If Bush is not re-elected (or after he’s completed his second term), the next President is going to have some tough messes and issues to deal with. For one, we managed to alienate or anger a huge amount of countries with the Iraq war. And now we have a country that desperately needs rebuilding and is still marred with continous violence. And after “liberating” the Iraqi people they still pretty much hate every fiber of our being. Our relations with many allies are very strained and our international credibility is in shambles. International opinion of the U.S. is at an all time low. We’ve also managed to anger many countries with our refusal to join the ICC. How should the next President go about fixing some of these problems? Or is some of the damage that has been caused irreparable?
…and we probably ought to do something about Iraq too! 
You ask some excellent questions, albeit with a strong political slant showing – but for Bush supporters, try reading them with a “What GWB found it necessary to do has left these unfortunate consequences; how can they be resolved?” tone, and responding.
I don’t have good fast answers. I do know that the mutual demonization of liberal and conservative, “blue” America and “red” America, needs to stop, and quickly, or this country’s at the disposal of any demagogue who can con a majority into buying into his views.
Howard Dean, at www.deanforamerica.com , has begun to address many of these issues in his run for the 2004 Democratic nomination. (I suspect other candidates have also done so – but I speak to the case I know of.)
It might also be worth noting that GWB’s successor might be one of his circle of advisors, with the same political agenda as he – and using the same “solutions.”
The US continues to cooperate with these countries and they with us. Look at the Iranian situation. The EU is strongly pushing for them to open up to nuclear inspections, just as the US is. Do you have some examples of significant non-cooperation we are getting from these other countries?
Rebuilding Iraq is a monumental task. I won’t repost what I wrote in this tread, but I suggest you go there to see what has been suggested. As for the Iraqi people, it’s no clear that they “still” hate us (if they ever did). They want us out of their country, which is understandable. If the next president is not GWB, there are still 18 months before he/whe will take office. I lot can happen in Iraq in the timeframe.
This is just a restatement of the first issue. As for the ICC, no US president is going to agree to join that body.
The next president’s biggest problem is still going to be fighting terrorism. The people of the US will judge the president by how well this going and how the economy is performing. What most people don’t realize is that a president has very little effect on the latter. But he’ll still be judged by how it is doing, nonetheless.
The biggest messes may not be the areas focused on by the current President. In 2000, who would have guessed that the most urgent left-over foreign policy mess was Afghanistan?
At this moment, the biggest messes are North Korea and Iran IMHO. They both have grave risks and lack plausible alternatives. It’s hard to guess what the biggest messes will be when President George Bush leaves office in 2009.
It’s impossible to guess what the worst messes will be when President Jeb Bush leaves office in 2017. 
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december *
In 2000, who would have guessed that the most urgent left-over foreign policy mess was Afghanistan?
[QUOTE]
Anybody who took seriously the briefings they were given by the previous Administration officials whose jobs they were taking just might have guessed, ya know.
Restoring American morel leadership is the biggest international issue the next President will face, and the biggest domestic one will be reinvigorating the effort to eliminate the national debt and restore some sense of social equity. Anything else is transitory and essentially the result of how those areas are handled. That includes reaching out to the world that is still much bigger than the US, admitting Iraq was an error but is still reality and still a problem for the whole world, and getting help with it.
Poly, nice plug for Dean there, right after decrying political slant
If the previous administration knew they were such serious issues, you’d think the previous administration would have done more to deal with them.
Obviously, I don’t think Bush is at fault for all the problems the US is currently facing, and in fact, I think you overstate the problems themselves. For example, I take serious issue with your statement that “the Iraqi people they still pretty much hate every fiber of our being.” My friends currently stationed overseas seem to think that the majority of the Iraqi people don’t hate Americans, and many even welcome their presence and the fact that the Americans and British saved them from the horrors of the Hussein regime and are taking steps to rebuild their country. That is not to say that a large number of Iraqis don’t hate the American and British presence in their country, but I don’t believe that number constitutes even a majority. And I think those numbers may drop over time as the Iraqis realize we’re not there to take over their country, but to liberate and empower them.
Nor do I think any of the problems we’re currently facing are irreparable. To the extent that harm has been caused by our failure to join the ICC or ratify the Kyoto Treaty or to join any other international agreement, I fail to see why the next President couldn’t assuage those feelings by joining the dang things in a couple of years.
Elvis, I’ll readily admit to being a Dean supporter. But my intent there was to respond to the OP question by saying that at least one, and probably more, of the candidates for the 2004 Democratic nomination are addressing the concerns raised in the OP – and here’s an example of the one I know and have read. Inevitably a politician campaigning is going to be, well, political. What concerns me more than that is the near-hatred of decemberite Republicans for any and all Democrats, and rjungite Democrats returning the same full measure at any and all Republicans. The last time we had this level of conflict and demonization was the late 1960s, and that was tragic enough. The time before is remembered in these parts as the War of Northern Aggression! (BTW, a sincere conservative Christian and Republican – and occasional poster here – whom I’m proud to call friend made almost the identical comment to me in e-mail recently.)
Ummm…
Whatever else would one call it?
I’ve been a Republican for almost two decades. I still don’t like some of the crucial Bush admin’s policies.
:rolleyes:. Just, :rolleyes:
Nobody is going to mention the huge deficits that the Bush administrations is running up right now?
I’d say that this is the biggest mess that will be left for future administrations. A huge, huge mess.
We are?
Of course, any problems facing the country at the end of Bush’s term will be attributed to Bill Clinton.
I met a guy who blamed 9-11 on Clinton and Hussein on Carter. No joking. I have very, very little doubt that he believes it too. You’d have to know him. He’s like a december, but vastly much more ignorant and not nearly as well spoken.
Age, if you’re going to blame 9/11 on Clinton, you might also acknowledge the great difficulty he had in doing any more than he did while getting accused of “wagging the dog” by people such as, well, yourself. What “little” he did vastly dwarfs the total rejection of the existence of the problem as part of Bush’s reflexive anything-Clinton-did-was-wrong approach.
Further, I’d appreciate knowing where you got the quote “the Iraqi people they still pretty much hate every fiber of our being” - you seem to have me confused with someone else. It’s true, though, that it seems obvious to me that a long-term occupation will breed resentment and radicalize more locals into terrorism - that was one of the many, many arguments against this folly. Certainly it’s hopelessly and counterproductively simple-minded to lump “the Iraqi people” into a single monolith, as your misquote/caricature does.
I too know people in the US military in Iraq, so don’t pull the false-authority argument again either, please.
Poly, just yankin’ yer chain - you know I love you like a brother You’re right in pointing out that Presidential candidates should be assessed on what experiences and personal characteristics they’d use to actually address actual problems, not by the ephemera of campaign issues decided on by election strategists. But that hardly ever seems to be decisive or even discussed much in any election, does it?
Civil War in most of the north and west, War Between the States in the south. (At least, this is where I routinely hear the terms used.)
Foriegn problems? Pshaw. They won’t be spit on the griddle compared to the REAL and inevitable HUGE problem that will hit Bush’s successor- that of a enormous debt GWB is now building up. Clinton, for all his faults was paying down the Nat’l debt- Bush has rebuilt it back, and it will be worse. His deep tax cuts for wealthy Republicans (mostly), combined with profilgate military & other spending will have us in a hole so deep by the end of 8 years of GWB, that we may never get out.
You know, although the Dem’s- with some justification- were called the party of “Tax & Spend” the GOP has turned into the party of “borrow & spend”- which is far, far worse. If we keep this up, the USA will be bankrupt in a decade.
Did anyone see that epi of the Simpsons, where Bart sees a vision of the future, and Lisa is Prez? And the other nations are clamouring to be repaid? No longer a joke, dudes.
John- the President has a very strong control over the economy- IF he also controls Congress. Although he can’t do a lot to make it improve (other than get out of the way), he can certainly ruin it.
Nitpick: I certainly don’t hate all Republicans with knee-jerk reactionary zeal. It’s just the Republicans who I do admire are nowhere near the seats of power.
As for the OP, I’m with Elvis and DrDeth here – between restoring America’s credibility and moral image, the blossoming deficit, and increased anti-American/anti-Western sentiment in the Middle East, whoever goes into the White House after Bush had better bring a huge shovel…
I agree that whatever influence the pres has is more highly concentrated on the negative side. And that has to do with interest rates thru the Fed. Interest rates are still going down, though.
I guess you’d have to define “ruin”. If I saw a significant % drop in GDP, I’d consider the possibility that the economy had been ruined. Don’t see it now, and all the forecasts out there point the economy improving.
You’re misrepresenting what I’ve said. I wasn’t blaming 9/11 on Clinton. In fact, please show me where I talked about 9/11 at all. I was merely responding to your ridiculous assertion that Afghanistan was obviously going to be a problem because Clinton knew and told Bush as much. That’s ridiculous.
And I have never accused Clinton of “wagging the dog.” If you have any evidence otherwise, please feel free to share it with the group. Otherwise, I hope you’re big enough to admit that you’re just making these things up.
And I’m curious how you can possibly believe that what Clinton did “vastly dwarfs” the Bush administration’s approach to Afghanistan. You do realize that Bush sent the US armed forces into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, don’t you?
I’m not confused, and I haven’t misquoted anyone. The “every fiber of our being” quote came from the OP. Perhaps you should try reading the OP before joining the discussion.
So you know people in the US military in Iraq? So what? Do they dispute what I’ve said? And if you agree with me that the Iraqis shouldn’t be lumped into one giant ball of “Hatred of America,” then what’s your point? And speaking of false claims of authority:
It’s certainly possible that a prolonged stay in Iraq will breed resentment. I don’t think it will, but my crystal ball isn’t working at the moment. I assume you’ve got some base of knowledge that escapes me. Please share.
John- I did not say the economy is ruined YET. But profligate spending combined with deep tax cuts- leading to an enormous National debt could ruin it- and will do so if continued for long. Sure, one year won’t do it. Or two. But 6+ years will.
Inflation will surge, interest rates go through th roof, and the dollar plummet.
I will admit the the big thing Clinton did to make the economy “so great” was mainly not ruin it.