For those who champion *'s 'bold action' versus accepting the status quo:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/opinion/l16brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I am of course referring to the conquest of Iraq and the apparently ongoing process of fomenting war in the Middle East.

It's actually easy in some ways to make 'bold' decisions. And sometimes 'bold' is called for but lacking in the leadership.

But there's a reason why everyone isn't making 'bold' radical decisions all the time. It's because they are by definition risky decisions and often lead to disaster.

At what point does 'bold' become reckless? Irresponsible? Foolhardy?

What is courageous about Bush's 'bold' decisions? He risks none of his own flesh and blood or treasure, or any of that of his friends. He risks only his reputation and that of the nation, which appear to be already ruined.

Who considers it good leadership to press on, always in the same direction, always the same plan, regardless of the results, even when the plan is leading to ruin?

If someone made a sizeable risky investment, and it turned out to be a bad one, would it be considered wise to continue to pour more money into such an investment?

The link contains some very good letters to the editor in response to a recent NYT editorial by David Brooks, which once again promotes the FALSE dichotomy between and unpleasant status quo and the 'bold leadership' represented by Bush's violent and reckless foreign policy, as if there were no other path than war.