But he's still a politician and I have learned never to put too much faith in ANY politician or you'll end up being disappointed

Aww! Poor thing... Listen, nobody's perfect, dahlink... What were you expecting, a tuna sandwhich?

I suspect that this Bush tendency to reach out to the "enemies" goes back to the grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush, R-CT. It's part of the eastern establishment legacy of the Bush family. But Prescott Bush did refuse to support Nelson Rockefeller for the 1964 presidential nomination after the divorce/remarriage/childbirth of 1963-1964. Otherwise, Prescott Bush had been committed to Rockefeller. George Herbert Walker Bush, however, dutifully endorsed Goldwater, mostly out of sectional interests. Ironically, GHWB, who opposed Democrat Senator Ralph W. Yarborough, outpolled Goldwater in TX.

But he's still a politician and I have learned never to put too much faith in ANY politician or you'll end up being disappointed.

'Nuff said...we can only go with the lesser of two...?

Nothingnew here...

FMCDH

If we could figure out a way to prevent politicians from winning elections, you might be on to something. Unfortunately, we're running up against a basic problem of definition.

I've decided to watch what W DOES. Speaking isn't his strong suit anyway. But he seems to have a fairly good instinct for what to DO. He has a problem of such proportion that he has to do it perfectly. I'm more afraid that the size of the problem will paralyze his action than I am that he'll say something that appeases his opponents. Get Colin Powellism out of the picture and I think even that would be less serious.

But he seems to have a fairly good instinct for what to DO.

So far the only things he's shown me he can do is spend money and talk the good fight. He's especially good at spending money. He's not as good at talking the good fight.

Get Colin Powellism out of the picture

Bing bang bong boing...whatever...he needs to retire "peacefully"...Ressurect Patton...

FMCDH

You alluded to a key point: politics is about comparative choices. Just an hour ago Bush held a press conference and said we need to cut taxes again to as large an extent as the one passed earlier this year that the liberals puked over. The man has gonads and is far exceeding my expectations.

Bush is trying to accomplish something here. Everyone is moaning and groaning because we don't just "nuke em" and get it over with. They've forgotten the main objective here, that is to irradicated terrorism. It's a big job and it's going to require the help of all nations in order to accomplish it. As far as I can see, he's doing a fabulous job. If just killing Bin Laden was the objective, we could have accomplished that in a couple of days. As a matter of fact, we could have eliminated the terrain problem by just leveling the mountain and making the entire country a flat sheet of glass. But then what? The terrorists are hiding in over 20 countries, do we flatten them all? Do you really think the oil producing countries would continue to furnish us with oil to run our big bad war machine after we declare war on them? What do you plan on using for jet fuel?

No, he's got a harder job then just loosing the dogs of war, and he's performing that job well. You may not thank him for it, but your children will.

be patient and read between the lines ... this isn't kindergarten and they aren't going to explain why 1.483 + 1.517 = 3. These negotiations, posturing, planning, etc., etc., etc., are extremely difficult. In fact, one could say, it's probably easier to get the planets to align than it is to set up what we've embarked on with minimal risk to our country & those defending us. SERIOUSLY FOLKS - Continuing with this rank impatience only makes the job more difficult and dangerous. If folks could just sit back and enjoy + marvel at what our people are doing the odds of it being done right will be that much greater. Always keep in mind how a magician is able to acheive things through misdirection - that same principle will apply significantly throughout this campaign.

Damn those politics, anyway. What we really need at this time of international crisis is a real hardliner who is never seen to be President of all the people.

And never forget: when we lose elections...we really win.

(of course, if he was self-destructive enough to run things your way, then lost the public support he needed to win in '04, all the "principled" third party knuckle-draggers would shriek about The Stupid Party and what a lousy candidate he was blah blah blah.)

How about he's a suck up, a sell out, and a wimp.

Powell is doing fine ... the State Dept. always seems to have these inherent conflicts built in - it's the nature of their business. I recall feeling the same way about George Schultz, James Baker, etc., etc. - but then, when you get a chance to have years of Madeline Not-so-Bright - you realize the difference between a good (EXCELLENT) head of state dept. ala Colin Powell and idiocy ala Clintonistas.

If just killing Bin Laden was the objective, we could have accomplished that in a couple of days.

Gee, why hasn't it been done by now?

Do you really think the oil producing countries would continue to furnish us with oil to run our big bad war machine after we declare war on them?

Yes...that's how this all works.

Think:History

Think:Money

Think:Power

Think:...sheeesh...

FMCDH

43 is ok. He campaigned as a big-government Repubbie and he is true to his words. He may be wrong much of the time, but he is wrong with integrity. That's what we voted for and that's what we got.

But, that's a VAST improvement over the guy who lost.

"But then what? The terrorists are hiding in over 20 countries, do we flatten them all?"

We wouldn't need to. Do you really think that the rest of the Arab world would allow these terrorists to continue their activities after watching Afganistan get turned into glowing glass? They would kill the terrorists themselves before becomeing the next target.

WWII happened because Hitler was convinced by previous experiences that the west would do nothing to stop him.

I agree there.

I'm not ready to join in the conservative bashing of Bush. Not saying I'll never do it. Just that I'm going to give him time. What happened 9/11 is UNPRECEDENTED. It's changed my take on a number of situations (made me finally sign that Klamath Falls petition--before, I was against it on principle, believing we should first bail out planters of orange groves in the Kodiak Tundra....)

How quickly we begin to weep that we have no shoes...when for so long (8 years, or 12, depending on how you look at it) we had no feet....

say again?

FMCDH

So far the only things he's shown me he can do is spend money and talk the good fight.

Has it occurred to you that the goal of this President is not to show you what he's doing? And have you not been paying any attention to the massive number of things that have been done since 9/11?

If your idea of 'doing things' is to lob meaningless missiles into Afghanistan, you should be longing to go back to x42's administration. President Bush said from the beginning that we would not 'see' everything that is being done, and that we must be patient. This is a different kind of war, and is already being fought on diplomatic and financial fields of battle, as well as extensive military preparation.

Thank God that this President is wise enough not to try to impress people like you.

The nagging problem is not with Bush, it lies with you. You are naiive and unrealistic to expect idealogic perfection from an elected politician.

As far as his overall leadership, it is quite good. Thinking back, Reagan did several things that would piss off anyone expecting a tight consistency. 1986 Immigration Amnesty comes to mind.