That's Some Military Option You've Got There, Mr. Bush!

Yeah, the "BanK" (China) told George no deal. Imagine Bush crawling to the hated UN, the rightwing nuts evil empire, and sent packing without getting to use a even little Stealth bomber or Tomahawk.

At least Bush did not give the N. Koreans anything like Clinton did...

Bush may not be the best or brightest but he is the President and, in my opinion, there is more to be gained in international diplomacy by uniting behind him than in convincing the world we are a divided nation with no resolve to face down aggresive antagonists.

Or do you think blaming Bush for bin Laden, Darfur, Chavez, Iran's leaders, Darfur, and every other international conflict is simply doing your patriotic duty by "questioning " policy?

Questioning leadership is simply cheap political hypocrisy unless constructive alternatives are offerred and, as much as I disagree with some of Bush's moves, I have heard no viable plans to correct them.

Do you think it fair to expect critics to say what decision they would have made and what plans they would replace present policy with?

Bill Horton

Yeah, let's see: from 1994-2001 North Korean plutonium reactor at Yongbyon was inspected weekly by the IAEA and did not produce any plutonium. From 2001-present the North Koreans expelled the IAEA in reciprocity for American actions and resumed producing plutonium that was used in the nuclear test last week.

Sure, George Bush did something, he allowed the NorKs to become a declared nuclear state. Great going!

And Bill, I have presented alternative critiques and plans of what I would have done too many freaking times to count.

Frankly, I think G.W. Bush would be condemned no matter what he does by those on the other side of the aisle. Whatever he does, it won't be the right thing according to them. I'm pretty tired of all of, actually. It's not productive for our nation.

I get tired of the "rally round the President in time of war" spiel. Rally round the guy who lied, mismanaged and only idea is "stay the course?"

There is worldwide consensus that Bush policies are disasterous failures. The boy is our problem. It serves the final arbitors of a Democracy, you and me, to be completely informed and make the ballot box decision necessary.

Bill this site is chock full of answers and ideas contrary to Bush's "plan."

Let's all get on Bush's wagon as he drives it straight off the cliff, right! Possibly if there hadn't been all this "get off his back" crap, we wouldn't be in the shape we're in, now. Did you ever think of that? Squelching debate isn't going to help find alternatives to failed policy.

" Frankly, I think G.W. Bush would be condemned no matter what he does by those on the other side of the aisle. Whatever he does, it won't be the right thing according to them"

And so far they have been overwhelmingly right.

"Bush may not be the best or brightest"

That's some resounding endorsement for following and cheering along with everything he says and does. Typical.

"there is more to be gained in international diplomacy by uniting behind him than in convincing the world we are a divided nation with no resolve to face down aggresive antagonists. "

WHAT? If we all united behind g.w. we would, in fact, be representing our nation as FULL of idiots, rather than showing the world there are SOME intelligent people in our country!

And, since we're on the subject...I like to make my vote count...I only vote for the best and brightest! Half-arsed doesn't cut it.

Politicians of all stripes are at best morons...at the worst they are leeches living oof of the fat of the land...!

Most of the politicians we have on the scene right now do seem to be morons, but that's the fault of the system we have in place for electing people. The "performance" required consists of having a great TV personality rather than leadership ability, doesn't it? Plus, it costs so many zillions to run for office at all, you've either got to be a billionaire yourself or be corrupt enough to attract all that money. Neither of these facts contributes to getting good leaders for this country. We've got to figure out how to reform this, and it could be done.

Our national government is made up of great institutions. The Constitution with its checks and balances was once the envy of and inspiration to the world. Until relatively recently, good people aspired to become political leaders...Kennan, Marshall and more recently, Paul Wellstone. I suspect most politicians even today, start out with the aim of doing good. Then they enter the money pit that campaigning has become and either give up their private life entirely or give up their integrity. They have to listen to couch potatoes gripe that politicians are all corrupt or incompetent, and many set about proving it - Ney, Cunningham, DeLay et al. Somehow we have to get money out of the equation, despite the whining of poeple like George Will who moan that political donations are free speech. Good people will rise to the occasion (Wes Clark is one).

I'm worried about the "let's nuke them" crowd. Frankly, I'm glad we are trying diplomacy.

Sean-Paul, you are absolutely right about the passive-appeasement. Bush is certainly not the brightest President this country has ever had. His policies are hurting the country. I miss America.

Hi Bill, and Barbara,
I have a mother that feels the same way as the two of you. No matter what happens she will back the President of the United States. She feels he is doing the job she voted him in to do.
She also has informed me she wishes I wouldn't write any more artilcles for my hometown paper.
I had been critiziing my government for creating an illegal stop, where we were being stopped, asked our citizenship and forced to submit to searches of our vehicles and person.
She felt that we should just shut up and do what they want.
Obviously I disagree with her. After my article came out in the local paper I had most of the town thank me for airing views they have also held.
Sometimes there are different ways of thinking, and thank goodness we live in America where expressing those views are acceptable.

Sally, what kind of stop are you describing there? In the state where I live, we have had stops by the police, state troopers as far back as the seventies and before. They check for driver's licenses and insurance. I have never been asked about my citizenship by an officer of the law. Once, when a prison inmate escaped in the area we were driving through, we had to stop and open our trunk so the officer could see we weren't being coerced to drive him somewhere, the escapee was armed with a weapon. I don't believe there is anything illegal about any of these stops I have described. If we were illegals, we would probably resent them. But, hey, we're not, so go for it is how I feel about it.

The stop is a Border Patrol check point on a country road in Arizona, about 24 miles from the Border, and my small town of Arivaca. In my article I was simply stating that they would probably do a better job of Patrolling the Border if they were on the Border. Since my Article they have broken down the Check Point, and I for one, feel much better.
Also, Like I said before, it's great that we live in America where you can have your opinion and I can have mine. Nothing like living in the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave!"

In S. Texas, there are stops at a checkpoint far from the borderline. We have always stopped and dogs sniff and they wave us on. The agents there have done a fine job of keeping drugs and illegals out of the state at this checkpoint. Maybe they should reinstate the checkpoint there in Arizona. It may surprise you what and who they catch.

Grrrr.