Personally I feel Bush looks like a Monkey.

Personally, I think your a communist.

I'ts sad when people foray into political analysis trusting the world-view of the media - the same people who still use zero-sum economics to attack tax cuts as a means to stimulate the economy.

Don't you think our military and country have the ability to do more than one thing at a time? How is it wrong to get evil dictators out of power? Who said we were going to shove Castro out and then just "throw money" at Cuba? We spent seven years in Japan after WWII and got it right, now the only danger is being inundated by increasingly cheaper and more sophisticated stereo components.

Foreign policy cannot (in computer terms) run serially, it must run in parallel to remain effective and responsive. If we always had to finish one thing before starting another, we'd all be speaking Russian or German right now.

The bottom line is that we don't have the access that the executive branch does to information or expert analysis of foreign affairs, and so must choose in the end to either trust or not trust the decisions of our government on many things. It's certainly fair to ask questions, but at some point you have to wonder who you trust more, Cuba's lead diplomat, or George Bush. Some of you, I'm sure harbor such a hatred of Bush that you would choose Adolph Hitler over him, but for the rational ones out there, the decision shouldn't be hard.

As far as Cuba, not doing anything about a cruel dictatorship only 90 miles from our shores is like sitting by and watching your neighbor beat his wife (or her husband, or its significant other) and saying "that family isn't hurting anyone but themselves". My only question is why haven't we done something sooner?

Dear GOP - let 'em think GW is stupid. He's very good at taking advantage of the underestimations of his opponents. He's certainly not the most attractive or well-spoken president, but short of me running, I think he's doing an 89% good job, and the best thing is, he's NOT AL GORE!

You can't really "force" democracy on someone, if you did and they didn't want it, they'd just vote it out. Since the representative republic (our form of democracy) is the best form of government in the world, why not give them an opportunity to try it on for size. The "they're not ready for democracy" argument is an absurd mantra repeated by the closet socialists in our culture who hate democracy.

The wife-beating neighbor analogy is inaccurate. If your neighbor is beating his wife, he's committing a crime. US law does not extend past our borders, so we cannot use that as an excuse for our actions.

Perhaps your neighbor is doing something that you disagree with on moral grounds but is not actually illegal. For example, your neighbor is an abortion doctor and you are pro-life. Or your neighbor allows his wife to show her face in public and you are a highly conservative muslim.

In that situation, you cannot kick down your neighbor's door, drag him out of the house and beat him to a bloody pulp. It's neither right nor legal.

While we, the United States may feel that what our neighbors do is immoral, we cannot use force of arms to enforce our will. That is not our place. By doing so, we lose face in the international community and send a clear message that might makes right.

The United States is in a clear leadership position in this world. We should not squander that power by childishly picking fights to enforce our will. Rather, we should use our leadership position to deal with our grievances diplomaticly. Armed conflict should be a last resort, not something we use as a quick fix.

As to George W. Bush, I don't trust him. His election was suspect. He shows no signs of intelligence. His world-view is far too black and white for international politics. I can think of a few people I wouldn't rather have as president, but not that many.

Tax cuts: Tax cuts would be a great way to stimulate the economy, if and only if the money cut was spent. The problem with Bush's tax cuts is that most of the money goes to people who are wealthy and will not turn around and spend it. If you gave $300 billion dollars to the poorest half of this country, they would buy things. Those who are well-off will invest it at best. That has less of an economic impact than actual retail purchases.

As to fighting a war on three fronts, I hardly think it's wise. As is, we have reservists and national guardsmen in Iraq. That, to me, indicates we have extended ourselves as far as we comforably can.

As to Japan, yes, we did a good job rebuilding their economy over seven years. I don't think it cost us $87 billion though. We taught Japan how to rebuild themselves. In Iraq, it looks like we want to rebuild for them. Most of that money won't even enter the Iraqi economy, but pad the bottom lines of a handful of politically well-placed American companies.

And look at what Bush has done at home. An enormous tax cut (most of which goes to those who need it least) and a $450 billion dollar deficit (before the $87 billion dollars to finance Iraq, mind you). Federal education funding based on standardized testing in schools. Federal interferance in our state Death with Dignity law. Arrests and weeks long imprisonment by federal law enforcement with no charges or trial or even contact with a lawyer. Every crime under the sun labeled as "terrorism". The Patriot Act.

What grief did Clinton give us? A sex scandle. Amusing for the press, but doesn't cause any public harm. Whitewater. Hardly holds a flame to trading Truth and Justice for Oil.

I'ts sad when people foray into political analysis trusting the world-view of the media - the same people who still use zero-sum economics to attack tax cuts as a means to stimulate the economy.

What makes you think I trust the world view of the media? The fact that I linked to a news article?

While we may not see eye to eye on many things, believe me when I say that I'm every bit as untrusting of the news media as you are, if not more.

What's so bad about Al Gore? <dangle>

Doesn't the fact that they have to use democracy in order to stop using democracy imply that democracy is being forced on them? How much sense does it make to tell someone to vote against democracy if they don't want democracy?

It is quite possible to not be ready for democracy. Good democracy requires that people take an informed and active roll in their government. It needs good, non-biased public education, a strong free press, free speech and (because all power flows from the barrel of a gun) the right to bear arms.

Our framers understood these things. This is why our constitution is written the way it is. I don't think the Bush administration understands these things, and so I don't think they are in any position to frame a foreign state's democracy.

If you force democracy on a populus that is not ready, they will not vote it out. They will simply be ruled by whomever gets power first, because they will not think to excercise power to change the government. People who have lived with opression all their lives learn to keep their head down, not to speak out. That is exactly the type of people who cannot run an effective democracy. Cultural change must come first.

A fedralist republic is not the "best" form of government. The "best" form of government is dependant on those ruled. For example, China tried a fedralist representative democracy once. It failed. In fact, given the Confucian memes present in Chinese culture, the current free-market communism makes a lot of sense for them, right now.

Even for the US, a Fedralist Republic is not necessarily the "best" form of government. I would much prefer a system under which state sovreignty had not all but dissappeared. Ruling a country this large and diverse with centralized policies makes little sense. Ruling the state of Oregon is comparatively simple to do well.

Ideally, we would have state-level autonomy with a federal body providing well-worded legislation for states to subscribe to or not as they see fit. Thus, the federal government would be more of a standards body than a heavy-handed lawmaking body. Interstate commerce would be tariff free, as today, and standards would exist to make things smooth, but the bulk of criminal law would be state-based. There would be a federal military, but it would be smaller. States would have defense forces and a mutual defense pact to handle domestic security. Foreign military operations would be conducted by the federal executive power, as today, but state approval would be necessary before state troops could be tapped for foreign conflict. Currency and securities would work the way they do today.

But none of that will ever happen.

It never ceases to amaze me that you continue to insist that socialism and democracy are mutually exclusive. In my home country, socialism is part of the political heritage, just as democracy is. You should do some research before making such totalitarian statements - unless, of course, you consider yourself proudly ignorant, just like president Bush.

Very true. Socialism and capatilism are opposite ends of an economic spectrum, whereas dictatorship and democracy are two opposing governmental systems.

It is my opinion that capatilism does, in the end, a better job with most things than socialism. There successes on either side, but I think I feel better about working hard to get somewhere (the capatilist ideal) than everyone being in the same place, reguardless of means (the socialist ideal). I dislike economic systems in which one can coast on one's ancestor's success, however, so I'm in favor of a hefty estate tax to fund basic services for the poor.

There can definately be arguments made for socialism in certain areas, such as health care. But I don't buy them yet. My health care is good, and it's capatilist.

good

look up for yourself how much Japan cost us in 2003 dollars, and how about the Marshall plan?

ooo - tempting dangle there. We'll never know for sure now though.

re: "I don't think the Bush administration understands these things" - What, exactly, do you think the Bush administration is doing that goes against the constitution, eh?

re: socialism and democracy - I don't consider them exclusive so much as in opposition. The ultimate in socialism is that everybody has the same outcome. The ultimate in democracy is that everyone has the same opportunity. Socialism rewards laziness, democracy rewards initiative.

p.s. - Please you liberals and semi-liberals, get over the election thing, will you? There's no basis to the "illegitimacy" argument. If you want to force the issue, I can blame CNN for predicting Florida's result before voting was even over, costing Bush tens of thousands of votes (by best estimates) in the more conservative west part of Florida.

Again, socialism is not communism, but something in between pure capitalism and pure communism. You could in fact say that the United States is a socialist country, albeit leaning heavily to the capitalist side.

Frankly, I still think you're mistaking democracy for capitalism, which is incorrect. The problem is probably that you don't have any experience with political systems other than that of the United States. I'm aware that in the US, democracy and capitalism are tied very closely together, but that's not necessarily a good thing. It is also not necessarily a good thing that religious groups hold the degree of political power they do in the US, but that's a different can of worms.

There are many perfectly democratic nations in the world today where things are different from the US, so it's a rather obstinate mistake to believe that all these things are "unthinkable" or "impractical", although they may not represent an environment you would feel comfortable in.

In a bad economy like we have today you HAVE to have a government budget deficit. You give tax cuts, and raise spending to help the economy. Less taxes and more spending means a deficit. That's macro economics 101

My argument was not the Bush is breaking constitiuation law, but that he and his administration have demonstrated a disreguard for civil rights and freedom as protected by the constitution; thus they are in no position to frame the government of another nation.

Bush appointed the attorney general, who in turn sicced the DEA on Oregon's death with dignity law. The courts shot that down, but I hold the Bush Administration responsible.

The Patriot Act is the single largest weakening of civil rights -- especially privacy rights -- since the dark days of the cold war. The Bush administration passed it. It may not yet have been found unconstitutional (yet), but I seriously doubt the framers would have appreciated such legislation. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

The Bush administration briefly sponsored a rat out your neighbor program to "fight terrorism".

In general, if you extract all the dark scary bits about government and policy from distopian literature and compare them to what Bush's administration has attempted, you'll find that the similarities are shocking and frightening. Another four years of Bush is possibly the worst thing that could happen to this country. I would gladly give up the little security this administration has provided for the essential liberties they have threatened.

Cite me the part of the constitution where there is a "right to privacy"... That notwithstanding, I think the government should only be able to look over our shoulders for the compelling interest of state security, not an any given whim. I think the pursuit of terrorism is a good cause, but we cannot let our guard down and let the government act without checks and balances. After all, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Please explain how this qualifies as 'temporary' safety.

When the constitution was written, surveilance technology did not exist. You had to physically open mail, search papers and enter homes and offices to gather information.

Amendment IV protects from unreasonable search and seizure. While "privacy" is never mentioned, I think "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," is pretty clear.

Does the invention of remote surveilance and wiretapping technology strip me of my right to be secure in my papers and effects? No, it does not. Rather "papers and effects" must be understood to include electronic communication as well.

The supreme court has twice (at least) found in favor of a right to privacy. In both Roe vs. Wade and the recent finding that overturned a Texas law forbidding homosexual intercourse, the Supreme Court cited a right to privacy.

It may not be spelled out in so many words, but a right to privacy exists, has legal precedent, and is important to to citizens of this country.

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstateterrorism/AmericanStateTerrorism.html#WTC