Bush is boring

[justinsb]

I haven’t had much to say lately about Bush/Rove/Cheney et al. Iraq, sure, Iraq is an ongoing war crime but even if Bush were impeached, someone very like him would take his place – Cheney, Haskert etc. Even if the Republicans lose in 06 and 08 I fear they may be followed by a somewhat conservative Democratic party who will do little better and will still have problems to deal with in Iraq, will still have a domestic economic problem to which there is no real solution, and a national debt that will not let them attempt anything too dramatic on the economic front.

Sure I’d like to see Bush go, I’d like to see him stand trial for war crimes in the Hague along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, and an awful lot of US Military command and personnel. But I think that’s unlikely. To me world poverty and the looming environmental crisis are more immediately important than Iraq or Bush and tackling these problems really have little to do with Bush, or the US federal government in general. The battle for hearts and minds needs to be fought in the west, on a person-to-person, town to town basis. People need to take responsibility for trying to solve these problems and not wait for Government to do something. When the people decide they really want these things leaders of the world, with or without Bush, will take them on.

The reality is that one way or another the world will be different. China is rising, India is following, poverty and environmental degradation are getting worse as demand grows and because China needs enough oil to supply a population of 1 billion – oil prices are not realistically going to do anything but keep going up. Life in the west is going to change and we must figure out how to deal with that reality as well and as with everything else, Bush has nothing to do with it and can’t fix it.

[BillZBubb]

1. I could not disagree with you more!

I agree that Bush is boring. That's the only thing in your post that I can agree with.

Bush is a huge part of the problem. You casually dismiss his involvement in poverty and environmental degradation and the coming changes in life. If Bush was a halfway decent leader the US would be doing something positive about all these items. Alternative fuels and energy sources, limiting greenhouse gases, promoting anti-poverty programs in the third world, maintaining the US manufacturing base, and insisting of tough environmental protection worldwide as a necessary condition for trade with us--just for starters.

You are totally naive if you think that without the US Federal Government pushing these issues hard that any change will come. With Bush, that will never happen. And if you think a bottom's up push for these items will get results, dream on. Bush, or someone like him, will keep telling the people that the science isn't good enough, or that it will hurt our economy and cost jobs, or that we are already doing enough. And the sheeple will accept it.

[justinsb]

2. When is the last time the US federal government

did anything serious about any of this, regardless of who was in power. Besides, the days when the US could push and the world would follow are over. Also, I simply don't see the demand in the US to do anything about this, and without the demand there will be no action, regardless of who is in power. That was, at least in large part, the point. Minds have to be changed about these issues, they have to become a priority for alot of ordinary people or it simply won't happen.