Dangerous Days - Newsweek

mommabear · Joined: Feb 20, 2003 Posts: 6319

Quote:

The world crisis has grown far too serious for the U.S. president to take an extended summer break.

By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek
Updated: 4:35 p.m. ET Aug 23, 2006

Aug. 23, 2006 - This is as dangerous an August as I can recall, at least since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait 16 years ago. The Europeans are dithering over contributions to a peacekeeping force while a dangerously unstable Lebanon slips into a "security vacuum," in the words of United Nations envoy Terje Roed-Larsen. Iran is stringing along the West in negotiations as it rushes to perfect the nuclear fuel cycle—which could occur as soon as the next several months—while bidding skillfully for regional hegemony. North Korea is hinting darkly at a nuclear test after firing off missiles. And Iraq is, well, say no more.

It is the sort of moment when peace and history could be hanging in the balance for a generation to come—the kind of tipping point when American presidents can no longer leave the negotiating to underlings. They must take the world stage themselves to find a new way out, simply because no one else has the globo-oomph to do so. There is a grand American tradition behind this sort of personal involvement of America's chief executive, one that goes back almost precisely a century. Teddy Roosevelt spent much of August 1905 directing talks in Portsmouth, N.H, that prodded Japan and Russia into an agreement ending the Russo-Japanese war. Woodrow Wilson went to Paris for nearly six months between January and June of 1919 to negotiate the end of World War I. Franklin Roosevelt, though he was dying and suffered a terrible physical disability, flew halfway around the world to hash out the postwar peace at Yalta. Richard Nixon went to China, Ronald Reagan journeyed to Reykjavik and Jimmy Carter holed up at Camp David, where he tested the limits of brinksmanship with Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat.

George W. Bush is going to Kennebunkport, where he'll test his golf skills with Poppy. ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14483814/site/newsweek/

This subject has been touched on before, but it bears more scrutiny in light of the current situation. It might not be as worrisome that the President prefers to delegate most of the time if the last few years hadn't shown a track record of incompetence and failures in almost everything they've had their hands on. But this is what you get when you re-elect the most disengaged President we've ever had. He's fond of saying 9/11 changed everything. It did. For everyone else but himself.

donrc · Joined: Feb 16, 2003 Posts: 882

If George Bush is as stupid and incompetant and disengaged as you folks on the left would have us believe then maybe we are better off having him away from Washington as much as possible????????

Razz

drc

mommabear · Joined: Feb 20, 2003 Posts: 6319

You miss the point? He's away from Washington, all right, but not where he should be. Wink

donrc · Joined: Feb 16, 2003 Posts: 882

I didn't miss the point. I simply made an observation.

If we start with the supposition that Bush is horrible, then everything he does will be bad, whether he is on vacation or hard at work.

If he is in Texas, bad Bush! If he is in Washington, Bad Bush! If he is in Kennebunkport, bad Bush!

It makes it easy. We don't have to think about what he is doing because we know it is bad. BAAAAD BUSH! Cool

drc

mommabear · Joined: Feb 20, 2003 Posts: 6319

But you see, the problem is it's not a supposition anymore. But is he stupid or just plain bad, a combination of the two, or does he just not care one way or the other about consequences of his actions that we and the world will have to endure after he's gone?

In any event, if any or all of the above is accurate, then you're right. It really will make no difference to our survival one way or the other if Bush can't get it together himself or find somebody else who can get it together. The world as we know it will no longer exist.

But if the world manages to survive the next two years, and in particular the United States, then hopefully the electorate will remember who is responsible for this mess; and get somebody in the next time who has the talent, knowledge, and where-with-all to begin to repair the damage Bush and his motley crew have done.

donrc · Joined: Feb 16, 2003 Posts: 882

Quote:But you see, the problem is it's not a supposition anymore.

But how did you determine that? At least 50% of the country disagreed with you in the last election.

That is certainly the opinion of the MSM, but if the same election were held today I suspect that the country would say, "Bush hasn't done as well as I had hoped, but we certainly don't wan't that other guy as Commander in Chief!"

That is my opinion. Yours may vary. I do expect the republicans to pay a price in the midterm elections.

drc

al bundy · Joined: Jun 26, 2004 Posts: 938

what's this obsession with the president on vacation. is he really on vacation. does it matter if he is in the white house or on his ranch. does it mean no one can get in touch with him. what exactly does it mean. can you clarify it so i can understand what your gripe is. would you rather he gallivant all over the world like the previous president.

mommabear · Joined: Feb 20, 2003 Posts: 6319

Huapakechi · Joined: Jan 19, 2005 Posts: 487

[quote="mommabear"]

mommabear · Joined: Feb 20, 2003 Posts: 6319

Putting aside you gripes about NO getting more money AFTER the disaster, in spite of the failures at the State level, and there were/are many, like I said, all one had to do was turn on the TV to know something had gone terribly wrong. The whole nation knew it! Why didn't Bush know and do something about it?