation's interest--is now just politics, and persecuted politics at that?
Have you any opinion on the slew of recent reports that George W Bush is prone to berating anyone in earshot, that he's perpetually snapping because he can't tolerate being questioned? Granted, these are rumors, but they strike me as accurate for a number of reasons I'll delineate in a later post. Needless to say, such choleric temperment doesn't wear well on a man so long bejeweled in the status of magnanimous heavyweight. Now we're finally privy to his true character--a petulant, sheltered, and spoiled pile of mediocrity.
Resolute, shmesolute
While I'm certainly in no position to mock a recovering alcoholic (or "quitter", depending on your perspective), I felt my journalistic integrity would suffer if I didn't give a shout out to The National Enquirer's recent bombshell.
On a more serious note, you certainly know that what passes for "conventional wisdom" in DC is usually more than just a little suspect outside the Beltway. Nuggets like "Gore should distance himself from Clinton if he wants to win", "The American people will never tolerate the legalization of marijuana", "The Family Guy is too offensive and must be cancelled", or "The Nationals will finish ahead of the Phillies" are regularly uttered with confidence at DC cocktail parties--yet each and every one of them has been (or will be) exposed as nonsense. So I'm a little shocked your BS detector has failed you on another piece of quasi-dogmatic Beltway wisdom: That George W Bush is a strong and resolute leader.
About four seconds of googling yielded the following:
· Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
· Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
· Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
· Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
· Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
· Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
· Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
· Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
· Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
· Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
· Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits
· Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
· Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
· Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
· Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
· Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
· Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. After meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
I would also add that he renegged on his promise to fire anyone involved in the Plame leak and on his pledge of $20 billion for NYC post 9/11. The fact of the matter is that Bush changes his mind about big issues at least as much as any other President did. One could even accuse the Bush team of "paying attention to the polls", given his I-don't-know-whether-to-laugh-or-cry Habitat for Humanity PR stunt this morning.
George W. Duvalier
Thank you, it's nice to be back. I was hoping you'd pick up on my currency concerns, and a little worried you'd bring up sanctions. In fact, I knew that would come back to bite me in the ass the second I wrote it.
Truthfully I never gave sanctions a second thought until college, where we both had our appetites ruined by life-sized photos of malnourished Iraqi children being brandished by guilt-ridden, trust-fund laden malcontents in front of the dining hall. Although perhaps I shouldn't question their tactics, since I now share their views. Sanctions have proven themselves to be both morally indefensible and completely counter-productive. But it added some padding to the paragraph, so I wrote it anyway. And it doesn't really matter, since the argument remains intact with or without sanctions.
My point about ruining the prestige of the dollar was not based on any technical economic analysis. I'm cognizant of the Euro's rise and the gains that accrue to US exporters when the dollar declines. Currencies rise and fall over time and the dollar's current value is not outside the boundaries of reason or history.
But do you remember when Marge and Homer went to marriage counseling, when all the couples were doing a "trust exercise", falling backwards into their partner's arms? Of course you do. So you know that Homer was out chasing the General Sherman, and Reverend Lovejoy told Marge he wouldn't recommend the exercise, even if Homer was there.
Since WWII we've been the world's trusted partner; time and time again countries have averted financial meltdown by falling into our arms. There was a point in time where the US Treasury and the Wu-Tang Clan could both say "word is bond" and mean it.
Well ODB is dead, and GWB is President. The dirt-dog's absence hasn't stopped the Wu from staying near the top of rap, but a promise from Bush isn't worth the whiskey soaked paper it's written on. George W Bush is the greatest 70's era Latin American dictator that ever lived: he appoints incompetent friends to powerful positions, he has a hard on for the military to mask his fairly obvious insecurities, he plays to peoples' basest instincts, and most relevantly, he seems to think he can just print or borrow money indefinitely.
World markets will eventually lose faith in our government as long as this behavior continues. It's not a question of if, but when; and by some indications it's already started. And when that happens--when the world has no more faith in the American dollar than it did the Argentine dollar peg--our affluent way of life is over. Caput, perhaps for decades. Hence, "ruined the prestige of the dollar".
--------------------------------
In the near future I'd like to discuss the issues surrounding Constitutional interpretation in more detail. But for now, would you care to comment on the cesspool of corruption your party has become? It seems that government is exceptionally responsive to the people that pay for it.
