New Yorker: Remember the Alamo (a disturbing look at * & his admin)

by Nicholas Lemann

<snip>
As Iran moves toward having nuclear weapons—the evidence is much clearer than it was in the case of Saddam Hussein—and increasingly exerts its influence in Iraq in a way that is harmful to American interests, it’s hard to imagine that Bush won’t feel he has to act. Pakistan is unstable (President Pervez Musharraf has survived multiple assassination attempts), and it has nuclear weapons. No President could allow Musharraf to fall and let Pakistan’s weapons get into the wrong hands in the aftermath, and Bush would surely respond more forcefully, and less cautiously, than another President confronted with that situation.

Bush, unlike his father, is drawn to big, landscape-changing ideas, and—also unlike his father—he thinks like a politician. Much of what he has planned for the second term is meant to serve the goal of making the Republican Party as dominant in national politics as Bush’s foreign policy means to make the United States in world affairs. The Democrats are the party of government; systematically reducing government’s ability to provide services, its employment base, and its role as a provider of the two most essential guarantees, pensions and medical care, cuts off the Democrats’ oxygen supply. In his first term, Bush has won confirmation for two hundred and one of his two hundred and twenty-six appointees to the federal judiciary—all but two of them Republicans—and in a second term he would likely get the opportunity to appoint as many as three Supreme Court justices.

In early 2000, writing about Bush in these pages, I said that he seemed to want to become President very badly, but that he did not seem to want to do a lot once in office. Boy, was I wrong! If the voters give Bush a second term, he would, it seems, govern with the goal of a Franklin Roosevelt-level transformation—in the opposite direction, of course—of the relation of citizen to state and of the United States to the rest of the world. He would pursue ends that are now outside what most people conceive of as the compass points of the debate, by means that are more aggressive than we are accustomed to. And he couldn’t possibly win by a smaller margin than last time, so he couldn’t possibly avoid the conclusion that he had been given a more expansive mandate.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/

A very insightful look into Bush's character and how he maneuvers himself into positions of strength despite being such a loser. It's a verrrrrrry long read, but worth the time.

:hangover:

...in Pakistan. Although, this is something that the * administration has sought to cover up by ending the embargo against Pakistan and resuming American financed military handouts to the biggest supporter of terrorism and proliferation on earth.

With * administration assistance 1000s of terrorists were allowed to escape Afghanistan and reach asylum in Pakistan by airlift. While the dictatorial Mushareff regime traded nuclear weapons technology for Korean ballistic missiles, the republican oriented national security establishment covered it up. While Pakistan established the Taliban refuge for international terrorists and sponsored outrageous acts of terrorism against India, the * administration pretends that they are our allies in the so called "war on terrorism." Last but not least, the * administration and the so called investigation into 911 covers up the leading role that Pakistan (as their covert proxy)played in orchestrating the 911 attacks on the United States.

"The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice." - Said during the first debate. My jaw hit the floor.

Khan advanced the proliferation of nuclear weapons among nations hostile to the U.S. and got publicly rebuked by Musharraf {sp}. But he was back at his desk the following week. Some justice.

And yes, despite Bush's tough talk on terror, he won't confront Pakistan's role in mentoring and funding the Taliban. He's a hypocrite who's soft on terra.