Problem was each week he'd "Make it so!" to directions conflicting with the previous weeks "Make it so"s. It was constant putting out fires that resulted from lack of deep thought on his part. He could captain a ship but only in circles.

Running on instincts, according to the Times article citing various experts, works if the moral "grounding" is good. I disagree. Instincts are good in sports or in combat where instinctual reaction is a matter of survival or winning. But we have brains for a reason, namely to reason. That Bush runs on instincts and not brain matter is a poor excuse for his shoddy leadership. He may have the moral integrity of Jesus himself but as the President of the most powerful nation on the face of this planet Bush should be using his mental capacities to their fullest abilities.

Crap! Maybe that's why he runs on instincts.

War on Terrorism vs War on Drugs
As we've descended into yet another wasteful nebulous war let's review the differences and similarities.

With the WoD you were at risk at the moment of creation. That is you could buy a halogen lamp, potting soil, and all the acoutrements but until you actually planted and grew the marijuana you were safe from prosecution. At least I think you were. "Innocent until proven guilty" still existed andhaving al the hardware doesn't prove you were going to do something illegal. Our children were taught to "Just Say 'No!'" to drugs without much explanatory information.


With the WoT you are at risk even in the planning stage which borders on thought control and censorship, and directly threatens Freedom of Speech. A criticism of Governmental policy (such as this) could be considered terroristic in that it may spurn someone to act in a violent manner. Our children will be taught to think "Clean, pure thoughts'" regarding the U.S. without much explanatory information.

Billions of dollars were/are spent on both wars with overall little preventive effect. Drugs and terrorism are still around and on the rise. However the political results have been acceptable - the occasional large-scale drug bust or caught terrorist providing photo-ops.

Both wars started under Presidents who seemed more like talking heads than active thinkers. Reagan and Bush were/are more like 'Yes' men to their cabinet than vice versa. Both were/are utterly convinced of the necessity of their War despite a lack of obvious targets, deadlines, and fiscal limites or responsibilities. Both had a plethora of convenient sound bites.

And, of course, there's the Bush Connection between the two.

I'm sure there's more. Have at it!