OK.
So, could you describe the political climate, and also explain what exactly is wrong with the same?
In doing so, please keep in mind that this particular discussion, and your assertion, relate back to the issue of the sale of the ports.
Please provide specific examples of Bush rhetoric that created a political climate whereby many would oppose the sale of the ports specifically to a UAE concern.
Of course he did.[/quote]
President’s Radio Address, published 02-08-2003
[quote=“Dubya”]The Iraqi regime has actively and secretly attempted to obtain equipment needed to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Firsthand witnesses have informed us that Iraq has at least seven mobile factories for the production of biological agents – equipment mounted on trucks and rails to evade discovery. …
And we have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons – the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. …
Having made its demands, the Security Council must not back down when those demands are defied and mocked by a dictator. The United States would welcome and support a new resolution making clear that the Security Council stands behinds its previous demands.[/quote]
Either:
Increasing military and political interventionism and taking sides in the Middle East isn’t “wrestling with the problems” there. It’s becoming part of the problem.
Another one for Dubya’s resume – authorizing the release of sensitive information in the midst of wartime and lying to federal investigators. It’s looking more and more like the man was tied into the whole Scooter Libby/Dick Cheney effort to get a Joe Wilson by sucker-punching his wife. Not all the dots have been connected yet, but bits and pieces are starting to come together.
Scooter Libby starts talking here.
After lying to the American people about WMDs and trying so hard to get Americans to believe there was a relationship between Iraq and the 9-11 attacks, perhaps Bush might finally end up facing the music.
As Mark Twain once said, if you always tell the truth you don’t have to remember what you said.
Here’s a good article on American political culture in the Boston Review: Ending Polarization. (The authors’ conclusions differ from my own.)
My view: the political culture of the United States is based on widespread beliefs in, and differing commitments to values of classical liberalism: individual liberty, equality, private property, limited government, individualism, democracy, justice, the rule of law, nationalism, optimism, idealism… These values are reinforced by specific institutions, formal and informal, which include the Constitution, Bill of Rights, the courts, an (increasingly noxious) two-party system, a belief in social equality, a distinctively American ‘civic religion’, reasonably free speech and a free press, a reasonable public discourse and public oversight of government activities.
Currently, the political culture of the US is–to a disturbing degree–not defined by a commitment to these values, but to increasingly isolated and uncommunicative or shrill subcultures within the republic. I don’t blame Bush for creating these conditions; he didn’t. I do blame him, his tactical-brothers-in-arms in the Republican and Democratic parties, and the media for doing all they can to capitalize on the divide. Bush is particularly vulnerable to such criticism given how he presented himself–
[quote=“Bush: interview with David Horowitz; 1999”]I’m a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another.
[…]
Group-thought will balkanize our society, and I have rejected the politics of pitting one group of persons against another.[/quote]
–and the degree to which his administration has not only presided over, but capitalized on these divides. This is most obviously evident in matters of individual liberty touching on morals issues dealing with sexuality and reproduction (effectively employed to get out the vote), health and death (not so effectively employed). Equality of opportunity has always been contingent on the possibility of freely moving up the socio-economic ladder, but social mobility has become increasingly difficult over the past two decades . Shifting the tax burden to the poor only makes this situation more difficult. Justice and the courts? Too often politicized, exiled to Gitmo, or on permanent hold.
But that’s all part of a more general picture, not the specific case and examples you asked for. How about accepting this, for the time being, in place of another long post.
[quote=“LA TIMES”]
War Rhetoric Blows Back in Port Furor
February 26, 2006
President Bush may not like the arguments that critics are raising against the Dubai company attempting to take over cargo and cruise operations at ports in six U.S. cities. But he should recognize them. The arguments marshaled against Bush closely echoed the ones he deployed to defend the Iraq war.
The president, in other words, is stewing in a pot he brought to boil.
At the core of Bush’s case for invading Iraq was the contention that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks changed the burden of proof in evaluating potential threats. Bush justified the war, despite inconclusive intelligence about whether Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, largely on the grounds that after Sept. 11, waiting for definitive evidence of danger was itself too risky.
“Facing clear peril,” Bush declared in his starkest expression of this argument, “we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
In so many words, that’s what many critics are saying now about the deal that would allow Dubai Ports World, controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates, to acquire the British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. and assume control of its port facilities in the six American cities.
As Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), ordinarily a reliable Bush supporter, wrote last week: “While the United Arab Emirates has been an ally over the last few years, it certainly has ties to Islamic fascism, and trusting that it will remain on our side in the war on terror is not a risk that I am willing to take.”
That sort of argument, which revolves around the fear of things that might someday occur, is inherently difficult to refute. Indeed, as this debate gathered momentum last week, it often seemed the two sides were talking past each other
Another one for Dubya’s resume – Worst in History. (And pretty bad in Math and Science too.)
[quote=“Ivan Eland”]
Top Ten Mistakes the Bush Administration Is Repeating from Vietnam
Hmmmm. I suppose there are a lot of “feelings” about the subject but… guess what? We won the election in 2000 and again in 2004. We have control of both houses at least for now. We now have the Supreme Court for what? the next 30 years? Another appointment or two in the next 2.75 years of Bush and we may have it even longer. That means using the court for “social advancement” is now effectively shut off. Academic standards at elite liberal institutions are under attack as are the leftwing whacko professors and their agendas. We got the invasion of Iraq and we have Europe lobbying in our behalf against Iran. Even Russia and China signed onto the Security Council resolution regarding Iran’s nuclear program. Afghanistan is no longer a lair for al Qaeda. The Pakistanis are cracking down on remnants in their nation. Syria is out of Lebanon. India is a strategic partner. Japan is a strategic partner. Australia is a strategic partner. France (even France!) is cooperating. Germany is now our close ally again. Spain has backed away from its earlier Zapateroism. Italy remains firm in Iraq. Eastern Europe is closely cooperating with the US. The UN and its corruption have been exposed. The UN is openly talking about and initiating reform. We are firmly entrenched in both the Caucasus and Central Asia. All of this occurred under Bush, because of Bush, because of his leadership, because he is smart and visionary.
What has Bush lost? public opinion? really? What has really happened in Europe since the invasion of Iraq? What has happened to the leadership of Europe? Closer to us or farther away? What about the rest of the world? The only area where we have regressed that I can think of is Venezuela. To some extent, Russia, but I would argue that would have happened anyway and regardless, we are entrenched in many of the former CIS states and with Putin’s original blessing. He may be having second thoughts now but hey, we are there and we will be there for quite some time. Anything else? No? Then, foam at the mouth all you want but basically we have gotten 90 percent of what we want and we have Bush in office for another 2.75 years. Want to bet we get a bit more? Syria? Iran? A strategic partnership with an equally important country? Besides Japan and Australia and India and having Germany back, maybe France? Ukraine? Turkey again? Indonesia? Brazil? Who knows, perhaps even China? The future is ours and that is what irks the most doesn’t it? Even Bush, however, does not seem placed to do much about North Korea but then after all the other successes… who knows?
I mean Kyoto is dead as we wanted. Education is starting to be reformed as we did in the lead up to the welfare reform of 1996. Bilingual education is under attack. Soft standards are under attack. Poor personal behavior is under attack. Crime and welfare are down to levels not seen since the early 1960s. In New York the numbers are as low as they were in 1963. Tax cuts have been repeatedly passed. With economic recovery as strong as it is, it should drive down the deficits but if Bush chooses to slash spending even more strongly, think of the legacy he will leave. A huge tidal wave that will be hard to reverse I think.
Anyway, I guess I do feel your pain. It must be hard to bear the losses across so many fronts. I know what it was like to live under Carter. I imagine that for lefto nutjobs, life under Bush must be equally unpleasant. The only difference is that Carter was a disaster for the nation as well, while Bush will leave us with a legacy of strength that even another Carter would be hard put to demolish. So keep moaning and squealing shrilly about his supposed illegal behavior, his defects, his lies, etc. In the meantime, I have a feeling he will be racking up some even higher scores for OUR side. haha And in the process for America and the civilized world.
Vive la victoire. Plus la Champagne! Maintenant, j’aime la France beaucoup aussi! Vive notre bonne amie. Vive la France. Vive l’Allemagne retourne chez nous! hahah
Yeah…I blame GW Bush for all that…
…back to you RichardM…
Hi Fred. Nice to see you back in fine fiddle.
What has Bush lost? Who cares about Bush? What have you lost?
Who is “we” to you? My comments address a nation, not a party. I’m interested in see the US, not the Republican or Democratic party, do well. You know what happens when one party holds too much power for too long: look at the Liberal party’s mess. Even if one party dominates, at least in Canada there are three national parties and the occasion regional force. You’ve got it worse having only two; two virtually identical parties is bad enough, having one is the kiss of death.
Strategic partnerships are good; where were they before? Setting the standard in economics, politics, law, society–that’s gold. And in these areas, the US is no longer the gold standard.
Pain? I feel none. Disappointment, yes. I’m sorry to see that you’re still in a twist over Carter, but please, let it go.
Anyways, if your concern is only winning, I’m betting you won’t. Do well first, grow the pie before slicing it up–you remember, pursue non-zero strategies before devoting yourself to rent-seeking activities–that’s the ticket.
Cheers Fred.
What precisely is this gold standard you speak of in society?
All quiet on the eastern front:
"Since the Iraqi elections in January, US foreign service officers at the Baghdad embassy have been writing a steady stream of disturbing cables describing drastically worsening conditions. Violence from incipient communal civil war is rapidly rising. Last month there were eight times as many assassinations committed by Shia militias as terrorist murders by Sunni insurgents. The insurgency, according to the reports, also continues to mutate. Meanwhile, President Bush’s strategy of training Iraqi police and army to take over from coalition forces - “when they stand up, we’ll stand down” - is perversely and portentously accelerating the strife. State department officials in the field are reporting that Shia militias use training as cover to infiltrate key positions. Thus the strategy to create institutions of order and security is fuelling civil war.
Rather than being received as invaluable intelligence, the messages are discarded or, worse, considered signs of disloyalty. Rejecting the facts on the ground apparently requires blaming the messengers. So far, two top attaches at the embassy have been reassigned elsewhere for producing factual reports that are too upsetting.
[color=blue]The Bush administration’s preferred response to increasing disintegration is to act as if it has a strategy that is succeeding. “More delusion as a solution in the absence of a solution,” said a senior state department official. . . .[/color]
The state department’s Intelligence and Research Bureau was correct in its scepticism before the war about Saddam Hussein’s possession of WMDs, but was ignored. The department was correct in its assessment in its 17-volume Future of Iraq project about the immense effort required for reconstruction after the war, but it was disregarded. Now its reports from Iraq are correct, but their authors are being punished. . . .
“Did you ever imagine in your wildest dreams that after Vietnam we’d be doing this again?” one top state department official remarked to another last week. Inside the department, people wonder about the next “strategy” after the hearts-and-minds gambit of sending diplomats unprotected to secure victory turns into a squalid fiasco. “Helicopters on the roof?” asked an official."
Almost had me going spook! 
Ｇｏｏｄ ｍｏｒｎｉｎｇ！
Gold standard: commonly recognized benchmark/ target for achievement. The US economy continues to set a high standard, but so far as politics, law and society go, America is no longer providing the model to emulate. It’s hard to identify a “gold standard” for anything as diverse as “society”, but insofar as it’s possible, the UN Human Development Index does a pretty good job of hitting a moving target.
Fair enough, though I would note that all of the top 10 except the U.S. have reletively small populations and most are nearly homogenous ethnically, so perhaps an ethnic cleansing is in order? 
Don’t start the pogrom just yet.
Canada, and Belgium aren’t exactly ethnically homogenous, and I’m not sure the idea has any currency in Switzerland. Australia is becoming increasingly diverse.
Linguistically, Belgium, Canada, Luxembourg, and Switzerland are all officially bilingual, if not trilingual. (Ireland is officially bilingual as well, but I have no idea how much of an impact Irish has in everyday life… gotta get over there one of these days.)
Population density may be a factor, but then Switzerland has a greater population density than the US. 
Almost had me going spook!
Ｇｏｏｄ ｍｏｒｎｉｎｇ！:)[/quote] :roflmao: 
:nyah: That spook!..he’s such a go’er in the morning! :discodance: :soapbox:
All the same, note how Germany, France, and larger European nations with generally similar policies fall a step down from the Norways, Icelands and Belgiums of the world, even though from an income standpoint they sit pretty much dead even with most of the top 10 (I think Norway and Luxembourg’s incomes may be a little higher). Now consider that the U.S. population and amount of diversity dwarfs even the largest European Nations. (aside – in this matter I think population density may actually cut the other way – having a large, spread out population may create more competing interest groups because citizens have less in common than if they were in the same place. It also definitely increases transportation costs and such to have a spread out population – note how Australia, Canada, and perhaps Sweeden are the only top 10 countries with large land areas, but the populations of all 3 countries tend to be centered in smaller strips)
Almost had me going spook!
Ｇｏｏｄ ｍｏｒｎｉｎｇ！:)[/quote] :roflmao: :nyah: That spook!..he’s such a go’er in the morning! :discodance: :soapbox:[/quote]
And don’t forget, the boys and girls of Foggy Bottom are a bunch of elitist striped-pants Euro-weenie traitors (just like the CIA) who will do anything to destroy the noble aims of our Dear Leader.
Almost had me going spook!
Ｇｏｏｄ ｍｏｒｎｉｎｇ！:)[/quote] :roflmao: :nyah: That spook!..he’s such a go’er in the morning! :discodance: :soapbox:[/quote]
I should get paid for all the entertainment I provide. 
Almost had me going spook!
Ｇｏｏｄ ｍｏｒｎｉｎｇ！:)[/quote] :roflmao: :nyah: That spook!..he’s such a go’er in the morning! :discodance: :soapbox:[/quote]
I should get paid for all the entertainment I provide. [/quote]
Far be it from me to say who should be paid for what. But in this particular case, spook, I don’t know if you can take full credit for all of the entertainment value yourself. My impression is that it was the prospect that anyone might take Sydney Blumenthal seriously that produced the laughs here. 