Quote:
Originally Posted by ADL Colin
Which brings up another point about Bush and his administration's inability to explain things. They marketed the war wrong. By focusing on WMD they ended up wrong. If they had focused on telling everyone that they were going to remove Saddam, the "Butcher of Baghdad" for ignoring so many UN resolutions things would look different.
|
Absolutely that was terrible marketing / PR. I don't know if we needed to go into
Iraq at that time or not, but the most convincing argument, I think, is that Iraq
agreed to certain terms in the cease fire, then thumbed their nose at the UN,
ignoring multiple resolutions and totally failing to follow through on their
agreements regarding weapons programs, etc. UN resolutions said there would
be serious consequences up to and including military action. In order to have
any state take the UN seriously, to take their own agreements seriously, or to
take the US seriously WE needed to take those resolutions seriously and act.
Whether invasion was the best action is debatable, but serious action was
required based not on the actual presence or absence of WMDs but based on
Saddam's utter failure to live up to his own agreements and ignoring UN
resolutions. That is to say once the UN made the threat, that threat had to
be backed up or the UN loses all credibility and influence.
When you talk about Bush, you talk about Iraq. You can't talk about much
else because that's about the only really significant thing he's done in two
terms as president. Well, Iraq and Afghanistan. We'll hear more about
Afghanistan in the history books than we do now because our focus is on
Iraq, where the trouble is while Afghanistan created a democratic constitution
four years ago and things are going as well as could be expected.
Anyway, the point is, Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty much all there is to the
Bush presidency. Regardless of the spin we hear from the Clinton News
Network, CNN, our action in the region is neither the best nor worst thing a US president has done, not by a long shot. Any time you do anything in the
middle east there will be short term problems, just because you upset the
apple cart. On the other hand, establishing two democracies in the region,
especially democracies where WOMEN are elected, can only be good for
the world, including the US. Establishing close ties with nations that border
Iran on both sides is good for the US and other nuclear powers as they deal
with Iran's nuclear program. So overall both good and bad will come from
the US involement there. Not the greatest thing we've done, not the worst.
Bush hasn't created any huge social programs that are going to have major
affects for decades to come, and he hasn't gotten rid of any. He's had his up
moments and down moments, inspiring the country for a little while after 9-11
but not inspiring us much after that. He hasn't increased or decreased spending
or taxes by all that much. He didn't free the slaves or win WWII, defeat the
Soviets or anything. Basically he's a Filmore - kind of a boring president.
He has our interest right NOW because he's the president right NOW, just
like the pop star of the week, but neither are particularly special as pop stars
and presidents go.
What about the current crop of canidates? Barak Hussein Obama, who
amazingly got the nomination despite the obvious Iraq Hussein Osama
associations, would be remembered as the first black president. Other than
that, he appears to be just another democrat cut from the same old mold
as far as I can see. I don't see him doing anything special. He'll make
great speeches and inspire people, which would be great in a crisis.
At times other than a major crisis, he'll do the typical tax and spend thing.
McCain is an interesting case. Though he has run as a Republican, he's also
spoken at the Democratic National Convention and was approached as a
possible vice presidential canidate on the Democrat ticket because he often
sides with the Dems. Really, he's neither Democrat or Republican. Personally,
I think that a lot of our political problems can be traced back to partisanship,
politicians seeking to gain power for their party as much or more than they
focus on what's good for the country as a whole. All of the money needed
to run a campaign every few years also feeds into the problems a lot.
Since McCain isn't loyal to either party and idealogically straddles the fence,
working with both parties, he
could make huge strides to
end the partisanship and all of the problems is causes or makes worse.
Campaign finance reform is a big issue for him, so he
might take
some significant steps towards getting some of the money out of politics.
It would be very interesting to see what would happen with McCain, the first
president who's not forcely loyal to his party. I don't know how that would
turn out. He could end up getting a LOT done because he'd work so well with
both parties to come up with compromises and to switch the focus to what is
good for America. He might also just annoy both parties and be a boring
president who doesn't get much done. His likability is high, though, so I think
he'd be able to get the population as a whole to pressure the politicians to
work together.
Clinton is interesting because of her personality and connections. She has
every right to brag about the Clinton political machine the way she sometimes
has. Clinton, Inc. has been a force to be rekoned with since it was headed by
a former governor of Arkansas. Now that it's headed by a former president and
current senator, there is a lot of power there. The Clinton's are good at power - that's what they do. They consolidate and wield power expertly, and they
love it. Not love it, they
covet it. If Hilary is elected they will wield
more power than any person in the country has in a long time, perhaps
in our entire history. That kind of power, and love of power, would make for
an interesting presidency. She'll either do something great or something
horrible, but she'll do SOMETHING. I read a book written by someone
who worked closely with four different presidents and he says that's the biggest
problem for a president - they have so much power they start to think they can
do anything. Nixon was a prime example. He really believed his famous quote
"when the president does it that means that it is not illegal". That quote,
according to this author who knew Nixon and four other president's well,
is one of our best insights into Nixon's psyche and to a lesser extent the
psyche of other presidents. I fear that Clinton would be very much like
Nixon in this respect. She would do whatever the hell she felt like doing.
She could end up being an illustration of what Nixon was talking about
when he referred to "a president can run amok in this country and get away
with it".
So Clinton could well end up being either the best or worst president in over
a century. Whether she's the best or the worst is a roll of the dice.