Excellent analysis of George W.

[Guest ulamo]

Pliable Bush puppet of hawks

LINDA MCQUAIG

In an apparent attempt to come up with a guise other than warmonger, George W. Bush is being hastily repackaged as "deeply religious."

Bush has always been officially described as "born again" — a useful device to explain the transformation from his early days (up to the age of 40) of heavy drinking and carousing.

But the notion that Bush is motivated by deep religious convictions is being pushed with such vigour these days by his supporters that one senses an orchestrated campaign — perhaps to prevent worldwide skepticism about the motives for the Iraq invasion from spreading to the U.S.

Some Americans may worry about an evangelical crusader controlling the world's biggest nuclear arsenal, but religion — even the fundamentalist variety — is generally considered a good thing in the U.S. Certainly, focusing on religion helps keep attention away from other more contentious motives for invading Iraq, such as oil or world domination.

So the media have been hyping Bush's alleged spirituality (including a Newsweek cover story on "Bush and God"), even as the president snubbed pleas for peace from world religious leaders and last week tested a 21,000-pound bomb in preparation for unloading it on people in Iraq. (Blessed are the bombed children.)

Of course, it's possible that Bush is deeply religious, whatever than means.

More likely, Bush is simply an empty vessel, a hollow shell, a person of weak character and limited life experience who is therefore highly susceptible to the control of a small, determined group of ideological hard-liners bent on asserting U.S. power more forcefully in the world.

A description attributed to Bush himself in 1989 seems apt. The Houston Chronicle reported Bush telling a friend: "You know, I could run for governor, but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business ..."

One thing that stands out in Bush's past, besides the partying and business failures, is the extent to which he relied on his family's political and financial connections. U.S. presidents have often come from blue blood backgrounds, but George W. Bush makes even John F. Kennedy look like a self-made man.

But back to that group of hard-liners, (which includes prominent Bush advisers like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton and Douglas Feith).

The hard-liners have long been a force within the Republican party, struggling against the post-Vietnam resistance in America to getting entangled in a big war.

Their approach could be described as U.S. supremacist; they are dismissive of international organizations like the U.N. and multilateral attempts at disarmament. They want Washington to use its military superiority to enforce American global dominance — a goal that has become more achievable since the demise of Soviet power.

The hard-liners became a significant force in the administration of George Bush Sr., under the tutelage of hard-liner Dick Cheney, who served at the time as defence secretary. But their push to make Washington more assertive and unilateral was held in check somewhat back then, since Bush the elder was a multilateralist, as were others in his cabinet. He was also — whatever else one says about him — experienced, accomplished, knowledgeable about the world and in control of his own government.

None of this could be said of his son, whose presidency came, in the end, courtesy of the ultimate in connections — Supreme Court judges appointed by his father.

George W. wasn't part of the hard-line Cheney crowd; while they were honing their arguments about U.S. supremacy, he was focused on his next martini and on making a fortune in the oil industry using his father's connections.

But he was happy to get on board with them for his presidential bid, selecting Cheney as his running mate.

To the public, Bush appeared affable and not particularly threatening, even talking in a televised presidential debate about the need for America to be "humble" internationally. But, lacking any outside constituency or the experience to control the politically savvy hard-liners, George W. became their boy in a way his father never was.

The American people, however, remained resistant to war.

Then came Sept. 11. The hard-liners knew their ship had come in. And George W. finally found something he was apparently good at — talking about evil and vengeance.

It is a tragedy for the world that such a pliable, empty vessel as George W. Bush should happen to be in power at a time when the traumatization and lulling of the American public has made possible the carnage about to unfold in Iraq.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and political commentator. Her column appears every Sunday.

[groundeffect]

Right on the money
The oil money that is, black gold,texas tea
Have you ever watched 'W answer a difficult question? The look in the eye gives it away in a sec...the cochlear implant..who then really answers. At least Clinton could think and answer on his feet, not like this 'hollow' pres.
reminiscent of the Reagen era
inmho only
cheers

[LongTimer V]

Hmmm.Gee why haven't i heard this on CNN, the biggest propaganda machine the U.S. has.Reminds me of the old"Pravda"This world is in trouble with this goof at the controls.Bob Woodword wrote about the connections of Junior and the timing of 9/11 was just an excuse for war.Heaven help us

[Guest Gasper]

Who Is Smarter - The Anti-War Actors or The Administration?


The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming
about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming the
President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to anyone and everyone who will
listen. They publicly defile them and call them names like "stupid," "morons," and
"idiots." Jessica Lange went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates
President Bush and is embarrassed to be an American.

So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country? Let's look at
the biographies of these "stupid," "ignorant," "moronic" leaders, and then at the
celebrities who are castigating them:

President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and
an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas
Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in
1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on
November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic reelection victory,
he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on
November 3, 1998, winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won
49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27
percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties, 240
of 254, than any modern Republican other that Richard Nixon in 1972 and ! is the
first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic
border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone began circulating a
false story about his I.Q. being lower than any other President. If you believed it,
you might want to go to URBANLEGENDS.COM and see the truth.)

Vice President Dick Cheney earned a B.A. in 1965 and a M.A. in 1966, both in
political science. Two years later, he won an American Political Science Association
congressional fellowship. One of Vice President Cheney's primary duties is to share
with individuals, members of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush's vision
to strengthen our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on Terrorism.
In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney regularly goes
to Capitol Hill to meet with Senators and members of the House of Representatives
to work on the Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he
has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on the men
and women of our military, and he is proud of the tremendous job they are doing
for the Uni! ted States of America.

Secretary of State Colin Powell was educated in the New York City public
schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a
Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received a
commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His
further academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree
from Gorge Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous
U.S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary Powell's civilian awards
include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the
Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and
the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several sch! ools and other
institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from
universities and colleges across the country.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: attended Princeton University on
Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval aviator;
Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin (R-MI), 1957-59; U.S.
Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to the President, Director of the Office
of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U.S.
Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974;
Assistant to the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White
House Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77.

Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge was raised in a working class
family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to Harvard,
graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year at The Dickinson School of
Law, he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where he served as an infantry staff
sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor. After returning to
Pennsylvania, the earned his Law Degree and was in private practice before
becoming Assistant District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in
1982. He was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the U.S. House,
and was overwhelmingly reelected six times.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice earned her Bachelor's Degree in
Political Science, Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in
1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from
the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981.
(Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19
with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (Cum Laude). She earned a Master's
Degree at the University of Notre Dame and a Doctorate from the University of
Denver's Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees
are also in Political Science.) She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and
Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in
1991! , the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in
1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security
and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and
Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified
and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986)
with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the
Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and
East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings
ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth
Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through
March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet
Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director,
of Soviet and East European Affairs in the ! National Security Council, and a Special
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an
international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as
Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on
the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender Integrated Training in the Military. She
was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles
Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of
Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San
Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of
the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East
Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and
Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed
such organizations as Tran! samerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie
Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation,
the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban
Coalition and QED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born November 14,
1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned her bachelor's degree in political
science, cumlaude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her
Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the
Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She is
a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded
Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama
in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. She resides in Washington,
D.C.

So who are these celebrities? What is their education? What is their
experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will defend to the
death their right to express their opinions, I think that if they are going to call into
question the intelligence of our leaders, we should also have all the facts on their
educations and background:


Barbra Streisand: Completed high school
Career: Singing and acting

Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade.
Career: Singing and acting

Martin Sheen Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton.
Career: Acting

Jessica Lange Dropped out college mid-freshman year.
Career: Acting

Alec Baldwin Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal
Career: Acting

Julia Roberts Completed high school
Career: Acting

Sean Penn Completed High school
Career: Acting

Susan Sarandon Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America in
Washington, D.C.
Career: Acting

Ed Asner Completed High school
Career: Acting

George Clooney Dropped out of University of Kentucky
Career: Acting

Michael Moore Dropped out first year University of Michigan.
Career: Movie Director

Sarah ! Jessica Parker: Completed High School
Career: Acting


Jennifer Anniston: Completed High School
Career: Acting

Mike Farrell Completed High school
Career: Acting

Janeane Garofelo Dropped out of College.
Career: Stand up comedienne

Larry Hagman Attended Bard College for one year.
Career: Acting

While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we should
also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed daily, even hourly,
on the War on Terror and threats to our security. They are privy to information
gathered around the world concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the
intentions of terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant
communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations, our
own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot simply believe
that we have full knowledge of the threats because we watch CNN!! We cannot
believe that we are in any way as informed as our leaders.

These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding
groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our country. They
only have a deep seated hatred for all things Republican. By nature, and no one
knows quite why, the Hollywood elitists detest Conservative views and anything
that supports or uplifts the United States of America. The silence was deafening
from the Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of
Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He bombed
Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and not a single peace rally
was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in Somalia and 18 young American
lives were lost, not a peep was heard from Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation
has been attacked on its own soil, after 3,000! Americans were killed by
freedom-hating terrorists while going about their routine lives, they want to hold
rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest, God-fearing
Republican sits in the White House.

Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was in office, the
Hollywood group aligned themselves with disarmament groups like SANE, FREEZE
and PEACE ACTION, urging our own government to disarm and freeze the
manufacturing of any further nuclear weapons, in order to promote world peace. It
is curious that now, even after we have heard all the evidence that Saddam Hussein
has chemical, biological and is very close to obtaining nuclear weapons, their is no
cry from this group for HIM to disarm. They believe we should leave him alone in
his quest for these weapons of mass destruction, even though it is certain that
these deadly weapons will eventually be used against us in our own cities.

So why the hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that
since they draw such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also determine the
course of our Nation? That they can make viable decisions concerning war and
peace? Did Michael Moore have the backing of the Nation when he recently thanked
France, on our behalf, for being a "good enough friend to tell us we were wrong"?
I know for certain he was not speaking for me. Does Sean Penn fancy himself a
Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away from war? Does he
believe that his High School Diploma gives him the knowledge (and the right) to go
to a country that is controlled by a maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the
American people? Or is it the fact that he pulls in more money per! year than the
average American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank account give him
clout?



The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a shambles of
their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous marriages and divorces,
scrapes with the law, publicized temper tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to
know what is best for an entire nation! What is even more bizarre is how many
people in this country will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked
them in a certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom!

It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate ourselves about
the world around us. If future generations are going to enjoy the freedoms that
our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever to know peace in their own country
and their world, to live without fear of terrorism striking in their own cities, we
must assure that this nation remains strong. We must make certain that those who
would destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that will befall them.

Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists and
join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is not real. We did
not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire continent of Europe by simply
talking to him. We sent our best and brightest, with the strength and determination
that this Country is known for, and defeated the Nazi regime. President John F.
Kennedy did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their nuclear missiles in
Cuba in 1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action and threat of
immediate war if the ships did not turn around. We did not end the Cold War with
conferences. It ended with the strong belief of President Ronald Reagan...

PEACE through STRENGTH.

Give em hell Bush



"Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to
work and give to those who would not." - Thomas Jefferson

[Guest Flood]

Well, if you think this war will bring safety and peace in the US, you'll need to get yourself one more of those intelligence and cleverness generating degrees...
US does not seem to learn from previous blunders when it comes to foreign politics.

Cumbaya!

[Azure]

Very well said.

BTW, I thougt Alec Baldwin had promised to leave the US if Bush was elected, why is he still hanging around? Did it dawn on him that no one really cared if he stayed or went?

[DEFCON]

Perfect and very much needed at this time!

People believe that continuing anti war demonstrations are a right of freedom of expression or freedom of speech.

Soldiers come from varied backgrounds and align themselves politically with either the dems or the reps. Regardless, when the call comes, they go and in doing so protect our freedom with their lives.

Public demonstrations encourage people such as Saddam to hang on in the belief that the demonstrations will grow causing the gov to capitulate. Consequently, our soldiers will pay with their lives and this all because some unknowing voter is exercising his "right" to flap his gums.

We should understand that our "rights" are not free and the debt has been and will be borne by those willing to put their lives on the line fighting for and protecting our collective "freedom". Give the soldier a break by shuting your mouth while he's in combat and perhaps, you'll save a life!

[Guest ulamo]

Well, good rebuttal, but maybe you should credit the person that actually wrote it, it certainly wasn't you. I can supply the forum readers with the link from the website that you lifted this from if you like.

GW is neither a thoughtful or intellectual man. He is a weak, inarticulate buffoon that is being manipulated by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Cheney was selling oil equipment to Saddam Hussein right up until 2000. All of these clowns were propping up Saddam AND supplying him with weapons when it suited them during the 1980's. They are now sending hundreds if not thousands of young men and women to their deaths in the same country Cheney was happily selling oil equipment to a few short years ago.

I don't understand why this doesn't outrage you.

This is a not a war of liberation or freedom and it certainly is not a war necessity for our defence.

It is naked imperialism by an administration that is unchecked and certainly unbalanced.

[Guest ulamo]

Tens of thousands of military men and women lost their lives in Vietnam.

Were they protecting our freedom? Was the US in danger of being invaded by the VC?
Since the victory of the North Vietnamese has our freedom been challenged by them?

Of course not.

Vietnam like Iraq was a misadventure by a bunch of warmongering old men in Washington for political NOT defensive reasons.The men and women of the coalition forces are in Iraq for the same reasons.

Millions of people will continue to speak out aqainst this collosal blunder of Bush's as millions did in the sixties and seventies to pressure the US to get out of Vietnam.

If you want to be a toadie and be hauled along by your ear lobe by the military establishment go right ahead.

[Cargo Agent]

I bet you think the NDP are a little too right wing, don't ya?

[UpperDeck]

What an incredible amount of BS!! I have two post-graduate degrees. Whoopee!! One of the smartest fellows I ever met dropped out of Grade 9. Should we pause to discuss Einstein's academic achievements? Guys...if you truly believe that the US had the moral obligation and "right" in international law to invade a foreign country because of its belief that Iraq had WMD (not yet discovered, by the way), then pluck the strings of your lute and sing to your heart's delight. There are many reasonably intelligent people who feel otherwise and believe that this is a hypocritical exercise of power. What have you said so many times before, Defcon? "Might is right?"

[DEFCON]

"Tens of thousands of military men and women lost their lives in Vietnam."

Correct.

"Were they protecting our freedom?"

Yes.

"Was the US in danger of being invaded by the VC?"

Not likely.

"Since the victory of the North Vietnamese has our freedom been challenged by them?"

No.

"Vietnam like Iraq was a misadventure by a bunch of warmongering old men in Washington for political NOT defensive reasons."

Vietnam started long before the US got involved. The US took it over from the French of all people. Vietnam failed for many reasons however, most important to the historical autopsy is the fact that the politicians failed the military. Those dead young people were much like you and I, they didn't want to be there!

"The men and women of the coalition forces are in Iraq for the same reasons."

Disagree!

"Millions of people will continue to speak out aqainst this collosal blunder of Bush's as millions did in the sixties and seventies to pressure the US to get out of Vietnam."

And the soldiers will die accordingly. Vietnam produced ten of thousands of casualties because of the peace, love, and flower power crowd. I was a small part of that movement and I can tell you that we didn't truly appreciate the issues. I can also tell you that protesting was a lot of fun however, only after growing up did I begin to appreciate the consequences of my actions.

If you seek peace make your point before and after but, definately not during!!!

"If you want to be a toadie and be hauled along by your ear lobe by the military establishment go right ahead."

I'm no ones "toadie" and I don't appreciate your resorting to name calling to justify and enforce your position!

[DEFCON]

UD

You are of course entitled to your opinion and I do agree, advanced education doesn't prove anything! The writer only provided some clarification to the rumours that have been floated by the anti or pro "Al" crowd.

I don't believe that this war is any more about liberating the Iraqi people than it is about oil. There's a much bigger picture here!

I too fear the global consequences of said action however, following Nevil Chamberlain's example of "peace in our time" ignores the realities of being or percieved as being weak.

[Guest Soarcerer]

>"It is naked imperialism by an administration that is unchecked and certainly unbalanced."<

Ok then,....... would you please name for us any countries where the US went in and stayed?

If this action was all about taking over oil resources or raising a US flag over Baghdad they would have done that back in 1991.

[Guest ulamo]

Your assertion that we are "flapping our gums and endangering soldiers lives" is equally offensive and twice as absurd.

Defcon, your logic truly escapes me. To suggest that people that are speaking up against this war are endangering peoples lives is truly a stretch. It really smacks of military brainwashing, just shut up and do what the general says.

Not bloody likely

We don't live in a part time democracy

[Guest Gasper]

I did not author this piece and at the moment I have no idea which site I got it from. I saved it in my computer as information. You are correct, I should have indicated such when I posted it. My intent was not to imply authorship, rather my intent was to balance your criticism. Thank you for pointing this out though.

For the most part the protests seem to be from the same granola-crunching, save-the-whales and seals, tree-hugger crowd we see year after year. Professional protesters! [iMHO]. So don't fall for everything you see on TV.

Moreover, I think you are being too hard on America’s chief decision maker who has the public’s support despite the protests that you see. He has achieved the savvy to aspire to the Presidency above all the other candidates, so temper your criticism please. At present the conflict even has 42% support in Canada, if you believe the current polls. If you can’t respect the man, at least respect the position (Presidency) that he holds.

Dubya takes a principled decision based on his interpretation of right and wrong, and acts according to his convictions. Imagine that . . . this man does what he says he is going to do!

This is much more that you can say about the previous president. This is much more than you can say about J. Cretien, who makes his decisions based on what he thinks he can get away with on Canadians - and on his political survival instincts rather than what is right or wrong. (example: he really didn’t axe the GST did he - Remember the Red Book and his election campaign platform! He knew we wouldn’t hold him to account!) His lack of military spending is based on the [true] premise that the USA will protect us - yet he steps aside when the Protector most needs him. (The "fractured" right-wing vote hasn’t helped matters at all!)

This rather obvious "relative-ism" style is all part and parcel of a grander scale - the price we pay for living in this secular humanistic state called Canada. This is another personal pet peeve -ostensibly we are a principled country, however a closer look reveals the hypocrisy. ( example: What racism? - not in Canada - we are a virtual world class cultural mosaic - EVERYONE is welcome here! Ha!) There are fewer and fewer absolutes - just various shades of gray! (And furthermore, to think that Sven Robinson [Canada’s own limp-wristed phony], is even further left of Cretien! Unbelievable!)

Flame away if you want to but . . . Take another look at Dubya will ya?

[Guest Gasper]

Hmm, . . . and exactly where is Communism today?