When W and the Blogger Agree

W says we're in a "a struggle for civilization." And I agree. What I don't understand about W is why he want's to bring our civilization down to the enemy's level. Why is he pushing so hard for the right to torture? Why is he looking to undermine equal protection under law? Why turn our our civil rights? In a battle for civilization, doesn't it make sense to display the proud dominance of our civilization by highlighting what makes ours so special? Why are we shedding the very things that we're protecting. It's amazing, it's not so much what the enemy is taking away as what we're so willing to eject. Either way the end result is the same, our civilization is diminished.

This is where I think W misses the point. He has the right grand idea, but he fails to create the right plan to achieve his goal. To me, he seems like the stereotypical college professor. Great ideas, can inspire others, but can't "do." He get's bogged down in the details, the reality, and the cause/effects. You can't save a civilization by destroying what makes it, just as you can't create democracy amidst chaos. This is why, ultimately, W's not a bad guy, he's overmatched in the real world. I think he see's things in the simplistic terms of a philosopher, not with the strategic mind of a tactician. I think he would have been a fine peace-time president, but his weaknesses in detail, strategy and tactics make him a weak commander-in-chief.