Posted by emoot(: (66.250.68.41) on January 31, 2003 at 03:40:52:
In Reply to: What do you think about Bush and our economy? posted by Flower Pagan (68.35.113.192) on January 30, 2003 at 22:26:43:
=What I think is that circumstances have dealt Bush a few more serious issues to deal with than Clinton. For me, it is difficult to say how Clinton might have handled all of the issues that Bush has had to decide about. I know in 93 when the WTC was attacked the first time by terrorists that I'm having trouble remembering what Clinton said about preventing future attacks...I know the scope wasn't exactly the same but it does beg the question.....Was that our red flag signaling our country's vulnerability to attacks? Should we have tried harder back then to clamp down on safety and investigate terrorist groups?... Would that have prevented 9/11 from happening? It's difficult to say.
As for the economy...
Some Americans take a lot of things for granted and after an event like 9/11 I wonder how that's still possible. Then I think about all the un "reality" shows which seem to cater to base human tendencies and how most Americans can tell you more about the characters on those shows than they can about current political decisions. It seems that we tend to notice the economy and feel personally affected when our pocket books are under siege.
The economy is mainly being affected by the threat of war. It always wavers when world events become unstable. Unstable is a good description of what's going on with Iraq and with the whole terrorist thing in general. I honestly don't think that Saddam Hussein is telling the truth. Why would he? He hasn't presented himself as a genuine character on the world stage.
I think Bush has to be very careful with every move he makes. A lot is hanging on the line. There are a few lines of reasoning here:
Maybe.... Bush is telling us the truth about Saddam and his connections with al Qaeda, the weapons of mass destruction, the deceptions he's fostered, the thousands of his own people that he's killed and maimed etc..
If that is honestly what's going on then Bush has to think about the possiblity of another, and likely worse, 9/11- type event.(and, how can he not think about it?) So he's got to think about protection first and foremost.....
Terrorists aren't known to make appointments with us when they are going to blow something or someone to smithereens so I think we have good reason to be concerned on this one.
I think this route could be called the "head it off at the pass" method.
Get rid of the problem before it causes a greater problem.
"Heading it off at the pass" can be played one of two ways...
Giving Saddam an option to go peacefully or else we have to do the war thing. Now I still have the feeling and hope that we'd really rather not do the war thing but it is kind of a rock and a hard place.... we'd really rather not have another 9/11 either.
At this point Saddam has not backed down..... he could be bluffing but it could be the one thing he's being truthful about.
The bad thing about the "what if something terrible happens" type questions is that they cannot be answered before they do or don't occur. And when the terrible things don't happen we don't really know or appreciate just how blessed we were to avoid some of those close calls. And then when something awful happens we stand around with our bitter hearts and wonder how things might be if that awful thing hadn't happend... It is the paradox of our human nature.
I think the ultimate hope is to get out of this as safely as possible and then get the economy cranked back up. We were making progress, granted it was only a small increase, but if we can pull out of this Iraq thing without much bloodshed and some sense of established peace.... surely our economy will bounce back with added strength.
emoot(: