Pakistan

Hmmm, Pakistan is in the news a lot suddenly. One has to wonder how the strategists in the Bush administration let Pakistan recede to the backstage. Let's do some Monday quarterbacking and look back to the U.S. responses to 9/11. Everyone seems okay with our efforts to remove the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan. After that, we were told that Iraq would be the strategic move in the war on terror. Iraq, a country without nuclear capability, no Al Qaeda presence, hostile to Iran, and no terrorists. Pakistan, a country with nuclear capability, Al Qaeda presence, some instability, and plenty of people sympathetic to terrorists. Why would Bush think Iraq is more important than Pakistan? Iraq was the better business opportunity. I have a history against lawyers in government, but I don't support MBAs in there either, particularly those with blind allegiance to markets. Bush is a man of God, but probably because God's name is used on our currency. Economics is a single social science, and if one wants to use social sciences to shape a country, one should draw upon all social sciences.

I visited the ABC News web site and saw a headline about being rich in order to be U.S. President. In my lifetime, there have been more non-rich presidents than rich ones. Kennedy, rich; Johnson, non-rich; Nixon, non-rich; Ford, non-rich; Carter, non-rich; Reagan, non-rich, Bush, rich; Clinton, non-rich; Bush, rich. That's 3 rich and 6 non-rich, and the rich served many less years. So why the question?