[irishtrekker]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

There is so much I take issue with in your post that I can’t possibly go into great detail. But I think I get where you’re coming from. Your position is that if we didn’t have Bush as president we would have, won the war on terror without fighting the war, without taking prisoners and without spying. We would have cured genital warts and girls would no longer get cervical cancer. Natural disasters like Katrina would not have happened and the levees would have been fortified and would not have given way. Mine disasters would not have happened because mine safety would not have been cut. We would have increased the taxes on the wealthy and their heirs to make ourselves feel good.

And in from the other corner of the ring is liberal girl number 2! Apologies in advance for slight incoherence: I'm running on coffee fumes and normally am more logical than this.

I don't think that's what GR was saying at all, but I don't want to put words in our mouth, so here's what I say. I would never suggest extremes like that, and I think it's hyperbolic to do so. What I would say is that if we didn't have Bush as president, we wouldn't necessarily have entered a "war" on terrorism without acknowledging the potential for that war to have no end. We might have expanded our strategy beyond "bomb the crap out of anyone who might be a threat" to "consider how some of our own behaviors have contributed to the problem and fix those in addition to bombing the crap out of people." One of the things that's frustrated me most about the war on terror is that it's anathema to even dare suggest that we might need to take a long look in the mirror and do something about ourselves if we actually want to win it. Nothing justifies attacking innocent people, but it's ignorant and unhelpful to think that everyone else in the world is "wrong" and we're "right." Like it or not, people around the world are angered by what they perceive as our arrogance, our power-trips, our boorish behavior and our general disregard for world politics that don't involve us. Failing to listen to them does have consequences: we can't live in a damn bubble and then cry foul when it bursts! Living abroad makes me realize that we do get unfairly criticized, but at the same time we are the world "superpower" and that comes with a level of responsibility that we need to accept. When we're developing new nuclear weapons and telling other people not to, when we're blatantly disregarding the warning signs about climate change and telling sinking island nations to stop whining, when we talk about the importance of treating people humanely and then let Guantanamo get to the point where the Red Cross is investigating it...well, maybe acting a little less like the bully on the block would actually do a lot of good. If we improve our national image, then we'd win back some of those allies who've grown disgusted with us. Right now, we're letting the terrorists win the damn war: we're getting ugly, stooping to some of their own tactics (torture), and curtailing domestic freedoms.

We aren't going to cure genital warts or stop cancer, at least not anytime soon, but what the hell is an administration doing by holding up something that could at least prevent the two? It's like refusing to give people an AIDS vaccine. The problem with genital warts is that it's almost impossible to detect -- you could marry someone who has it without either of you ever knowing. Is it really fair to penalize kids by consicously letting their cancer risk increase because a vaccine somehow conflicts with your moral fiber? Is that REALLY the government's job?

Of course natural disasters like Katrina would happen, but I don't think we'd have an Arabian horse judge in charge of FEMA (or was it quarter horses?) who'd inflated his resume to make it look like he knew something about disaster management when he actually didn't have a clue. The fact of the matter is that people were worried about the levees, went to Bush's people, and were told that it wasn't a problem. Sure, Bush himself probably didn't have much to do with this, but like every other incident it comes down to whether we should retain faith in a leader who cannot appoint competent people to important positions. Oh yeah, and we'd also probably have some sort of climate policy in place so our children don't have even bigger disasters to worry about year after year. But hey, a bunch of scientists on oil industry payrolls don't think it's happening, and Michael Crichton doesn't believe it either. Heck, I'll choose Crichton over a bunch of atmospheric scientists from around the world who've devoted their entire careers to this! Those Greenland people whining about their melting ice sheets can just learn to swim, and it's not like we've ever cared about other species anyway, so why worry now that many can't adapt to the changes? More room for us!

I don't have a problem taxing the wealthy, sorry. When the rich-poor gap is growing like it is, I think people have a responsibility to give back proportionally. Look at the Gates and Buffet -- you don't see them whining about taxes (note that Bill Gates Sr. is a major advocate for the estate tax). If everyone truly had an equal opportunity to be wealthy and successful in this world, then maybe I'd grumble about the tax...but my parents worked their butts off for us and will probably never be able to retire. I may never be able to buy a house in my family's area, even though I worked my way through school and have had jobs since I was 15. I don't really have a lot of sympathy for a multimillionaire who doesn't want to fork over a few of his millions. Last time I checked, even the wealthy need a functioning national economy to remain wealthy, and slashing all these taxes is pushing us closer to the edge financially. What happens if China comes calling on all the debt we owe them?

Mine safety: who knows if mines would collapse or not, but a company with 100 citations for safety would be shut down before it killed anyone...and isn't the company still operating elsewhere?

I am not willing to support a president because he looks like a good leader in a war, particularly when I think his "leadership" is all posturing and fear-mongering. Maybe the reason there haven't been any positive stories about Bush making the headlines lately is that there just aren't any to write.

Pardon the diatribe, but I just feel like we're all wrapped around the fingers of a few powerful people right now, and it makes me very angry. I'm young, and this stuff may all come home to roost when my generation takes over. That doesn't make me very happy.