July 22, 2006 by lonbud
The Pen And The Sword
Amid rapidly escalating violence between Israel and its tormentors in the Middle East, diminishing traction of the ersatz governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a renewed curiosity toward his behavioral motivations, George W. Bush exercised his constitutional power to veto legislation this week — for the first time in an improbable six-year run as President of the United States.
The offending bill produced by the Republican-controlled congress would have provided federal funding for medical research utilizing embryonic stem cells, which are widely believed by the scientific community to hold answers for curing and combatting a host of diseases and disabilities.
Stem-cell research, however, is anathema to the religious Right in this country. And while the members of that small minority of people may not comprise the wealthiest bloc of Mr. Bush’s hard-core base, its values are those that seem closest to the president’s own, and he seems to fear nothing so much as the prospect of a political backlash that would come from offending their sensibilities.
There has been much debate in the past six years over the question of whether Mr. Bush will be viewed by historians as one of, if not the worst president the United States has ever had. Without attempting to engage that debate further, it would not be difficult to assess his tenure as enigmatic at best.
Here is a man whose professed concern — based in a public expression of his humility before God — is the “protection of life.” In a White House ceremony to announce the veto, Mr. Bush surrounded himself with parents and children born through in vitro fertilization, declaring the sanctity of human life is violated when embryonic stem cells are allowed to be used for scientific research. The president relies on similar moral logic to express his opposition to abortion.
And yet the president is responsible for the violent deaths of uncounted thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and — at this writing — over 2500 members of the U.S. military, who have perished in the so-called War on Terrorism.
Professing a similar commitment to the protection of human life, Mr. Bush has ordered violent, involuntary force-feeding of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, to combat their hunger strike protests against inhumane treatment and denial of access to legal assistance in fighting their detention. The Bush administration’s force-feeding policy, in which prisoners are bound to chairs by their heads, chests, waists, arms, and legs, administers “life-saving” nutrition through tubes jammed into their nostrils, down their throats and into their stomachs.
Gotta be cruel to be kind, I guess.
And so Mr. Bush is willing to stand in opposition to his party and to the sweep of scientific progress in the name of “protecting life” comprised of cellular clusters of human goo. He is willing to “protect the lives” of men imprisoned on suspicion of their allegiance to an ideology opposed to our way of life, with the intention of then executing them after perfunctory appearances before military tribunals without the benefit of legal assistance. He is willing to “protect the lives” of unborn children and think not twice about executing them should they grow up to run afoul of the law.
It seems to me Mr. Bush desires to act not so much as God’s humble servant as he wishes to play the title role himself.
Tam O’Tellico - July 22, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
This is a subject I can speak about with a certain authority – at least if one accepts R.D. Laing’s dictum that a man’s only authority is his own experience.
I am the parent of an 18 year-old who is the result of our second attempt at in vitro fertilization. I won’t go into a lengthy explanation of the process – anyone who wants the details can look it up. Suffice it to say, it is not for the faint of heart, what with programmed sexual relations, regular injections of progesterone, “harvesting” of eggs – which back in the day required surgery, and the emotional roller coaster of hope and abject despair when all that fails.
The progesterone is used to increase the number of eggs from the female in order to increase the odds of success by implantation of a number of fertilized eggs. This accounts for the high number of multiple births among in vitro mothers, which is why most doctors are reluctant to implant more than three fertilized eggs at one time.
This means there are frequently extra embryos – or human beings if one subscribes to the peculiar notion thrown up by religious fanatics and our President. I don’t, and I doubt that anyone who has been through this process does. I can tell you from a very personal standpoint that I never considered those embryos my sons or daughters. They might have become human beings at some point, but I know only too well how long and difficult the road is between an eight-celled zygote and a bouncing baby boy.
At some point in this process, we were left with a difficult choice: continue to keep the frozen embryos, have them destroyed, or have them donated for scientific research. I can tell you, it was a very difficult choice, one which gave us much pause for reflection. Let me say this unequivocally – no one else should be allowed to make that choice for you.
But that is exactly what happens with the perverted reasoning of the Religious Wrong.
What makes their Pro-Life posturing even more hypocritical is that these are often the same people who think Aid to Dependent Children and Head Start are moral outrages. They are also they same people who all too often rush to war under the Constantinian Cross of Christianity. Where is their professed love of life when if comes to these things?
So please, Mr. President, save your sanctimony and your Nazi-like propagandizing with children at a media event staged to announce your only veto in six years. Of all the pork-barrel, anti-family legislation you had a chance to denounce from your bully pulpit – you chose this? Well, that is a perfect example of why you will end up in the slag-heap of history.
Those of us who have gone through the arduous process of in vitro fertilization know far more about the sanctity of life than you can imagine.
And the sons and daughters lost to your wasted war – to say nothing of thousands of Iraqi “collateral” dead – tell me even more about your sick notion of the sanctity of life.
Those of us who were pioneers in the in vitro process know all about the weird looks and sidelong glances that accosted people who two decades ago dared to “play God” in pursuit of a child. We also know only too well that these embryos can be used for evil men for evil purposes, and by greedy men for greedy purposes.
So pass a law regulating trafficking in human embryos. But do not force those of who once had the choice of donating our embryos to science in the hope that our genetic material might one day be of some use to some other person, would now be left with no choice but to flush them down the toilet. Please – somebody – tell me how that promotes the sanctity of life?
Paul Burke - July 24, 2006 @ 8:24 am
One of the problems with the religious right is they think that man can alter god’s will – even if you accept the fact that life begins at conception – the exact moment the sperm hits the egg – (every sperm is sacred) it still doesn’t justify not helping people when the opportunity to help them comes along. Accepting the religious wrongs position you still have various degrees of development and then the full bloom of human consciousness and the channel for creativity embodied in the human being. However, following the religious wrongs logic – the end result of god’s miracle is to be damned. The second tier of the argument in support of the veto is the “not with my tax dollars” rhetoric. While I support the notion of fewer taxes and a huge roll back on the payroll tax I can not accept this “excuse” for inhumanity in the face of major tax breaks for the uber wealthy and super rich and the tax breaks and subsidies for the uber profitable oil industry. The hypocrisy is so enormous we don’t even talk about it!
More to the issue as they have framed it how can the full bloom of god’s creation be treated with more disdain than then the moment the sperm hits the egg. Me thinks they got it backwards. The end result of consciousness and creativity is the god force making itself known in our three dimensional reality and in our collective conscious and subconscious reality. The miracle is life, and is this planet we live on and focusing only on conception and using that to deny help to all those around us is ignoring the reason we are here in the first place.
It’s not to give birth or gain power but to help one another. Until the powers that be get that figured out we are doomed to blunder and stumble and waste the dawn. Mankind can only detract from god’s creation personified and god’s platform the earth and its atmosphere by lusting for power, greed and self agrandizing. The intention behind the act is the divining force everything else is just an excuse to cover up a self serving agenda of power, control and greed.
Journey Home has a new blog layout and a site on myspace – please come by and say hello! Click through to the Journey Home site, check out the new blog layout and scroll down on the left (no pun intended) to find the myspace link on the blog. Enjoy – the big guy would want it that way!
Paul
lonbud - July 24, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
Those with their dander up over cellular clusters of human goo — Tony Snow and Josh Bolton both dancing as fast as they could over the weekend trying to explicate their dear leader’s position (RE: research as murder) — are just so full of it!
There is a great piece in the August issue of Harper’s that shows the logical extension of equating “conception” with “life” results in the “murder” of countless numbers of human lives every month by those religiously observant members of the flock who practice the only method of birth control sanctioned by the Catholic Church, the rhythm method.
Paul B, you are spot on here, brother.
Tam O’Tellico - July 25, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
My previous post did not address the smokescreen issue of “Federal funds” because it is exactly that – a smokescreen. As a taxpayer, I object to the use of my tax dollars to fund the war in Iraq, the No Child Left Unrecruited Act, the Clear Skies Coal Company Welfare Act, and the countless pork barrel projects of Congress. Since my moral sensibilities are offended by all this and so much more, shoulc I be required to fund them?
Furthermore, by denying Federal funding of stem cell research, this administration has eliminated control through those purse-strings of an area rife with moral ambiguities. Thus, the President through this pitiful ruse actually abdicates his moral responsiblity and leaves these otherwise difficult moral decisions in the hands of his Free-Market friends — I’m sure they will have no problem with the moral ambiguities.
PhoneBoy - July 25, 2006 @ 1:47 pm
I think a quote from George Carlin is appropriate here: they want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.
lonbud - July 25, 2006 @ 9:34 pm
Grist for the mill, as it were…
Tam O’Tellico - July 27, 2006 @ 7:15 am
How strange that our friend Michael, who always claims to have the numbers to support any absurdity proferred by this administration, hasn’t weighed in on this issue. Could it be that our resident statistician can’t subscribe to the illogic of his beloved Bush and doesn’t want to be seen siding with the Neanderthals?
Michael Herdegen - July 27, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
I haven’t commented yet, despite a target-rich environment, because I’ve noticed that when I start the discussion thread, few but you and lonbud participate. Therefore, my new policy is to wait at least a week before commenting, to encourage those who don’t care for me to comment. It is, after all, not my party.
However, since you bring it up, I do understand the President’s position well, and respect it.
I do not agree with it.
Calling that position “Neanderthalic” rather misses the point.
They aren’t anti-science, they’re pro-life.
Tam O’Tellico - July 27, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
Well, I am glad to hear that you disagree with the President about something at least.
I don’t mean to suggest that those who support the President are all anti-science, though I’m sure their ranks are filled with home-schoolers, which in my neck of the woods is a euphemism for proponents of Intelligent-Design. Ironically, they also tend to be death penalty advocates, too, and they see no apparent contradiction in that.
I find it even more ironic that they see no problem playing God with in vitro – my how their kind have changed in only a generation. But in any case, Pro-Life is a slogan, not a character trait, and by its very nature it implies that the rest of us are Anti-Life. I hope my previous post put that to the lie.
Speaking of lies, don’t you find it ingenuous, even downright deceitful, to imply that “embryo adoption” will solve the problem of what to do with a half-million or more frozen embryos? But you probably think that is just another problem best left to free-market forces.
lonbud - July 27, 2006 @ 10:08 pm
As much as I enjoy the repartee with y’all, Michael and Tam, I do wish more of this blog’s readership (a not insignificant number of people from several countries on at least three continents) would join the conversation. If Michael’s willingness to defer commentary until others have got the ball rolling has such a result, I’ll be quite pleased.
For the record, I’d bet a good percentage of those who self-identify as Pro Life are anti-science, if not at least highly skeptical of science.
tom cordle - July 28, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
For the record, I have several friends who visit here and only wish to enjoy the debate without having to be the bait.
Michael Herdegen - August 2, 2006 @ 8:00 am
There has been much debate in the past six years over the question of whether Mr. Bush will be viewed by historians as one of, if not the worst president the United States has ever had.
Well, no. No serious historian entertains the notion that Bush might be considered “one of the worst Presidents ever”. One would have to be entirely ignorant of American history to believe such a thing.
We have had some PR stunts involving assertions that Bush is “the worst Prez ever”, but I’m unwilling to characterize publicity stunts as “debate”.
…the president is responsible for the violent deaths of uncounted thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians…
The UN sanctions were killing at least 20,000 Iraqis a year, and by some estimates they killed a total of 500,000.
YOU, lonbud, have said that the war in Iraq was unnecessary because the sanctions kept Saddam powerless, and one can thereby infer that you supported continued sanctions, instead of an invasion.
Since the current Iraqi pacification campaign hasn’t killed more civilians per year, on average, than did the UN sactions, Bush’s responsibility for Iraqi deaths is no greater than that of any person who supported the UN sanctions against Iraq, and far less than that of Saddam himself.
lonbud - August 2, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
Michael:
You may wish to believe critical conversation regarding your idol’s performance of his duties has been undertaken only by “unserious” historians of the “moonbat left,” however, real, live historians of American history, credentialed and published and with plenty of academic gravitas to give their opinions weight, have already pegged him near the bottom of the heap:
Juan Cole is a distinguished professor of history at one of America’s finest universities, and one of the few people in this country with an ability to put together a coherent sentence about the Middle East prior to 9/11.
Macleans, though technically a North American source, is hardly far-left or marginal by any stripe, and they use the word debate without a trace of irony.
The Institute For Historical Review is but a third source of “serious” considerations of the shortcomings of your preferred presidential template.
You are decidedly on the wrong side of this particular point in the debate, friend.
UN sanctions didn’t kill a single Iraqi citizen in and of themselves. Saddam Hussein consigned the people of his nation to deprivations through his own misguided approach to statesmanship. The death of every Iraqi citizen who perished during his reign, whether by dint of the arms and technology delivered to him by the U.S. government, or by the effect of sanctions imposed on his regime by other countries of the international community of nations, falls on Saddam’s side of the ledger.
w has a far more paltry tally to his account, but then, look who he’s competing with.
Tam O’Tellico - August 3, 2006 @ 11:58 am
Dare I offer a fair and balanced view of Bush as the worst President in U.S. history?
In fact, the debate can’t have raged for six years – except among the lunatic fringe – because any reasoned assessment of Bush’s performance would have to be based on – well, performance. Therefore, some time in office was required before a reasoned debate could even begin.
But given six year’s in office, there is little doubt that some preliminary evaluation of Bush is not only possible, it is necessary – something far too many of his ardent supporters are unwilling to do. Instead, they seem content to keep swallowing slogans.
Anyone not so inclined will see Social Security and health care reform, Katrina, leaky borders, huge deficits, growing imbalance of trade, and the giant sucking sound of jobs leaving the country as huge failures. He has failed to win even on most of his “core” objectives such as gay marriage, school-prayer, flag-burning, and abortion. A fair and balanced assessment of Bush’s first six years must come to the conclusion that it will take a truly monumental achievement to balance the scales.
What could constitute such a monumental success? If Bush succeeds with his MidEast adventure – if Al Queda is routed, if Iraq becomes a thriving democracy, if a crisis in Lebanon/Israel is averted – many historians will likely forgive Bush for his domestic failures. But that is a gigantic IF.
At this point, Bush’s foreign policy looks far from successful. Should he fail there, as he has failed domestically, it grows more likely every day that he will rank among in the bottom half even with those historians who subscribe to his ideology. And with those who oppose his views, those who will surely add domestic spying and govt torture to a long, long list of failures, he will escape absolute bottom, if he does, only by having the good fortune to have the likes of Warren G. Harding, Ulysses Grant and Andrew Johnson on the list.
While it is still too soon to make a hard judgment concerning Bush’s time in office, the public has clearly decided they made a mistake in returning him to office – if they did, in fact, do so. But as the reassessment of Harry Truman proves, public opinion is not the judgment of history. Historians, for instance, know that Harry Truman had at least as much to do with the fall of the Evil Empire as Ronald Reagan.
But any fair preliminary assessment of this President can only conclude that history it not likely to be kind to the fool who would be king.
Michael Herdegen - August 3, 2006 @ 6:15 pm
lonbud:
We have had this debate at least twice before, and you’ve agreed that while Bush may end up in the bottom half, absent something much worse than what is already known he won’t be “the worst”, nor even one of the bottom three.
This is also what Tam points out in the above post.
Therefore, for you to re-assert that any serious person believes, based on what is currently known, that Bush will be known to history as “the worst American President ever”, is baffling. You ARE capable of learning, are you not ?
Tam:
I applaud your attempt to provide a reasonable assessment of Bush’s performance, but you may wish to do a little more research, if you want to sound knowledgeable about the subject.
For instance, perhaps you are unaware that the need for Social Security and health care reform well pre-dates Bush ?
Clinton attempted health care reform in ’94, remember ?
Similarly, when has the U.S. not had “leaky” borders ?
You’re willing to reach back 40 years before Reagan to give credit for bringing down the Soviet Union, but based on your list, you apparently believe that every problem that America now faces began with the election of George W. Bush. Surely you see the contradiction ?
America doesn’t have “huge” deficits. For instance, fiscal ’06’s deficit will be only 2% of GNP.
Therefore, that won’t be a knock against Bush in the future, when considering his legacy.
Similarly, the “giant imbalance of trade” is a sign of American STRENGTH, not of weakness, as it reflects the global reality that international investors can’t find a better place to park their excess savings than in the U.S.
It also means that American consumers are benefitting from the willingness of non-Americans to work for a dollar an hour.
It’s not a negative, and neither is it permanent. Should conditions change, the “imbalance of trade” could reverse in a heartbeat.
…the giant sucking sound of jobs leaving the country as huge failures.
That charge is puzzling, since A RECORD NUMBER of Americans hold jobs, and unemployment is at a five-year low.
Perhaps you could provide some data or examples which would tend to support your point ?
[Bush] has failed to win even on most of his “core” objectives such as gay marriage, school-prayer, flag-burning, and abortion. A fair and balanced assessment…
Would note that gay marriage, school prayer, and flag-burning aren’t issues that Bush cares about, and thus can’t be his “core” objectives. You appear to be confusing generic conservative “hot-button” issues with Bush’s agenda. This is another area where some research into the subject of your assessment could have come in handy.
Bush has gotten two anti-abortion justices confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which one would have to be insane to conclude was a “loss”. The abortion lobby considers it to have been a huge win for Bush, and I’m inclined to trust their judgement on this issue.
As for domestic spying and gov’t torture, history is likely to give Bush a pass on those, as it did for FDR and the Japanese Interment.
So really, out of all of the supposed “domestic failures” on your list, only Katrina has any measure of validity.
Oddly, Bush’s post-9/11 response, which 90% of Americans liked, (based on Bush’s approval ratings), is absent from your “fair and balanced” assessment. Hmmm…
Further, we have income tax cuts, tax rate flattening, cuts to dividend and capital gains taxes, a huge increase in the child tax credit, education reform, Health Savings Accounts, and free-trade agreements with Australia, Chile, Singapore, and most of Central America.
So, balancing those things that we know to be on the positive side of the ledger against those that are known to be negative, and adding in the risk of failure in the middle East, any fair preliminary assessment of this President can only conclude that history will see Bush as a middlin’-fair President, at worst.
Finally, we get to: …the public […] made a mistake in returning [Bush] to office – if they did, in fact, do so.
Ah, the joys of the “paranoid conspiracy” school of analysis. Fun, to be sure, but like the bad horror/action-adventure movies that it resembles, completely improbable.
For instance, (and this is a point that I’ve made many times before, in this forum, without being refuted, and so I must again wonder if the Left is capable of learning), if BushCo. DID manage to steal the ’04 election, why didn’t Kerry and/or the Democratic Party protest the results, or at least make public the surely-damning-results of their investigation of the Ohio vote ?
Is it that Kerry really didn’t want to be President, and was secretly glad to have the election stolen from him ?
Or perhaps Kerry was a bought-and-paid-for stooge of BushCo., brought in to throw the race ?
What’s the paranoid-conspiracy party line on the silence of Kerry, Edwards, and the Dem establishment ?
lonbud - August 3, 2006 @ 9:48 pm
Michael, sometimes you really don’t read too well. It makes me believe you are so blinded by your own preconceptions and ideological comforts you may well be incapable of approaching the truth of the realities we purport to discuss.
In the very paragraph you cite accusing me of an inability to learn, I wrote the following words:
Without attempting to engage that debate (the one about whether or not w will be known to history as one of the worst presidents ever) further, it would not be difficult to assess his tenure as enigmatic at best.
What’s your beef with me, bro?
All I did was cite the fact that there is debate, that it’s been undgergoing since virtually the day the man took office, and that there are, indeed, serious historians who actively entertain the proposition.
I’ll state for the record, here and now, my belief that your idol will forever be mentioned in the same breath with Harding, Grant, Hoover, and Andrew Johnson.
Let’s also attempt to clear up a misconception about one of your favorite statistics, the one that says a record number of Americans are employed today, so how can there be an unemployment problem in this country. A record number of people are employed because there are a record number of people of working age.
Job creation under w has not kept up with growth in the labor force. Labor department statistics are worthless as an indicator of conditions in the real economy because they leave uncounted vast numbers of long-term unemployed people and people who have simply given up hope of finding employment.
Things may not be as bad (yet) as Tam or I might like to portray them, but they are likewise not nearly as rosy as you would have us believe.
Why on earth would you idolize a person who proposed a constitutional amendment on an issue about which he supposedly doesn’t care? Honestly, how could anyone seek to emulate such a leader?
Don’t toss away your “get out of jail free” card just yet, either. w, Cheney, Rummy, and Gonzalez may all have some ‘splaining to do in the context of the War Crimes Act of 1996 before it’s all said and done. To conflate the spying, torture, and tolerance for death squads employed by BushCo with FDR’s internment of the Japanese is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. Why, it’s almost as bad as comparing the threat posed by Saddam Hussein with that posed by Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.
Tam O’Tellico - August 4, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
M: For instance, perhaps you are unaware that the need for Social Security and health care reform well pre-dates Bush ? Clinton attempted health care reform in ‘94, remember ?
Perhaps you are unaware that the last President to attempt to try do anything about our shameful health-care system prior to Clinton was Harry Truman, who was of course trumped by big business. Ditto Clinton. In fact, it wasn’t until Free-Market fanatics at places like GM and Ford finally figured out how adversely the health-care crisis was affecting their businesses that the subject became acceptable among big-business types. But even they have discovered such talk is pissing in the wind where Bush and his ilk are concerned – they are far more interested in removing the safety net than repairing it.
As for SSS and medicare, obviiously I know it didn’t begin with Bush – my point is that he hasn’t even proposed anything to alleviate the problem. All his failed plan did was throw a bone to Wall Street. I have offered a simple solution to these problems, a solution which I believe you agreed makes far more sense than turning the poor’s safety net over to Wall Street.
As for the core issues I enumerated, you seem to be suggesting that Bush doesn’t really care about the hot button issues that mobilize “the base”. Another words, he’s just another political phony. Jeez, at least I give him credit for believing his own idiotic rhetoric.
Tam O’Tellico - August 4, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
M: As for domestic spying and gov’t torture, history is likely to give Bush a pass on those, as it did for FDR and the Japanese Interment.
Utterly absurd. My God, you really have lost your mind on that one – it’s as bad as your $10,000 “comfortable life”. Equating FDRs internment camps with Gitmo and Abu Gharib? I guess by your reasoning, televised beheadings and suicide bombers all have the same moral equivalence, too.
M: Ah, the joys of the “paranoid conspiracy”…completely improbable.
Improbable? Maybe. Then again, Mr. Diebold made it perfectly clear that he was willing to do ANYTHING to get Bush re-elected. And every expert on the subject says that “fixing” and election with a Diebold machine is child’s play – and undetectable. Experts also agree that such a flaw in these machines is inexcusable, and that leaves open only the question of whether Diebold was that stupid – or that smart.
In any case, the fact that someone like me, someone who still thinks Oswald did it all by himself and who considers the existence of the Illumati a joke, the fact that I would even entertain such an idea says something that bodes ill for this country:
When relatively intelligent and informed citizens begin to doubt the honesty of the vote count, democracy is in serious trouble. That’s another reason your boy will go down for the count in history.
BTW, I hope you didn’t assume from my post that I think George has much chance of escaping his rightful place as a bottom-feeder – all I was suggesting is that it is still a bit premature to state that he IS the worst President of all time. My opinion has not changed one iota, I believe that absent the kind of miracle I described previously, he will end up making even Harding look like a stateman.
Michael Herdegen - August 5, 2006 @ 1:41 am
As for SS […] my point is that he hasn’t even proposed anything to alleviate the problem. All his failed plan did…
Oh, so he did propose something to alleviate the problem. The fact that you didn’t like his solution is not the same as “not having a solution”.
As for the core issues I enumerated, you seem to be suggesting that Bush doesn’t really care about the hot button issues that mobilize “the base”.
What person in an important position of responsibility does ?
Gay marriage, school prayer, and flag-burning are symbolic-only subjects that are fun to argue about, but none of them are important issues that will have any lasting repercussions in the course of American history.
They’re the kind of thing that people with too much time on their hands get worked up over.
My God, you really have lost your mind on that one – it’s as bad as your $10,000 “comfortable life”.
Since we’ve previously agreed that one can live comfortably on ten grand, you seem to be saying that you’re grudgingly agreeing with me on spying and torture.
In any case, thinking that future Americans will look back and think “Bush shouldn’t have authorized the torture of terrorists” is a complete misreading of the American people. We don’t much care if the people who are trying to kill us are mistreated, and nobody’s going to remember that it was an issue for Bush once he leaves office.
Equating FDRs internment camps with Gitmo and Abu Gharib?
Outside of political obsessives, you’d be hard-pressed to find any Americans who remember what Abu Gharib was about. Further, you’ve got the order of precedence wrong; equating FDR’s camps with Gitmo and Abu Gharib is ludicrously wrong because THE INTERNMENT CAMPS WERE TEN TIMES WORSE.
Tens of thousands of American citizens, convicted of no wrongdoing, are packed off to concentration camps solely because of their race, as opposed to a few thousand people incarcerated because they were trying to kill Americans ?
You can see how Gitmo and Gharib pale in comparison.
Improbable? Maybe. Then again, [etc]
Which does nothing whatsoever to explain the silence of Kerry, Edwards, and the Dem establishment. But maybe you’re just that much more smarter, knowledgeable, and crafty than they are, eh ?
Further, if BushCo. and Diebold conspired to fix the election, why make it “Bush by a hair” ?
That just feeds the suspicions of the anti-Bush crowd.
Tam O’Tellico - August 5, 2006 @ 5:59 am
M: Gay marriage, school prayer, and flag-burning are symbolic-only subjects that are fun to argue about, but none of them are important issues that will have any lasting repercussions in the course of American history.
Well, you and I may agree on that these are issues trumped up by a political operative like Karl Rove, but the “base” would vehemently disagree. What you still seem to be saying is that Bush is a two-faced hypocrite who is using these issues for tawdry political purposes. You really can’t have it both ways on this – and I say he actually believes the bullshit Rove feeds him. Hell, maybe Rove even believes it for all I know.
I also happen to believe there are a few other national politicians who actually mean what they say – Tom Harkin of Iowa being one. Problem is, they have no chance of getting elected. On the other hand, neither Jeffeson or Lincoln could get elected today, Jefferson because of his religious beliefs and Lincoln because of his looks and whiny voice. Bad for TV, don’t you know.
The public may vote based on such trivialities, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that the public will determine Bush’s historical fate – they won’t. Ultimately, it is historians who shape the picture of any historical figure. Again Truman, for example, has had his place in history reshaped and resurrected by historians, by the interepation of the facts as much as by the facts themselves. Read McCulloch’s Truman to see how this works.
Conversely, try to find a truly sympathetic history of Nathan Bedford Forrest written by a legitimate historian. This in spite of the fact that Forrest was considered by his peers on both sides as the ablest general on either side. His military tactics were copied by Rommel and are still be studied at war colleges. But being the first Grand Wizard of the KKK does not bode well in a future where such an organization is rightly reviled.
The problem with this dynamic is that historians get to make their judgments in the their cloistered offices and absent the heat of the battle and the incredibly intense pressures that shape the decisions of any President or a general. It is the rare individual who can anticipate the future and guide his own judgements accordingly.
I would put Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, Madison, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman and perhaps if he had lived Kennedy, in that club. What do all these men have in common? Well, among other virtues, these men all exhibit a deep and abiding love of knowledge for its own sake and a profound understanding of history.
George Bush certainly does not.
Therefore, Bush, like Forrest and Jimmy Carter, is far more likely to be a victim of circumstances and his place in history will depend greatly on the outcome of the Iraq War. Whatever his other accomplishments, they will be so overwhelmed as to be all but invisible.
Obviously, none of us can know the future, but w’s does not look bright. And unfortunately, that means ours doesn’t look so good either.
Michael Herdegen - August 5, 2006 @ 7:14 am
What you still seem to be saying is that Bush is a two-faced hypocrite who is using these issues for tawdry political purposes.
What I’m saying is that while he holds opinions about those issues, he doesn’t care enough about them to work to bring reality in line with his preferences.
When someone else does the work, Bush is willing to endorse the effort.
In this, he is no different from any other human. If he is a two-faced hypocrite, then so are we all.
As for the rest, I mostly agree. That is a fair and balanced assessment, although I would make some different assumptions, place more weight on different variables.
Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, Madison, and Lincoln are indeed worthy of the greatest respect, and Bush will not rank among them. However, he might be in the company of such as Teddy Roosevelt or Truman, and almost certainly he’ll rank above Kennedy, (as a President only – few can match the “Camelot” mythos, (or having Marilyn Monroe as a mistress, although if Condi Rice is Bush’s “office wife”, then that’s pretty close).
Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson are my #s 1-2-3.
My bottom three are Buchanan, Pierce, (who is the great-great granduncle of current U.S. President George W. Bush), and Grant.
But that may be unfair to Buchanan and Pierce, as the pre-Civil War period was a very trying time to be President, and they might well have been decent Presidents under other circumstances. (Such as existed from ’92 – ’00. For many reasons, Clinton may well have been the luckiest American President ever).
Grant was a poor President but an exemplary person, with many accomplishments and triumphs to his credit, and not just military ones.
Two Presidents that I hold in contempt are Woodrow Wilson and James Earl Carter. Both were ineffectual, Wilson because of his rigidity and Carter because of his timidity.
Tam O’Tellico - August 5, 2006 @ 10:02 am
Nice to know we can sorta agree on something, although I certainly wouldn’t put Grant beneath Harding, despite Teapot Dome. My reason?
Grant, as far as we know, had nothing to do personally with TD, though it happened on his watch, and he is therefore, responsible.
But Warren G. Harding, like Clinton, had everything to do with turning the WH into his private bordello. But unlike Clinton, he did nothing worthy in that office.
I have already stated plainly that I am no fan of Clinton, but to suggest that his accomplishments were pure blind “luck” is infantile. In fact, his accomlishments are all the greater because they happened in spite of his moral failures and in spite of the opposition party running Congress. That, sir, is not simply fortune, that is wit, guile, determination, salesmanship and planning – traits Bush is tragically short of. That is why Bush will turn out to be the “unluckiest” President in American history.
The judgment on Kennedy, had he lived, would have rested, just as it will with Bush, on the outcome of an ill-advised war. Speculation is a game for fools, but in this case, I’ll bite and suggest, as have many others, that Kennedy would not have pursued that Viet Nam War as did LBJ. Why? Because Kennedy knew something about war up close and personal that neither LBJ or GWB knew. Armchair warriors seem always to be more enthusiastic about resorting to war.
In his book and in the incredible documentary The Fog of War, Robert McNamara offers his apologia for Viet Nam and insists that his advice to LBJ was to tone down the rhetoric and turn off the guns. But having failed to win the argument, he maintains it was his duty to follow out LBJs plans to the best of his abilities. I say hindsight is almost 20-20, but at least McNamara gets credit for a deathbed confession.
It is eerie that our present SOD so closely resembles McNamara, not only in appearance, but in the bean-counter approach to the most awesome and awful of human endeavors. Both are far from the realization offered by Patton that “compared to war, all other endeavors of mankind pale to insignificance.” Don’t expect we’ll ever get a mea culpa from Rumsfled, though.
Of course, Rumsfeld is not entirely to blame for the failure of our New Army, just significantly. He is among those who lobbied longest and loudest for our “modernized” army, one which emphasizes technology over troops, and even with troops, one clearly patterned after ancient Rome. How so?
Rather than a “national militia” of volunteers intent on defending their homeland, the new construct is, like the British Hessians, men in it for the bucks. Part and parcel of this strategy is that logistics in the New Army are handled by private contractors – read Cheney-Halliburton and subsidiaries, thus completing the circle that binds together the Military-Industrial Complex a pretty decent general and President warned us about.
This plan greatly reduces the number of “volunteers” required to do the actual fighting. Sounds reasonable, until you understand that the ratio between “feeders” and “fighters” is about 10 to 1, and that feeders make a helluva lot more money than fighters. That is somewhat mitigated by the fact that feeders can to some extent be supplied by semi-slave labor producing the soup and shells in foreign factories.
So what’s the answer? Well, this flaming liberal believes we need to get rid of the Army of Halliburton and return to the draft. All eighteen year-olds – with no exceptions for sons or daughters of Presidents or Congressmen – should be required to give two years national service. There would be no more “Five-deferment patriots” like Dick Cheney and no exemptions, save for severe physical or mental defect. Even those with such defects would be required to perform duties like filing or picking up garbage.
Conscripts could choose to be feeders or, if qualified, fighters – feeders would get no bennies, fighters would get big bennies, including a college or trade school education after service and free life-time health-care and pensions – which would be paid for by taking those bennies away from Congressmen and their staffs.
If that didn’t cover the cost, we could undo Bush’s Welfare for the Rich tax cuts. Hell, we might even sue to recover some SBA funds from Neil Bush, oilman. If he can’t pay, we’d just take it out of his Daddy’s and his brother’s huge govt retirement dole.
lonbud - August 5, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
I believe Mr. Herdegen has been sampling some of the psychotropic fauna out there in the weeds…
I’ll ask again, how does one seriously idolize a president who would propose a constitutional amendment on an issue for which has no care? The idea is simply ludicrous.
As to the mythical $10,000 stipend, Michael, you began the debate around it insisting such an annual salary could provide for a family of four. After our spate of dueling budgets, you were able to show that a single individual could scrape by on that pittance, but by no means can $10,000 afford one a comfortable life.
You could not be more wrong in your assesment of the collective “memory” for Bush and Gonzalez’ actions vis a vis Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. Those two villians may yet end up serving prison time for war crimes, and you are living in a complete bubble if you think it’s hard to come by Americans who remember what Abu Ghraib was all about.
Furthermore, to describe the Japanese-American experience during WWII as having been shipped off to “concentration camps,” with all of the historical and emotional baggage that term carries, is stunning in its dishonesty and reckless in its disregard for accuracy.
No one, not a single one of the many thousands of Japanese-Americans who were forced to relocate during WWII, was waterboarded, subjected to hours of stress-position abuse, forced to strip naked and masturbate for cameras, behooded and hooked up to car batteries, sleep-deprived, or any of the other cruel and inhuman punishments routinely administered to the inmates of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Your attempt to paint the latter as ten times better than the treatment meted out in the former is incomprehensible.
Your analysis of POTUS history is facile and obvious for the most part, though you are deluded with respect to your positioning of w in relation to Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. As I said before, your idol will be forever mentioned in the same breath with the absolute worst presidents on the roll. Nothing about him, nothing in his entire life’s history, among his actions as president, not even in the mythical aspects of his persona as a “cowboy” can help but wither in the glare of Kennedy’s and Roosevelt’s accomplishments.
And really, the only proof I need for the supremacy of my assessment over yours is the fact that you believe Condoleeza Rice is “pretty close” to Marilyn Monroe as a sexual conquest.
Yikes.
Michael Herdegen - August 7, 2006 @ 1:21 am
[T]o suggest that [Clinton’s] accomplishments were pure blind “luck” is infantile.
Not his accomplishments. His era, and the fact that he was President at all.
Luck played a huge part in his getting the Dem nomination, that and Hillary’s “stand by your man” act. Bush the Elder’s 90% approval ratings after Desert Storm scared away most Dem challengers in ’91, and by the time he looked vulnerable, it was too late for more credible Dems to put together a national campaign organization and raise enough money.
If Perot had not run, Bush would have been re-elected, so unless one believes that Clinton had a hand in convincing Perot to run, we’d have to say that his being in the race was “lucky” for Bill.
Clinton was President after the Cold War ended, but before the War on Terror erupted into a national emergency, (although there were a half-dozen opening salvoes on Clinton’s watch), and Clinton was President when the Internet took off. When Clinton took the oath of office, there were 50 commercial web sites. When he left office, there were 50 million.
It’s easy to look like a genius in a bull market, or with a rising tide, or however you want to characterize a time of widespread peace and economic prosperity.
That Bill Clinton was President during such a time was pure happenstance – luck.
And really, the only proof I need for the supremacy of my assessment over yours is the fact that you believe Condoleeza Rice is “pretty close” to Marilyn Monroe as a sexual conquest.
Which do you believe to be better ?
Condi Rice is more beautiful and far smarter, but Monroe had glamour and was quite photogenic. I guess it depends on whether you like to converse with women, or just love ’em and ask ’em to leave. (Or whether you’re intimidated by women who are obviously superior to 99% of the rest of humanity).
I’d take Condi over Marilyn in a heartbeat, but I suspect that most Americans would choose the other way.
…not even in the mythical aspects of his persona as a “cowboy”…
A mythos that you attribute to him, not one that he claims himself.
Your desire to believe that Bush thinks that he’s a cowboy, so that you can disparage him for not being one, is one of the more puzzling and quirky aspects of your opposition to Bush.
Perhaps you are confused by editorial cartoons depicting Bush as a cowboy, but that’s just a lazy visual depiction of “being from Texas”.
Reagan was the actual dude “cowboy”, and it was George H.W. Bush who was known as the “Connecticut Cowboy”. George W. Bush is neither.
More later.
Tam O’Tellico - August 7, 2006 @ 6:40 am
I’ll be happy to accept your analysis of Clinton’s good fortune at being in the right place and the right time. Now if only you could acknowledge that overall, he did pretty well with what was handed to him, particularly given that his party did not control Congress for most of his eight years.
Conversely, W had the great misfortune to get stuck with six years of Hell from 9-11 to Katrina, none of which were really his fault. However, from my analysis, he has done about as little and as poorly to overcome his misfortune as I can imagine. From squandering the world’s sympathy after 9-11 to misunderestimating the cost and the difficulty of the Iraq War to fiddling while New Orleans drowned, he has tripped on his own sword with almost every major problem.
The two do have one similarity, both frittered away valuable political capital chasing after foolish things – Clinton, cheap, meaningless sex, and Bush, cheap, meaningless issues like flag-burning and school prayer. By so doing, each weakened his Presidency and worsened his place in history.
But in one sense, Clinton was worse than Bush – at least from my perspective. Given his way with words, his nimble mind, and his grasp of larger issues, with Clinton, I had the greatest of expectations. Given his tortured syntax, his sloganeering, his profiteering, and his lack of interest in larger issues, with Bush, I expected the worst. In that sense, Bush has fulfilled his promise, while Clinton failed miserably.
Tam O’Tellico - August 7, 2006 @ 9:05 am
BTW, I don’t agree with your claim that Perot’s candidacy threw the election to Clinton. Like George Wallace, the last serious third party candidate, Perot’s appeal was far more blue-collar than elitist, and it is far more likely he drew votes from potential Clinton voters than from fans of Pappy Bush.
lonbud - August 7, 2006 @ 12:11 pm
I’m starting to grow concerned about you Michael; you really need to watch what you’re nibbling on out there in the weeds.
Bill Clinton had his sights set on the Presidency since he was a boy. A boy from one of the dirt-poorest places in this country, I might add, who grew up with none of the advantages your idol has abused and taken for granted his entire life.
Clinton wasn’t lucky, he was smart. He saw what a woefully inept president Poppy was and figured the time was ripe for preventing the two-term debacle that would have ensued with a Bush victory in ’92. He went out and won the election after besting a large field of not-unknown (Jerry Brown, Gene McCarthy, Tom Harkin, Bob Kerry) Democratic contenders in the primary. Just because Cuomo and Gephart sat that one out doesn’t make Clinton lucky, it makes them cowards.
Again, luck had nothing to do with Clinton’s presidency. He chose his moment. I agree with Tam on two points here: If Perot had not run, Clinton’s victory would have been a landslide. And, smart as he was, given the opportunities he had during his time in office, and despite the uphill battle he had with Congress, Clinton was a bitterly disappointing president in my eyes.
And speaking of eyes, you and I do truly see the world through different pairs of them.
Condi Rice more beautiful than Marilyn Monroe? All righty, then…
You denigrate Ms. Monroe’s intellect at your peril. If you knew anything about her, you’d know she was far more intelligent than her dumb-blonde persona branded her. I don’t think I’d have had a problem hanging out with Marilyn at all.
Nor am I intimidated by the likes of Ms. Rice, who, as far as I can tell, has yet to articulate an original thought about U.S. foreign policy. She has done nothing as the chief diplomat of the world’s lone superpower to either advance the cause of freedom and democracy in any part of the world, or to quell the chaos, death, and destruction reigning over the Middle East.
Superior to 99% of humanity? Damn, son, you really do have it bad for her, don’tcha?
Reagan was no cowboy, despite his having played one on TV, and despite his having successfully co-opted the image while enacting his ruinous policies. And Poppy was never known as the Connecticut Cowboy; no one would have ever believed him if he ever tried to pass himself off as a cowboy, which he mercifully never tried to do.
w, on the other hand, fancies himself every bit the brush rustler. In reality, he is the quintessential empty hat.
Michael Herdegen - August 8, 2006 @ 12:18 am
I don’t think that Clinton was a bad President, despite thinking that he should have been removed from office. While he made one inexcusable mistake, he did sign NAFTA and welfare reform, allowed RU-486 to be distributed, and he was committed to appearing to balance the Federal budget, among other positives.
I just don’t thing that he was much of a leader, and he severely disappointed me as well. He would have been a better Senator than President.
Bill Clinton had his sights set on the Presidency since he was a boy.
Just like JFKerry and ten thousand others who will never be President.
Wanting something for a long time doesn’t mean that it doesn’t take luck to acquire it. Talk to world-class athletes who never get to be champion about whether desire and skill alone are enough.
You denigrate Ms. Monroe’s intellect at your peril. If you knew anything about her…
I didn’t say that Marilyn was stupid, I said that Condi was far more intelligent. But it’s true that I don’t know that much about Norma Jean Baker, so perhaps you could enlighten me. From what university did she receive her Ph.D.? How many books did she write? What positions of responsibility did she hold?
Prancing around for the camera is respectable work, and Marilyn was very talented at it, but it’s hardly rocket science.
And Poppy was never known as the Connecticut Cowboy…
“The Connecticut Cowboy,” Austin Chronicle, March 6, 1992 – no link available.
Tam O’Tellico - August 8, 2006 @ 5:50 am
Boys, this is the oddest thread we’ve had to date. Would I rather bed Marilyn or Condi? That’s a no-brainer. Which woman would I rather have as Secretary of State? That question is at least debatable. I will say this – I would prefer either to the present occupant of the White House.
By all accounts, both woman are/were exceptionally bright and very much involved in politics – which is one reason Marilyn became involved with the Kennedys. I doubt that Michael would have approved of her politics, which were Leftish. Whether her IQ exceeded Condi’s, I don’t know or care – that’s a debate for children.
In the opinion of those who know and care about such things, Marilyn was also an excellent actress – though I’m sure much of the male audience could care less as long as she exposed her ample cleavage. I think it’s safe to say she followed Louie B. Mayer’s dictum that “noboby ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.”
Marilyn is not alone in being dismissed as a batty sex symbol. While it is always dangerous to swallow the PR emanating from Hollywood – but far less dangerous than swallowing that emanating from Washington – we are told that Jayne Mansfield, Raquel Welch, and Sharon Stone – to name but a few “sex symbols” – all had/have brains at least as big as their boobs. Then there’s lucious Hedy Lamar, who was far more intelligent and politically astute than this President or anyone in his cabinet.
Certainly, all these woman had/have sense enough to understand that our sainted Free-Market System was going to pay them far better to expose their breasts than their political opinions. I can’t say the same for Condi – though I’m sure an issue of Playboy with her as centerfold would become a collector’s item.
Think we should run this idea by Hef?
lonbud - August 8, 2006 @ 7:15 am
If Condi Rice is such a paragon of intelligence, why is the United States the laughing stock of the community of nations? It could not be more clear from the state of international affairs that w has been asleep at the switch the entire time, that he ignored everything Colin Powell had to say, and that Ms. Rice has nothing to say for herself.
I’d bet $100 here and now, not a single international agreement of any import — whether trade-related or peace-related — comes to fruition in the next two years under “Dr.” Rice.
Michael Herdegen - August 8, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
Think we should run this idea by Hef?
They’d do it in a heartbeat, but unfortunately Condi would not.
If Condi Rice is such a paragon of intelligence, why is the United States the laughing stock of the community of nations?
Since the U.S. aren’t the laughingstock of the “community” of nations, then Dr. Rice must be a paragon of IQ.
If, of course, we accept that Cabinet officials can make the entire nation a global laughingstock. While possible, it’s mighty difficult.
For one thing, relatively few people outside of America know or care who the U.S. SecState is, and probably half of all Americans don’t know either.
Bush/Cheney are an unusually well-known pair, but past polls show that normally two out of three Americans aren’t sure who is the sitting Vice President, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, etc.
It could not be more clear from the state of international affairs that w has been asleep at the switch the entire time…
Really ?
What “state of international affairs” are you talking about, specifically ?
The big tempest-in-a-teapot right now is Israel’s spanking of Hizbollah.
Are you suggesting that any American President could have prevented Hizbollah from raiding Israel ?
And what other situations do you think prove your point ?
The U.S. gov’t doesn’t control the world, you know.
I’d bet $100 here and now, not a single international agreement of any import — whether trade-related or peace-related…
CAFTA came to fruition while Condi was SecState. The Israeli-Lebanese ceasefire agreement will come to fruition under Condi.
lonbud - August 8, 2006 @ 11:06 pm
Well, yes, actually, the United States is a global laughingstock, especially in the diplomatic realm. w is mostly to blame for that, though Rice and Bolton both do nothing to assist the cause.
I’m 46 years old today, and in my lifetime I have never witnessed the world in a more precarious, conflicted state, with the United States less of a force, or with less of a voice in the direction of its resolution.
Bush and Cheney are an unusually well-known pair, it’s true. But it’s recognition born of notoriety, and not of anything approaching excellence. Dan Quayle was a well-known Vice President, too.
I’m glad you’re sanguine enough about Israel’s current plight to call it a tempest-in-a-teapot. I daresay the Israelies and the Lebanese don’t see it that way, nor do the hundreds of thousands of people willing to take time off from the civil war in Iraq to march in the streets of Baghdad about it. Every President prior to w, including his dad, could have prevented what has happened in Lebanon in the past three weeks.
Other situations? Hmmm.
Iraq is now in the midst of a civil war, the ground work for which was laid by Paul Wolfowitz and Donal Rumsfeld. Afghanistan remains out of control, with US and British forces dying there weekly. Afghan citizens continue to be subject to terror from within and to the odd “accidental” slaughtering by liberation forces.
Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear activities remain largely a mystery about which the US seems to have little influence or, frankly, interest under the Bush administration.
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are both conspicuoulsy absent from ANY discussion about the problems posed by radical Islam.
These are countries and issues roundly acknowledged to be the most salient of our time and your idol is as far removed from them all today as he was this very week in August 2001 when he sat in his f*cking rocking chair in Crawford, TX and ignored the fact that the greatest threat to this country’s security was Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda.
CAFTA is unimportant, except to the multinational corporations that will use it to extract wealth from Central America. Condi Rice will have had nothing do do with whatever cease-fire Israel and Lebanon end up cobbling together.
Michael Herdegen - August 9, 2006 @ 6:58 am
Well, yes, actually, the United States is a global laughingstock, especially in the diplomatic realm.
Examples ?
Being a laughingstock in the lonbud household isn’t the same as being a “global” joke.
I’m 46 years old today, and in my lifetime I have never witnessed the world in a more precarious, conflicted state…
Which means that you weren’t paying any attention to world affairs until at least the fall of ’91, when you were 31 – maybe later. Possibly you didn’t pay any attention to world affairs until Bush came to power, eh ?
I daresay the Israelies and the Lebanese don’t see it that way…
The Israelis do.
Every President prior to w, including his dad, could have prevented what has happened in Lebanon in the past three weeks.
How, exactly ?
Pixie dust ?
And if they could have prevented such a thing, then why didn’t any President prior the “the magnificent ‘w'” prevent Fatah, Hamas, and Hizbollah from attacking Israel, to say nothing of the ’67 and ’72 wars, and the Lebanese provokation of ’82 ?
You’re going to find it extremely hard to find any historical evidence to support your claim.
Iraq is now in the midst of a civil war…
Afghanistan remains out of control…
So when you say that “it could not be more clear from the state of international affairs that w has been asleep at the switch the entire time”, by “state of international affairs” you mean that there’s turmoil in the Middle East ?
Wow, yeah, we’ve never seen that before…
Except starting with President Thomas Jefferson, at the turn of the 19th century.
Further, Afghanistan may or may not be “out of control”, but it’s unarguable that the Taliban has been driven from power, and that such is an unmitigated good for Afghanistan. Therefore, although we might differ over how much better life is in Afghanistan, it’s clear that life is better in Afghanistan since Bush came to power in America.
Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear activities remain largely a mystery about which the US seems to have little influence or, frankly, interest under the Bush administration.
You’ll be surprised to learn that the Bush administration has pushed a resolution through the UN Security Council which will levy sanctions on Iran, should they refuse to stop developing atomic weapons.
Therefore, given the failure of the “EU-3” to convince Iran to give up its nuclear programme voluntarily, the U.S. under President Bush has had the most influence over Iran’s activities that any nation has had.
Please give an example of how you think that any U.S. President has any leverage in North Korea. They don’t interact with the world, so whence comes this mythical “influence” ?
President Clinton’s admin negotiated a deal with the North Koreans, with the result that North Korea did nothing that they’d promised to do, and continued to develop nuclear weapons, while America shipped them fuel oil and food.
Good going.
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are both conspicuoulsy absent from ANY discussion about the problems posed by radical Islam.
Pakistan is controlled by forces hostile to radical Islam. Musharref has been the subject of a half-dozen assassination attempts by radical Islamicists.
You might as well say that Jordan has been conspicuously absent from ANY discussion about the problems posed by radical Islam, that would make just as much sense.
[Bush the Magnificent] ignored the fact that the greatest threat to this country’s security was Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda.
Just like Clinton did from ’92 – ’00, eh ?
Once again, you blame Bush for events which were the culmination of decades-long trends.
CAFTA is unimportant…
Oh, I see, you meant that you’ll bet $ 100 that YOU can’t be impressed by anything that Dr. “Hottie” Rice does, regardless of how the rest of the world sees it.
Condi Rice will have had nothing do do with whatever cease-fire Israel and Lebanon end up cobbling together.
A joke, I take it, since of course Condi has been integral to the ongoing negotiations.
On a larger note, it’s quite amusing how you dislike Bush – but also think that he’s some sort of god, who could calm the world and everyone in it if he’d just deign to take notice. The thoughts, goals, and actions of everyone else in the world are unimportant, only the actions or inactions of the Bush admin matter.
You may be obsessed with Bush, but I can assure you that American influence only goes so far. There are plenty of peoples and nations in the world to whom America and her President are NOT central figures in their lives.
Further, you pound the table demanding more diplomacy and less violence – but you’re contemptuous and dismissive of America’s diplomatic efforts. Obviously, not only do you favor talk over action, but you also only like jaw-jaw from an annointed few. Others can do no right.
Tam O’Tellico - August 9, 2006 @ 8:32 am
History is complicated. Some view it as a consequence of the actions of powerful economic forces. Others view it as a consequence of the actions or powerful men – the so-called Great Man Theory.
While in rare cases such as Alexander that may be true, I see history as something far more mundane, I see it as the result of millions of small decisions made by small men and women all over the planet. With rare exceptions, those we view as Great Men are really those who catch a wave early and ride it for all their worth.
And just as there are Great Men, there are wannabes who can’t even get up on the board, much less ride the wild surf. I’m afraid W has demonstrated conclusively that he is more punch-drunk cowboy than rad surfer.
In my view, W will have to answer to history for his monumental hubris in the face of monumental adversity, but I certainly don’t believe he alone can be held responsible for the mess in the Middle East or the failures of the Fed Govt in regard to Katrina. No, every person who voted for this proven incompetent, every person who opted out and failed to vote for the alternative, every pundit who prevaricated with “fair and balanced” propaganda disguised as objective news, every preacher who pontificated in praise of mediocrity, is equally guilty for the unmitigated disaster that is this administration.
For me the calculus is quite simple: Did we know that John Kerry was a Great Man? No. Did we know, or should we have known, that George W. Bush was an incompetent boob? Probably in 2000, and certainly in 2004.
So let’s not lay all the sins of the world at George’s doorstep; take a good long look at that ugly mug in the mirror first.
And those of us who never voted for the fool who would be king have no reason to feel smug, either. While we’re looking in the mirror, we need to ask ourselves how hard we worked to prevent a disaster in the making.
See, whatever you see, you must see that the mirror cracked.
Michael Herdegen - August 9, 2006 @ 10:05 am
And just as there are Great Men, there are wannabes who can’t even get up on the board, much less ride the wild surf. I’m afraid W has demonstrated conclusively that he is more punch-drunk cowboy than rad surfer.
Beautifully done !
Tam O’Tellico - August 9, 2006 @ 11:39 am
Well – (flabbergasted) thank you, Michael!
lonbud - August 9, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
Tam is right — History is complicated. However, the current administration’s diplomatic approach is not a joke solely in the lonbud household, I assure you. I am contemptuous and dismissive of America’s diplomatic efforts only insofar as they are either woefully out-of-step or non-existent.
“Birth pangs of a new Middle East”? Give me a break….
Michael Herdegen - August 9, 2006 @ 7:25 pm
I am contemptuous and dismissive of America’s diplomatic efforts only insofar as…
Yeah, that’s my point.
You want America to use only diplomacy, even when other nations have no desire to compromise in the slightest, and on top of that, you only want your positions used – anything else is “woefully out-of-step or non-existent”.
We’d all like to be King-of-the-World, but that’s a fun daydream, not a serious foreign policy position. Diplomacy requires give-and-take, but even at the personal level, you offer nothing, you demand that everyone else meet your conditions.
Your position on American diplomatic efforts negates your position on foreign policy in general, and illustrates beautifully why America cannot succeed with a “diplomacy only” policy. Some folks just won’t bend.
lonbud - August 9, 2006 @ 11:12 pm
Everyone is willing to compromise when they do not feel driven into a corner or hopeless in their aspirations. Every person, every nation, at heart, seeks only peace and security. Anything is possible.
Tam O’Tellico - August 12, 2006 @ 7:08 am
L: “Every person, every nation, at heart, seeks only peace and security.”
While I can agree with Lon’s assertion in broad terms, as a practical matter I don’t know that it has much value. Hitler was seeking peace and security for his Third Reich and decided the best way to attain it was Blitzkreig. Bush was seeking peace and security for the US and decided the best way to attain it was Shock and Awe.
In many ways, I am reminded of the argument that is often made that Christianity is pacifistic while Islam is militaristic. Maybe so, on paper. But in practice, it is hard to see much difference between the two. And lest I let any pacifistic faith off the hook, it is was mlikely Buddhists who ordered and flew kamikaze missions in WWII. Certainly it is telling that kamikaze translates as Divine Wind.