Re: NYT: The Wimps of War
By PAUL KRUGMAN George W. Bush's admirers often describe his stand against Saddam Hussein as Churchillian. Short, rude, drunk? As far as that goes, sure, he's Churchillian. But he's not even up to the standards of meet the new Bush, same as the old Bush, fool me...ummm...can't get fooled again; Bush the Elder may have been evil, but he was somewhat competent. Tim writes, on behalf of Shrub These Evil Doers have nucular weapons of mass destruction. I know I mispronunciate nucular. My bad. I've been amazed that Bush's handlers didn't straighten him out on nuculur long ago. Why are they trying to keep him looking ignorant?
NYT: The Wimps of War
[use login: cyberpunks/cyberpunks] By PAUL KRUGMAN George W. Bush's admirers often describe his stand against Saddam Hussein as Churchillian. Yet his speeches about Iraq and for that matter about everything else have been notably lacking in promises of blood, toil, tears and sweat. Has there ever before been a leader who combined so much martial rhetoric with so few calls for sacrifice? Or to put it a bit differently: Is Mr. Bush, for all his tough talk, unwilling to admit that going to war involves some hard choices? Unfortunately, that would be all too consistent with his governing style. And though you don't hear much about it in the U.S. media, a lack of faith in Mr. Bush's staying power a fear that he will wimp out in the aftermath of war, that he won't do what is needed to rebuild Iraq is a large factor in the growing rift between Europe and the United States. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/11/opinion/11KRUG.html Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard P. Feynman
