Once again Bush, in his address last night, refused to take any responsibility for the financial mess he helped create under his leadership. Everyone talks about why this happened and how it happened, but no one has come right our and said it is because major corporations on wall street and any other business can buy and bribe congress to let them do what ever they want instead of doing what is good for the public. WE pay congress to do their job as watchdogs for the public good. They were bribed to look the other way. Until we ban all campaign contributions of any kind this will keep happening again and again.

Mark England
salt lake city
utah
801 359-2259

Mr. Scowcroft seems enlightened compared to some, but what’s ‘real’ about ignoring the US responsibility for much of the world turmoil? From economic imperialism to a history of industrial emissions, its seems the first step on the road to correcting America’s perception of and in the world is a hard look in the mirror.

I wish Mr. Scowcroft would answer just one question in a straightforward manner without worrying about tarnishing his relationship with McCain.

Snowcroft could hardly be more wishy washy with his opinions. His statements are completely contradictory to McCains approach. Yet he insists McCain is the man to be president. And he contradicts Sarah Palins direct remarks about Ukraine, Georgia, and Russia… He is bumbling in circles. How can he possibly be taken seriously?

At least he has good taste in co-authors (Brezinsky). But, the fact that he supports McCain who will be Bush III does little for his credibility.

I agree with Joe. Forceful and intelligent debate and sober reasoning are not incompatible, and it seems to me that Obama’s great strength is his ability to express clear and intelligent thoughts with simplicity and force. Isn’t ineffectual fence-sitting a large part of what got us into trouble under Bush?

Tom pushed Scowcroft hard on Palin’s Gibson interview comments regarding Ukraine & Georgia. Too bad it wasn’t noted that Obama also favors their inclusion within NATO. Too bad Scowcroft, although making reference to NATO requirements, didn’t confirm that defending fellow NATO members in a military way is within those requirements. Too bad Tom didn’t include more than just the popular soundbite from that interview, in which Palin goes at length to discuss other options besides war:

“GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.”

Lincoln ran for office in 1864, when there was a good chance he wouldn’t have a country to lead. FDR ran for office in the middle of the largest conflict in human history–twice. We can have a debate this Friday.

Katrina vanden Heuvel, Editor, The Nation

McCain’s actions are completely political, this man is dangerous and his actions of the last week have shown him to impulsive and reactionary, this is not about being a Republican or a Democrat it’s about electing a president who can lead with intelligence and rationality. How in hell can he make any comments without having read the White House proposal on the economic crisis let alone this bizarre attention getting BS.

Scowcroft talks about the new world the US faces but then backs candidates who have never learned that the this world is long over. Both Scowcroft and his man McCain sound so very tired and rooted in a world that’s long gone.

My favorite “proverb” at least it’s a proverb to me is:

“No matter where you go, there you are.”

I f you go to my blog nd look up in the archives for july 2006, then scroll down the page to econ102 at the page , you will see what wrote and what Mr. Scowcroft said here, Mr. Bush used the excuse the of 9/11 to push through the tax cuts and print money and set us up for the economic destruction. That the American public has been complicit in the economic demise of the country, that much is true, but the crooks on the wall street have been have been pushing the white house and the congress for more and more loot, wall street became a den of theives, and free for all among the thieves, crooks and swindlers is what has been refered to as the neww investment vehicles. Hank Paulson, the senate the president and the congress have all been party to the crime, and now they want us to them the even more money to fix the problem

I’m hoping that there will be no C.I.A.-backed September or October, or November Surprise.

We should choose the pain and reject the oligarchs’ bailout.

When challenged for reasons for his support of McCain despite several quotes where McCain’s views were directly in conflict with his own, Gen Scowcroft answered that he was a life-long Republican. This confirms George Washington’s worst fears that “factions” (ie political parties)would dominate politics and that politicians would put the interest of their faction ahead of the best interest of the nation. Although I disagree strongly with Joe Lieberman on policy, I can admire his stance that in his mind principle is more important than party. Gen Scowcroft should read a biography of George Washington and discover Washington’s fears regarding “factions.” Maybe Gen Scowcroft should put principle ahead of party.

My favorite proverbs came from my Sicilian great grandmother.

“The fish smells from the head” and “The family may fry you, but they won’t eat you.”

Listen to Scowcroft calling for “thinking carefully before we act” and “working together instead of looking back.” I think we should start by looking back and putting the blame exactly where it belongs - Republican party. Otherwise, how am I supposed to vote if I am not clear who’s been screwing up so badly. Next, I think we need to elect on the basis of who inspires the most amount of good will toward America in the rest of the world. Clearly, out of the two candidates, it is not McCain. I think, at this point in history, this is of much bigger importance than McCain’s experiences as a POW.

We Americans are afflicted with so many defects of perception.
To hear this experienced, intelligent guy Scowcraft rehearse the same old rationalizations leaders have resorted to since Vietnam “we’re facing a new kind of enemy, it’s not armies facing off anymore, they hit and run” (paraphrased), tells us a lot about the learning curve of our leaders. Or absence of learning.
What Michael Scheuer has called Imperial Hubris and what Johnny Depp called the attitude of a petulant puppy, whatever it is that blinds us-it needs fixing or we will suffer the fate of all other historical super powers.
If John McCain really believes that Muslim extremists (in his words) “fight to express a hatred for all that is good in humanity”, he clearly is too dissociated from empirical fact and the kind of metacognition and analysis necessary to run this country. They don’t hate our freedom. They hate our sense of entitlement and they hate what we have actually done in Islamic states around the world. (See Scheuer (CIA Al Qaeda expert)and his laundry lists of U.S. direct and indirect actions in Muslim countries).

I appreciate the attitude of your guest and the direction he thinks we need to go with our country but it seems quite at odds with the attitude of John McCain, whom he claims to support. When I hear the clip of McCain saying, “the enemy is against all that is good in the world…” [sic], this seems quite the opposite of the civil discourse he seems to want for our country.

I hope Tom was more unbiased unlike other media which takes Obama as an obvious winner. I dont understand what qualification does obama have other than being a husband of African American who will be proud of america only if people vote for him inspite of getting the best of both worlds all her life because of USA.

“I hope Tom was more unbiased unlike other media which takes Obama as an obvious winner.”

Tom was all right. It was Scowcroft who was all over the place. On the one hand, he repudiated virtually everything Republicans has stood for in foreign policy for the last 20 years, but on the other hand, he kept saying “I am a life long Republican so McCain is my man.”

Obama’s qualification is to inspire. I would like to see American presidents going around the world without angering huge masses of people. McCain is just a frenetic politician trying to keep up with events, while everything keeps getting out of control for him. Frankly, he does not come across all that presidential.

What a peculiar guest! I am met with utter ambivilence with regard to Mr. Scowcroft. I highly respect his wisdom about the changining landscape of the post cold war, globalized world in which we live. His confidence and conviction lead him to stand against the president and the general public to object to the war in Iraq. Yet, on the other hand, his support of the McCain - Palin ticket is antithetical to virtually every principle he preaches. I understand that he has a personal relationship with McCain, but I just don’t see how that reconciles with his deep-rooted political convictions.

I found it hard to listen to Brent Scowcroft after he made the inane comment about his support of John McCain: “I’ve been a Republican all my life and John McCain is a friend of mine”! It negates every other sensible idea he proposed.

Esther Mann

That’s right, this episode also makes me feel I have just wasted my last hour to listen to Scowcroft preaching about what the current administration has gone wrong on foreign policy, and all of a sudden he made a U-turn to go back where he has just departed, he runs a full circle that’s not going anywhere. Why even bother to invite him on the show?

He’s almost saying my loyalty is blind enough to overwrite my principles, I am disappointed.