Guest guest Posted October 3, 2002 Report Share Posted October 3, 2002 Dear All I read this and thought it might be of interest. I left the email access on the bottom in case anyone wants to write the author. I thought it made sense of what Bush's motives might be. I'll admit that they amaze and often aghast me. When I read this is made much sense when I look at his chart with no oppositions and the kala sarpa yoga. I am in no way defending him, just trying in this forum to talk about his chart and try to make sense of what appears to be non sensical. I also continue to turn it over to god. Hope this is insightful anddoes not upset anyone too much. That latter is honestly not my intent. I guess all my (western) air is showing. Bush focusing on Hussein for 2 reasons 10/01/2002 By WILLIAM McKENZIE / The Dallas Morning News Let me attempt to debunk two myths about George W. Bush. And to explain what I think is driving the president toward Iraq. I offer this opinion as a journalist who has interviewed, covered and written about Mr. Bush consistently since 1994, although I have not spoken to him since the last week of the 2000 campaign. Is he wagging the dog? No, the Iraq move is not to divert attention from domestic problems. Yes, Karl Rove said that Republicans handle the war effort better than Democrats. And perhaps the calendar works for Mr. Bush in that the Iraq debate comes as fall elections arrive. I will concede some posturing. But the growing assumption that Mr. Bush is striking out against Saddam Hussein to shift the focus away from the economy implies a level of moral cynicism that just doesn't fit. Call me naive, but I have never seen that in him. What's more, the notion that he would send troops to help his political cause overlooks reality. The fact is, Mr. Bush never lusted for the presidency. To think that he would risk lives for re-election to a post that he seemed ambivalent about strikes me as not understanding the man himself. Competitive, yes. Consumed to the point of sacrificing lives to further his own agenda? No. What's more, his Iraq gambit could turn into political suicide. We could wipe out Saddam, but Iraq could become a quagmire by 2004. Where's the gain there? Avenging his dad? No, again. Saddam Hussein's attempt to assassinate his father surely angered him. Mr. Bush talked about it Thursday. But it's tangential. I base that on Mr. Bush's approach to the presidency. Never once during numerous interviews did I detect a hint that he was seeking revenge for his father's 1992 defeat. In fact, Mr. Bush would assess his father's presidency with surprising precision. And only once did I hear him snap about Bill Clinton, his father's conqueror. He instead seemed more concerned about getting it right himself. So, why is Mr. Bush bent on Iraq? Two reasons strike me, and both have their ups and downs: The focus thing. Spend any time around George W. Bush, and two features stand out: He's very easygoing, and he's very focused. As a candidate in 1994 and a governor in his first term, Mr. Bush zeroed in on four core issues. Good luck ever getting him off track. He would not, unless he went off-the-record. (New York Times reporter Frank Bruni confirms this trait in Ambling Into History, his book about Mr. Bush's presidential bid.) My hunch is that Iraq got into his mind shortly after 9/11, when threats of dirty bombs and other horrors abounded. In late October, The Wall Street Journal reports, Mr. Bush started receiving "chilling briefings" about Iraq's threat to the U.S. Fortunately, nothing happened. But, as the president who had just watched a massive attack on his soil, his "focus" kicked in. Bush watchers will understand the pattern. Glide through some parts of life, but grow very determined when he gets religion about a subject. As one longtime Bush observer put it, he gets committed and starts pushing when he knows what he wants. Now, there's a downside here. He can blind himself to other possibilities. The president should appreciate that flexibility – even after making a decision – is not bad. Holding people accountable. Mr. Bush believes deeply in accountability. It shapes the core of his domestic policies. (See education.) And it drives his Iraq policy. If Saddam Hussein insists on breaking international law, then he will not play games with him. He believes in making a difference. If that means taking on Iraq, so be it. The restless Republican often said that he didn't want to become president just to occupy the office. The problem here is that the president risks playing the role of God. He leads the world, but he's not infallible. It's good that Congress, the United Nations and dissenters serve as restraints. They need to hold him accountable, too. Shifting attention? No. Avenging his father? No. Focused? Yes. Believes in accountability? Yes. That's what I think drives Mr. Bush. As a result, it is propelling the world's debate. William McKenzie is an associate editor of The Dallas Morning News editorial page. William McKenzie .. William McKenzie William McKenzie is an associate editor of the editorial page for The Dallas Morning News.Archive E-mail Attachment: (image/gif) pixel.gif [not stored] Attachment: (image/gif) dmn_williammckenzie_mug.gif [not stored] Attachment: (image/gif) story_arrow.gif [not stored] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2002 Report Share Posted October 4, 2002 Cynthia, What a terrific article. This is EXACTLY what I saw in him when I met him in Texas. He did not even act as though he WANTED the governorship. But he NEEDED to do it for the purpose of serving - for him a major focus of his life. It is a shame that more people cannot see the MAN through television as people had hoped when television first came out. Yes, they get lots of air-time. But the problem is that what airs is often (always) edited by the news people to produce a specific effect - namely make it "interesting" or "entertaining". Former President Ford will forever have that "clumsy" tag on him. The man was an athlete, a former football star, an excellent tennis player, and a great dancer. But because of those two slips on airplane stairs, he will always be remembered as "clumsy". I think most people would be surprised at the depth of Mr.. Bush. He isn't perfect. But he isn't stupid or rash. My two cents, Martin cynthia novak [cynthianovak (AT) sbcglobal (DOT) net]Thursday, October 03, 2002 8:33 PMTo: astrology-l; gjlistSubject: [GJ] Another look inside GWB Dear All I read this and thought it might be of interest. I left the email access on the bottom in case anyone wants to write the author. I thought it made sense of what Bush's motives might be. I'll admit that they amaze and often aghast me. When I read this is made much sense when I look at his chart with no oppositions and the kala sarpa yoga. I am in no way defending him, just trying in this forum to talk about his chart and try to make sense of what appears to be non sensical. I also continue to turn it over to god. Hope this is insightful anddoes not upset anyone too much. That latter is honestly not my intent. I guess all my (western) air is showing. Bush focusing on Hussein for 2 reasons 10/01/2002 By WILLIAM McKENZIE / The Dallas Morning News Let me attempt to debunk two myths about George W. Bush. And to explain what I think is driving the president toward Iraq. I offer this opinion as a journalist who has interviewed, covered and written about Mr. Bush consistently since 1994, although I have not spoken to him since the last week of the 2000 campaign. Is he wagging the dog? No, the Iraq move is not to divert attention from domestic problems. Yes, Karl Rove said that Republicans handle the war effort better than Democrats. And perhaps the calendar works for Mr. Bush in that the Iraq debate comes as fall elections arrive. I will concede some posturing. But the growing assumption that Mr. Bush is striking out against Saddam Hussein to shift the focus away from the economy implies a level of moral cynicism that just doesn't fit. Call me naive, but I have never seen that in him. What's more, the notion that he would send troops to help his political cause overlooks reality. The fact is, Mr. Bush never lusted for the presidency. To think that he would risk lives for re-election to a post that he seemed ambivalent about strikes me as not understanding the man himself. Competitive, yes. Consumed to the point of sacrificing lives to further his own agenda? No. What's more, his Iraq gambit could turn into political suicide. We could wipe out Saddam, but Iraq could become a quagmire by 2004. Where's the gain there? Avenging his dad? No, again. Saddam Hussein's attempt to assassinate his father surely angered him. Mr. Bush talked about it Thursday. But it's tangential. I base that on Mr. Bush's approach to the presidency. Never once during numerous interviews did I detect a hint that he was seeking revenge for his father's 1992 defeat. In fact, Mr. Bush would assess his father's presidency with surprising precision. And only once did I hear him snap about Bill Clinton, his father's conqueror. He instead seemed more concerned about getting it right himself. So, why is Mr. Bush bent on Iraq? Two reasons strike me, and both have their ups and downs: The focus thing. Spend any time around George W. Bush, and two features stand out: He's very easygoing, and he's very focused. As a candidate in 1994 and a governor in his first term, Mr. Bush zeroed in on four core issues. Good luck ever getting him off track. He would not, unless he went off-the-record. (New York Times reporter Frank Bruni confirms this trait in Ambling Into History, his book about Mr. Bush's presidential bid.) My hunch is that Iraq got into his mind shortly after 9/11, when threats of dirty bombs and other horrors abounded. In late October, The Wall Street Journal reports, Mr. Bush started receiving "chilling briefings" about Iraq's threat to the U.S. Fortunately, nothing happened. But, as the president who had just watched a massive attack on his soil, his "focus" kicked in. Bush watchers will understand the pattern. Glide through some parts of life, but grow very determined when he gets religion about a subject. As one longtime Bush observer put it, he gets committed and starts pushing when he knows what he wants. Now, there's a downside here. He can blind himself to other possibilities. The president should appreciate that flexibility - even after making a decision - is not bad. Holding people accountable. Mr. Bush believes deeply in accountability. It shapes the core of his domestic policies. (See education.) And it drives his Iraq policy. If Saddam Hussein insists on breaking international law, then he will not play games with him. He believes in making a difference. If that means taking on Iraq, so be it. The restless Republican often said that he didn't want to become president just to occupy the office. The problem here is that the president risks playing the role of God. He leads the world, but he's not infallible. It's good that Congress, the United Nations and dissenters serve as restraints. They need to hold him accountable, too. Shifting attention? No. Avenging his father? No. Focused? Yes. Believes in accountability? Yes. That's what I think drives Mr. Bush. As a result, it is propelling the world's debate. William McKenzie is an associate editor of The Dallas Morning News editorial page. William McKenzie . William McKenzie William McKenzie is an associate editor of the editorial page for The Dallas Morning News.Archive E-mail Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat SatTo , send an email to: gjlist-http://www.goravani.comYour use of is subject to the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2002 Report Share Posted October 5, 2002 JIA In a message dated 10/5/2002 8:20:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, astrodawnau .au writes: Perhaps too we have preconceptions, here may we have a renowned liars - (Clinton may be one, certainly on some issues. Nixon certainly lied) who is very dexterous verbally and intellectually - yet here is someone who expresses things in a manner of simplicity and we are so caught up with the WAY of expressing things that we fail to grasp the true nature of the person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2002 Report Share Posted October 5, 2002 gjlist, "MICHAELS, MARTIN (AIT)" <mm6365@s...> wrote: > Cynthia, > > What a terrific article. This is EXACTLY what I saw in him when I met him > in Texas. He did not even act as > though he WANTED the governorship. But he NEEDED to do it for the purpose > of serving - for him a major > focus of his life. Yes I can see that... I would agree entirely with that. You have been observing what is possible easily to see in the man. Hes quite detached. > It is a shame that more people cannot see the MAN through television as > people had hoped when television > first came out. Yes, they get lots of air-time. But the problem is that > what airs is often (always) edited by the > news people to produce a specific effect - namely make it "interesting" or > "entertaining". Former President Ford > will forever have that "clumsy" tag on him. The man was an athlete, a > former football star, an excellent tennis > player, and a great dancer. But because of those two slips on airplane > stairs, he will always be remembered > as "clumsy". Its just typical of the stupidity of the press. I could rag on..... > > I think most people would be surprised at the depth of Mr.. Bush. He isn't > perfect. But he isn't stupid or rash. No I have been studying his chart. I feel its quite unique, and at the same time quite focused. Ketu exalted in the 5th house of intelligence doesnt suggest stupidity at all. But we live in a society when intellectual eloquence is valued highly whereas the actual content may be quite vacuous... Ketu there suggests his intrinsic mentality is deeply spiritual. Having decided to read what he actually says and not just what the press chooses to tell us, he tends to express himself in a very straightforward manner. I also tend to think he has quite a sense of humor. But the chart instantly becomes more interesting when you start to examine chandra and surya lagnas and the yogas from those. note the conjunction of the dharma lords. In spite of all confusion existing around him ( aptly described by transiting neptune opposite lagna) his agenda is I am sure going to be much more --- ummm -- should I say ---- spiritual, than one would be inclined to think in a such a materialistic society . In a way its just a simple thing, but I noticed his planets are only associated with mutual friends. ie saturn mercury venus are friends. and saturn is in saturn star and sub, same with mercury, ie mer star mer sub... venus in merc saturn. so even the star lord reflect it. atma and amatya karaka are venus and jupiter, both celestial advisors. interestingly the parivatana yoga between moon and mercury puts both lagna lords from lagna, (moon) surya lagna (mercury) and chandra lagna (mercury again) in touch with those advisors. It seems to have immensely interesting implications of more depth than we assume from his verbal delivery in terms of intellectual dexterity. But an interesting historial parallel in a different context - but I think it illustrates the point - was the Greeks of the time of birth of Socrates tended to believe that only a really beautiful person could be intellectually gifted. He was born, an inordinately ugly person physically but with a beautiful mind. He stood their preconceptions on their heads. Perhaps too we have preconceptions, here may we have a renowned liars - (Clinton may be one, certainly on some issues. Nixon certainly lied) who is very dexterous verbally and intellectually - yet here is someone who expresses things in a manner of simplicity and we are so caught up with the WAY of expressing things that we fail to grasp the true nature of the person. Anyway- other points The Wahhabis Muslim sect which is behind the muslim extremists we have seen is not a reflection of the teachings of the Koran. They dont even read the koran as they feel they have direct contact with allah and are teaching hate to poor children in muslim schools. I dont think removing Hitler would have been a bad reflection on the christ, even though the Italian catholic church (the rat trail) were largely responsible for smuggling out nazi's after the war through the church to south american. (there are 70 or more different islamic sects, most recognize the koran. most deny another appearance of a messenger of god although some do expect it, and they did have quite a good description of that messenger) In the same way extremist muslims who have exploited the poverty and lack of education and frustration felt by an inequitable system. Leaving Saddam to torture his own people in no way supports their freedom and religious sentiments. I understand a large degree of fear of the consequences may be behind the reactions of people currently. But removing him is the right thing to do... Its certainly not grasping the teachings of the koran to thing that a murderous lunatic like Saddam may in any way reflect islamic teachings. Perhaps if anything its time for westerners to look upon their own attitudes to personal wealth and our own expectations of comfort and think of sharing something we have with poorer parts of the world. We measure our success on our material comfort, not on how much we can share with others. America has a huge ability to produce food. As have some other western countries. Have we also the ability to start to work out how we can share this with others? The sexual and moral behaviour of westerners may gross out many muslims. They therefore make mistakenly equate greater freedom with licensiousness.. the media tends to make western morality very 'in the face' - there tends to be pressure from the west and westerners to change them in this manner. Certainly the west feels it has nothing to learn in that regard, that modern society has 'progressed' to this point. We can be excessively egoistic about our society. Yet from the discoveries of ancient cities now being uncovered, ancient civilisations, we will have to start to admit we may not be the highest civilisation that ever existed. We all have to learn from each other. We (people in general) also tend to see great divides between different religions. After all if there is one universal consciousness then all the religions are one with that consciousness. The people and the places and the different perceptions may differ only. Bush is just doing what has to be done now, a problem has matured from past inequities... ---- dawn > My two cents, > Martin > > > cynthia novak [cynthianovak@s...] > Thursday, October 03, 2002 8:33 PM > astrology-l; gjlist > [GJ] Another look inside GWB > > > Dear All > I read this and thought it might be of interest. I left the email access on > the bottom in case anyone wants to write the author. I thought it made > sense of what Bush's motives might be. I'll admit that they amaze and often > aghast me. When I read this is made much sense when I look at his chart > with no oppositions and the kala sarpa yoga. I am in no way defending him, > just trying in this forum to talk about his chart and try to make sense of > what appears to be non sensical. I also continue to turn it over to god. > Hope this is insightful anddoes not upset anyone too much. That latter is > honestly not my intent. I guess all my (western) air is showing. > > Bush focusing on Hussein for 2 reasons > > 10/01/2002 > > > By WILLIAM McKENZIE <wmckenzie@d...> / The Dallas Morning > News > > > Let me attempt to debunk two myths about George W. Bush. And to explain what > I think is driving the president toward Iraq. I offer this opinion as a > journalist who has interviewed, covered and written about Mr. Bush > consistently since 1994, although I have not spoken to him since the last > week of the 2000 campaign. > > > Is he wagging the dog? No, the Iraq move is not to divert attention from > domestic problems. > > Yes, Karl Rove said that Republicans handle the war effort better than > Democrats. And perhaps the calendar works for Mr. Bush in that the Iraq > debate comes as fall elections arrive. I will concede some posturing. > > But the growing assumption that Mr. Bush is striking out against Saddam > Hussein to shift the focus away from the economy implies a level of moral > cynicism that just doesn't fit. Call me naive, but I have never seen that in > him. > > What's more, the notion that he would send troops to help his political > cause overlooks reality. > > The fact is, Mr. Bush never lusted for the presidency. To think that he > would risk lives for re-election to a post that he seemed ambivalent about > strikes me as not understanding the man himself. Competitive, yes. Consumed > to the point of sacrificing lives to further his own agenda? No. > > What's more, his Iraq gambit could turn into political suicide. We could > wipe out Saddam, but Iraq could become a quagmire by 2004. Where's the gain > there? > > Avenging his dad? No, again. Saddam Hussein's attempt to assassinate his > father surely angered him. Mr. Bush talked about it Thursday. But it's > tangential. > > I base that on Mr. Bush's approach to the presidency. Never once during > numerous interviews did I detect a hint that he was seeking revenge for his > father's 1992 defeat. In fact, Mr. Bush would assess his father's presidency > with surprising precision. And only once did I hear him snap about Bill > Clinton, his father's conqueror. He instead seemed more concerned about > getting it right himself. > > So, why is Mr. Bush bent on Iraq? Two reasons strike me, and both have their > ups and downs: > > The focus thing. Spend any time around George W. Bush, and two features > stand out: He's very easygoing, and he's very focused. > > As a candidate in 1994 and a governor in his first term, Mr. Bush zeroed in > on four core issues. Good luck ever getting him off track. He would not, > unless he went off-the-record. (New York Times reporter Frank Bruni confirms > this trait in Ambling Into History, his book about Mr. Bush's presidential > bid.) > > My hunch is that Iraq got into his mind shortly after 9/11, when threats of > dirty bombs and other horrors abounded. In late October, The Wall Street > Journal reports, Mr. Bush started receiving "chilling briefings" about > Iraq's threat to the U.S. > > Fortunately, nothing happened. But, as the president who had just watched a > massive attack on his soil, his "focus" kicked in. > > Bush watchers will understand the pattern. Glide through some parts of life, > but grow very determined when he gets religion about a subject. As one > longtime Bush observer put it, he gets committed and starts pushing when he > knows what he wants. > > Now, there's a downside here. He can blind himself to other possibilities. > The president should appreciate that flexibility - even after making a > decision - is not bad. > > Holding people accountable. Mr. Bush believes deeply in accountability. It > shapes the core of his domestic policies. (See education.) And it drives his > Iraq policy. If Saddam Hussein insists on breaking international law, then > he will not play games with him. He believes in making a difference. If that > means taking on Iraq, so be it. The restless Republican often said that he > didn't want to become president just to occupy the office. > > The problem here is that the president risks playing the role of God. He > leads the world, but he's not infallible. It's good that Congress, the > United Nations and dissenters serve as restraints. They need to hold him > accountable, too. > > Shifting attention? No. Avenging his father? No. Focused? Yes. Believes in > accountability? Yes. That's what I think drives Mr. Bush. As a result, it is > propelling the world's debate. > > > > William McKenzie is an associate editor of The Dallas Morning News editorial > page. > > <http://www.dallasnews.com/images/pixel.gif> > <wmckenzie@d...?subject=DallasNews.com_column> William > McKenzie > <wmckenzie@d...?subject=DallasNews.com_column> William > McKenzie > > . > > <http://www.dallasnews.com/images/pixel.gif> > <wmckenzie@d...?subject=DallasNews.com_column> William > McKenzie > <wmckenzie@d...?subject=DallasNews.com_column> William > McKenzie William McKenzie is an associate editor of the editorial > page for The Dallas Morning News. > <http://www.dallasnews.com/images/story_arrow.gif> > <http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/columnists/wmckenzie/> Archive > <http://www.dallasnews.com/images/story_arrow.gif> > <wmckenzie@d...?subject=DallasNews.com_column> E-mail > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist-@e... > <http://www.goravani.com> > > > Terms of Service > <> . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2002 Report Share Posted October 5, 2002 Actually Bush rarely says anything *at all* of substance. I disagree that in the US we fall for empty eloquence. We don't abide eloquence generally. Bush is a very popular president precisely *because* he takes the dumbed-down approach, and this is what we simple Americans like. Jesse, That's a preposterous statement. Now please look at how you appear to others when you say something totally untrue. You lose credibility when you do that, and you want us to find your ideas worthy of credibility, i'd think. Some Americans like him because he's handsome, you know.....(joking with you).... Since you do not like or agree with Mr. Bush, my friend, why insult those 60% or more of Americans who do, by supplying an insincere comment (as if you liked him yourself and were explaining his appeal) that actually is a sideways jab at folks not sharing your viewpoint? If your intentions in writing that paragraph were to gain a reaction from someone, Jesse, ....you win! :-) Love to all on this vibrant, wonderful List, Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.