Your statements are based on matters alleged as facts, which are not in evidence.
I want to disabuse you of the idea that I revere the Bush administration although I do recognize some of its accomplishments. One of my problems with Bush is his relative silence. He seems to have vanished into a cocoon rather than vigorously advancing positions that should be sustained. But back to the chase.
will double the debt
I consider Bush's fiscal policies reckless and objectionable.
In regard to Iraq, we should be replenishing our exchequer through collection of tribute from our conquered adversary, Iraq, rather than continuing to expend funds there. We should also have declared "dibs" on access to their oil resources as prices amenable to us regardless of other circumstances.
The problem is that Bush's failure to properly utilize our resources by conserving them, will appear to be small potatoes compared to the reckless excesses I anticipate will issue from an Obama administration. And the expenditures alone do not reflect the extend of intervention and cost as policies introduce unreflected costs.
break our military
I disagree. Our military has been greatly strnegthened as it was through our involvement in Vietnam as weapons and tactics were tested, and military prowess greatly enhanced.
cripple our economy
This was a joint venture, and I damn the conservatives for not reining in the financial manipulators, who exploited the policies of providing something for nothing for "the poor," and "minorities" as if there would not be consequences. These programs were initiated in accordance with leftist doctrine.
alienate our allies
Our "allies" aren't alienated. Our foreign policy should be conducted in furtherance of our own interests. Keep in mind that we have NATO forces participating in our venture in Afghanistan.
The concept that we can today separate antagonistic movements that are not nationalistic but theistic in nature and confine our efforts to respond to and destroy them to national boundaries is rather naive. We may ruffle some feathers, but as Chairman Mao observed, "You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs."
Where our interests and those of others conjoin, where there is a confluence of interests, we have support, where they diverge, we don't. Our goal is to achieve our ends, and use whatever means are necessary to secure whatever support may be obtainable, but securing support is not our goal. That's realpolitik.
transform us from a formerly respected and sole superpower into a pariah
This is nuanced in such a way that it is confuses the issues. What does "respect" mean to you? Deference to our requirements? What? And what does "pariah" mean? To whom is the U.S. "a pariah?" Why? If they don't like us or see our interests as parallel, and if we pursue our own interests and they don't like it, tough. What's your point on this?
As to placing respect and sole superpower in apposition, it's appropriate only if you are indicating that as "sole superpower" we obtain deference because of our overwhelming power. Otherwise as our relative power is reduced, deference is moderated. What do you expect?
Our dependence on fossil fuel controlled by foreigners as an essential energy source to power our economy, and the economic ascendancy of producers of this product, has reduced our relative strength. What does our administration have to do with that? There are extrinsic circumstances that are not malleable without recourse to war or threat of war to compel the submission of others to our dictates.
(cont.)
