Stephen A. Frye
s.frye at VERIZON.NET
Wed Jul 2 19:45:31 MDT 2003
> From this excerpt, I gather you think the driving reason to be Bush's
>desire to "win" something."
I believe it started out as a need to retaliate - to strike back. We were
attacked. We had to do something. A message needed to be sent. Perhaps
to the whole world. I don't believe that the invasion of Afghanistan
brought home the message of success. I am not saying it was a failure. I
am saying that it didn't ring of that decisive victory. Many people wanted
us to roll over and play dead after 9-11. That's unreasonable. Most
wanted us to kick someone's butt. I believe that Bush (and or his
administration) really needed that solid victory to convey their message
home and abroad. Yes, he wanted to win. He sure didn't go into to it to lose!
>This is basically implying Bush went to war
>(condoned by Congress) because of some desire.
Of course it was because of some desire. Even if I agreed with you his
motivation would have been because of the desire to eliminate Saddam's WMD.
>Is this a personal desire? A
>partisan political desire? Why do you assume such base and shallow motives
>apply to Bush?
I think that Mr. Bush was embarrassed because the attack happened on his
watch. He shouldn't have been. I do not believe he was at all at fault,
but as president, it would never occur to me that he would not feel some
iota of responsibility. The man at the helm is always partially (at least
maybe in his own feeling) responsible.
I don't know that his motives are base and shallow. Those are your labels,
not mine. Did I use those labels somewhere? If I did, I was wrong and I
>Are you so cynical about all persons who enter political life?
Cynical? No. Apprehensive? Yes. And not all - just most. And some more
More information about the Rushtalk