(no subject)

[rain_gryphon]

A succint analysis of the political mess that Bush has made: http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=262846 I fit very snugly into the "National Security Conservative" camp. I'm willing to overlook any failing of Bush's so long as he vigourously prosecutes the war on terror. I can't even begin to express how betrayed I feel by this. The whole thing would be fascinating to watch as a political pissing match, were it not for the fact that America's safety is at risk here.

Comments

[loganberrybunny.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately that article needs a login, but I can make a guess. It strikes me that Bush is in real trouble if he can't convince people like you, for whom the war on terror is the priority. The obvious question presents itself: who would you like as the next US President?

[xolo.livejournal.com]

Who I'd *love* is Barry Goldwater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater). Sadly, he shows no signs of recovering from his death. Until this ports debacle I'd have said Condoleezza Rice or Dick Cheney. We'll have to see what transpires between now and then. My guess is that the Republican nominee will probably be Rice, and I'll probably vote for her, assuming she opposes the ports deal.

[whitetail.livejournal.com]

*sigh* It says I have to login to read the document...

BTW, I apologise for flying off the handle the other day. RL stress, etc, but that's really no excuse. Again, I'm sorry...

[xolo.livejournal.com]

It says I have to login to read the document...


It argued that the Republicans are incapable of holding on in the midterm elections without the support of those swing voters (and I'm one) who consider national security to be an issue that overrides all others. I never really thought of myself as a single-issue voter, but now I seem to be.


BTW, I apologise for flying off the handle the other day.


S'okay. Stuff like that doesn't offend me. I'm never sure when you post stuff then immediately take it down again if you changed your mind, or if you wanted me only to see the reply and I shouldn't follow it up, or what.

For the record, I can't see opposing the sale of the ports to Arabs as racist. "Arab" denotes a culture and mindset as well as a race, and until that culture changes radically, we should most decidedly not be allowing Arabs to control our ports, or anything else that might impact national security.

Bush's argument is that if the Arabs are treated in an evenhanded manner, they'll reciprocate by showing reasonable behaviour. The problem with that is that it's already been shown to be false. That doctrine works everywhere else in the world, but not with Arabs. One would think he might have something learned from the recent failures in Iraq. We set up a system where the rights of all parties were protected, and where everyone would be free to follow their own conscience with regard to religion. That formula has worked in Africa (in countries with large Moslem populations, too), in Asia, and in South America. Throughout most of the world, that's what people want. They want to be able to live and worship as they please, and if they're allowed that, then they're willing to allow others the same rights. The Iraqi response to freedom was for the Sunnis and Shiites to get busy blowing up each other's mosques as soon as the occupation troops started being withdrawn.

We need to face the fact that not all of the world is like ourselves. It would be nice if it was, but it isn't.