So I think that if we're going to get into a semantical discussion when it comes to a Bush speech (even though I realize others put them together for him) I think that's kind of useless. I don't think "addicted" was the best choice of words by Gee Dubbs because the author of the blog is right -- our needing oil is pragmatic and should be addressed as such. I'd say we're dependent on it as a country, which does not have to mean we're "addicted."
So the problem I have here is that first the dude bemoans the fact that Bush says we're addicted to oil and says how much he is wrong for saying so and then he outlines a plan of attack to cure this "addiction." I don't really get it.
Then this guy starts saying that GW is interested in big government, and he starts talking about how Bush DIDN'T raise taxes after 9/11?
Look, I think that Bush has made tons of mistakes, and I don't agree with all of what he's done. I think the energy issue IS being developed in large part by the private sector. It's not Bush's job to "prompt" the private sector -- that's what makes the private sector the private sector.
I think people are angry about the war management for 2 reasons. 1) it hasn't been all that great and 2) the American people don't really understand it. This isn't a war like WW I or WW II or even Viet Nam. Never before has the enemy been a group who feels as thought it is a priveledge to die and actually welcomes death! These people are CRAZY and nobody has ever experienced this. There are no rules of engagement in these fanatics' books. They crash planes into buildings first and ask questions later, and that's a new strange and frightening thing. Unlike in the past we now have to worry about our enemy(ies) having similar firepower to us (namely nuclear firepower) and more than ever the media inflames things to the point where people are experiencing so much without becoming more informed. Pictures and stories about people dying in the war are not informative, but that's what is now being called news. This administration has more on its plate with this war than any administration has ever had before (in dealing with a war, that is). Things are different now and sometimes secerecy and dirty deeds are necessary. I'm sorry to the media if that means they aren't always granted access to places where they are normally granted access and I'm sorry to Americans if sometimes the administration doesn't tell them everything all the time. But that's not their job. Their job is to protect us, and as far as I can tell since 9/11 they've done a great job of that.
(re: prompting the private sector) This may not be Bush's job, but it is most certainly the government's job. I mean, that's what monetary policy is, y'know? Changing interest rates and discount rates in order to prompt the private sector to move in different directions. If the private sector is lacking, the government pushes or tells it where to focus research and development.
2 Comments:
So I think that if we're going to get into a semantical discussion when it comes to a Bush speech (even though I realize others put them together for him) I think that's kind of useless. I don't think "addicted" was the best choice of words by Gee Dubbs because the author of the blog is right -- our needing oil is pragmatic and should be addressed as such. I'd say we're dependent on it as a country, which does not have to mean we're "addicted."
So the problem I have here is that first the dude bemoans the fact that Bush says we're addicted to oil and says how much he is wrong for saying so and then he outlines a plan of attack to cure this "addiction." I don't really get it.
Then this guy starts saying that GW is interested in big government, and he starts talking about how Bush DIDN'T raise taxes after 9/11?
Look, I think that Bush has made tons of mistakes, and I don't agree with all of what he's done. I think the energy issue IS being developed in large part by the private sector. It's not Bush's job to "prompt" the private sector -- that's what makes the private sector the private sector.
I think people are angry about the war management for 2 reasons. 1) it hasn't been all that great and 2) the American people don't really understand it. This isn't a war like WW I or WW II or even Viet Nam. Never before has the enemy been a group who feels as thought it is a priveledge to die and actually welcomes death! These people are CRAZY and nobody has ever experienced this. There are no rules of engagement in these fanatics' books. They crash planes into buildings first and ask questions later, and that's a new strange and frightening thing. Unlike in the past we now have to worry about our enemy(ies) having similar firepower to us (namely nuclear firepower) and more than ever the media inflames things to the point where people are experiencing so much without becoming more informed. Pictures and stories about people dying in the war are not informative, but that's what is now being called news. This administration has more on its plate with this war than any administration has ever had before (in dealing with a war, that is). Things are different now and sometimes secerecy and dirty deeds are necessary. I'm sorry to the media if that means they aren't always granted access to places where they are normally granted access and I'm sorry to Americans if sometimes the administration doesn't tell them everything all the time. But that's not their job. Their job is to protect us, and as far as I can tell since 9/11 they've done a great job of that.
(re: prompting the private sector)
This may not be Bush's job, but it is most certainly the government's job. I mean, that's what monetary policy is, y'know? Changing interest rates and discount rates in order to prompt the private sector to move in different directions. If the private sector is lacking, the government pushes or tells it where to focus research and development.
Post a Comment
<< Home