Current Editorial
Reality About The "Popularity" of George "Dubya" Bush

Back


Posted:
26 October 2001
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Bush Winning Gore Backers' High Praises (guru)..
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:26:35 -0500
From: Roy Beavers <guru@emfguru.com>
Reply-To: roy@emfguru.com
Organization: EMF-L List
To: gephardt@mail.house.gov
 

..........From EMF-L (still resting).........

This "love affair" with our president in time of "war" is quite normal ... and it will pass......  (Read the N.Y. Times story below.)

I, too, applaud the president for most of the actions he has taken so far. Up to this point, the decisions have been the easy ones -- virtually dictated by the circumstances.....

The "hard" decisions start coming when he must ask the American people to sacrifice -- rather than live "normal".....

The hard decisions are likely to require hard choices between the "national interests" and the "vested interests."  Between what's good for the oil industry, for example, and what is good for the war on terrorism!!!  Or ... whether the economic "front" in the war on terrorism will be waged by shoveling more tax breaks, subsidies and the like to Dubya's RICH oil/energy industry cronies and BIG $$$$$$ campaign contributors ("trickle down" economics) -- or placing the emphasis on building the economic status, job security, wage level, etc., of the poor and the middle class.

Dubya does not have a very good record when it comes to such decisions.

There is no single potential "crisis" issue in this war (including the Israeli/Palestine problem) that is more threatening than the fact of America's continued dependence upon oil from the Persian Gulf area!!!!

As a nation, we have known of this "Middle Eastern oil dependency peril" for decades, but have been unwilling to "bite the bullet" and modify our petroleum dominant system......  Exxon, Chevron, Texaco, etc., are the main reasons for that.

They are perhaps at the center of the cabal of global industry BIG $$$$$ campaign "contributors" who exercise an obvious insider "role" in the Bush Administration.

All this talk about Saddam Hussein's "involvement" in terrorism (I have no doubt that he is involved.) and the need to "get him" after we are through with Afghanistan ... is also about oil.....

It is about protecting the by and large corrupt and exploitive RICH (and largely undemocratic) Arab governments that surround the Persian Gulf region and who "cooperate" with American oil interests, while they are exploiting the masses of their Islamic countrymen....

Even though Saddam is easily the worst dictator of the lot, he has figured out how to turn the political disenfranchisement of the Islamic masses against the other Arab "royalty based" dictatorships.

His secret:  he (like Osama bin Laden) has tapped the long standing but previously "simmering" -- now "boiling" -- HATRED OF AMERICA that spreads across the Arab World from Tunisia to Indonesia......

That hatred provides the "ideological" basis for the kind of political unrest which now threatens Pakistan and Egypt, for example.  When the masses can be convinced that their political leadership is "guilty" of cooperating with the hated Americans (mostly for oil income reasons), it becomes easy for a demagogue like bin Laden or Saddam Hussein to "call them into the streets" against their so-called moderate, pro
Western governments.

When talking about "American oil interests," one should not forget the HUGE oil reserves that are there in the Caucasus and central Russia -- which both Dubya and Russian President Putin, no doubt, foresee as
being much easier to exploit once the Taliban is gone and the long talked-about pipeline from central Russia to the Gulf can be built.  The existence of the unfriendly Taliban government in Afghanistan has been
a road-block there......

So, my readers, I hope that YOU will not be swept up in the present "euphoria" of warfare patriotism to such an extent that you lose sight of the "big picture."

I have not -- even though my own heart runs fast and my blood "boils" with excitement to be "out there" on one of those warships off the coast of Pakistan.....  I have no doubt that the U.S. servicemen and women
will give a good account of themselves.  DO NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE AMERICA MADE IN VIETNAM......  Do not attach any blame to those who serve the colors.  These matters and these "vested interest versus national interest" decisions are not theirs to make......  Only theirs to obey.......

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/20/national/20DEMS.html?todaysheadlines=&pagewanted=print

Cheerio.......

Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
roy@emfguru.com

It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
........Edmund Burke (1729-1797)


 The New York Times on the web

October 20, 2001

THE DEMOCRATS

Bush Winning Gore Backers' High Praises

By RICHARD L. BERKE

ASHINGTON, Oct. 19 As he leads the country in a war on terrorism, President Bush has won over some unlikely supporters, prominent Democrats who campaigned for Al Gore in last year's presidential campaign.

Many Democrats who once dismissed Mr. Bush as too naïve and too dependent on advisers to steer the United States through an international crisis are now praising his and his advisers' performance. Some are even privately expressing satisfaction that Mr. Gore, who tried to make his foreign affairs expertise an issue in the campaign, did not win.

Sounding relieved that Mr. Gore is not president, Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, said: "I feel comfortable with President Bush. I never thought I would utter those words."

Mr. Moran continued: "Even though I'm a Democrat and think the Supreme Court selected our president, I don't think it's to our disadvantage to have George Bush as president. Sometimes you need a certain amount of braggadocio in your leaders."

Perhaps out of a desire to rally around Mr. Bush, not one of more than 15 prominent Gore loyalists interviewed said their candidate would have done a better job.

The bluntest assessments were from Democrats who spoke on the condition that they not be identified. Several said the nation was fortunate to have Mr. Bush in power, and they questioned whether Mr. Gore would have surrounded himself with as experienced a foreign policy team as Mr. Bush did. Citing Mr. Gore's sometimes rambling speech in Des Moines on Sept. 29 in which he praised Mr. Bush, some Democrats also questioned whether the former vice president would have been as nimble at communicating to the public.

One former senator who was a staunch Gore backer said he was relieved that Mr. Bush was president because he feared that the former vice president would think he had all the answers.

"He may know too much," the former senator said. "And he would have tried to micromanage everything."

A top appointee in the Clinton administration, criticizing the qualifications of those he expected to be Mr. Gore's foreign policy team, said he could not imagine Mr. Gore's foreign policy advisers "running a war against Afghanistan."

Representative Norm Dicks, a Washington Democrat who was one of Mr. Gore's most ardent supporters, said his candidate might have handled the crisis as well as Mr. Bush but not necessarily any better.

"People were wondering if Bush was up to it," Mr. Dicks said. "I think he's answered that. The guy has really impressed people. One of the real strengths of this administration is that people do feel comfortable about Colin Powell and Dick Cheney in particular."

Of course, no one will ever know how the crisis would have unfolded in a Gore administration. But discussions about how Mr. Gore might have tackled the crisis have reverberated in the capital, perhaps because last year's election was so close.

In a statement today through an aide, Mr. Gore declined to join in the speculation.

"I have consistently declined either in public or private to say what I would have done or what I would do now during this war on terrorism," he said. "As I said in Iowa, George W. Bush is my commander in chief, he is president of the United States. And I refuse to second guess his decisions in this matter."

Several Gore loyalists said Mr. Gore would probably have also turned to seasoned professionals to staff his administration. Richard C. Holbrooke, the veteran diplomat, was frequently mentioned as a possible secretary of state. Leon Fuerth, Mr. Gore's longtime foreign policy adviser, might have served as White House national security adviser.

Still, many Democrats said they felt particularly reassured by Mr. Bush's team, particularly Vice President Cheney; Mr. Powell, the secretary of state; and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the defense secretary.

The diminished confidence in Mr. Gore that some Democrats are expressing is a big change from last year's campaign, when Gore supporters argued that Mr. Gore should be elected because of his grasp of world affairs, if for no other reason. At a rally only days before the election, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Mr. Gore's running mate, asserted, "When I think of a solitary figure standing in the Oval Office, weighing life and death decisions that can affect the security of our country and the stability of our
world, I see Al Gore."

Now, not even Mr. Gore's closest aides would assert that their candidate would have done any better.

"The Bush administration has a number of people with tremendous experience in foreign policy and crises," said Carter Eskew, one of Mr. Gore's top political advisers. "They were able to add a sense of stability to the situation, and the president has led them well. Gore himself would have had that experience."

One foreign policy adviser to Mr. Gore said that Mr. Gore would have been more assertive earlier in engaging other nations. But, the adviser said, "I don't think our conduct at the tactical or strategic level would be that much different."

Whatever Mr. Gore's capabilities, others Democrats noted that members of their party were known to be more aggressive defenders of Israel than Republicans, which may have complicated diplomatic objectives in the region.

"Because of the politics of the Democratic Party," Mr. Moran said, "it may have been more difficult to work with Pakistan versus India and to have worked with some of the Arab nations against the wishes of Israel."

Not all Democrats were skeptical about Mr. Gore. Some noted that he was much more emphatic during the campaign than Mr. Bush about the need to deal with terrorists and for nation building. Others said Mr. Gore did not need to rely on as talented advisers because he was far more steeped in international affairs.

For better or worse, they added, he would probably have been more hawkish about military action than Mr. Bush, because he often pressed President Bill Clinton to be more aggressive, particularly in the Balkans.

"I don't think there would have been a lick of difference," said Rahm Emanuel, a senior adviser in the Clinton White House. "I remember the counsel the vice president provided to the president many times during military action."

Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the majority leader, said it was unfair to assume that Mr. Gore would not have done as well.

"I am very comforted by the way the president has handled all this," Mr. Daschle said. "He has more than risen to the occasion. He's impressed me a lot. Al Gore could have been every bit as capable of rising to an occasion like this."


 Back to Top

Back