One other point regarding Thomas Dewey’s attacks on Roosevelt and his family during the 1944 election. They took place during the 1944 election.
Today, we have endless attacks on the President and his policies, whether it’s election time or not. The Reps made similar attacks on Clinton throughout his Presidency. I think this sort of contentiousness is bad for the country.
I’m not even sure it’s good politically. Attacking the President all the time makes it hard to up the ante when the election comes. The public gets immunized to the constant carping. That approach didn’t seem to help the Republicans in 1996.
I’ve heard plenty of people saying that this is a quagmire, but who’s saying we should get out? Yes, we should get out eventually; that’s the nature of a foreign war. We don’t want to be there forever (well, most Americans don’t want to be, I imagine.) But I don’t know who’s saying we should leave Iraq right now. I’m not saying it, and I opposed the Second Iraq War from the moment it was suggested that we start it. Now that we’ve invaded, I don’t hear any serious voices saying we should leave before we’ve fixed what we’ve broken. I’m sure not saying that.
But a quagmire it is, no doubt. We rushed to invade without sufficient international support, based on dodgy evidence which turned out to be wrong. The administration is trying for a post-hoc justification of the war (which some Americans actually are buying) but the fact is that Bush lied to us in order to get us involved in this quagmire. What better reason to drum him out of office than that?
This is about more than just presidential politics. I’d be lying if I’d say the recent actions in Iraq have made up my mind about whether I’d vote for Bush next year. I didn’t vote for him last time, and I’ve never been of a mind to vote for him at all. I did think that Bush’s term in office would turn out badly, but it’s exceeded my expectations by far. However, pretty much every president who’s taken office in my lifetime has turned out to be worse than I’d expected. Seriously, if Bill Clinton had gotten the United States sucked in to something like this during his first term, I don’t think I would have voted for him in 1996—though I probably wouldn’t have voted for Bob Dole then, either. I would have voted for Nader then, I guess, or for any Democrat with the cojones to have challenged him in the primaries. But the fact that someone whom I already thought was a lousy president is ruining America’s international reputation by starting unjustifiable wars with no endgame is enough to convince me to call for his ouster even more loudly. Constant criticism of our bad action is good for the United States and for Iraq, because it highlights how the Bush administration screwed up and, with any luck, will lead to getting a more competent president in office. God knows we couldn’t do much worse.
I think, Sam, you’re also confusing “getting out of the quagmire” with “getting out of Iraq,” which I see as separate issues. It’s long past the time when we should be allowing others to assist in what is, or what should be now, a peacekeeping effort. We started this, we’ll have to be involved for some time now, but we need to start putting a more international face on reconstruction efforts.
While we’re rebuilding Iraq, the U.S. is also going to have to work on rebuilding it’s own credibility.
WWII and The War Against Terrorism don’t make good partners in analogy for a vast multitude of reasons.
First:
How will we know if we’ve won the war on terror?
How will we know if we’ve lost the war on terror?
(exceptionally impportant questions)
Second:
What is a patriot to do if he sees that the war on terror is being fought in a wrong-headed and/or counter-productive way?
Doesn’t he, as a patriot, have an obligation to avail himself of the elements of the democratic process to rectify the situation, (e.g. spreading the word to inform other members of the electorate)?
Third, I doubt if the War on Terror will live or die w/ the Bush admins term. Despite what some ideologues have implied, Democrats are also likely to want to protect American lives. The War will continue despite the loss of those soldiers.
The fact is that the U.S. has successfully taken over Iraq. So, congratulations to all who supported the war.
Now, the question is still not yet answered: Was that conquest of Iraq necessary for the defense and safety of the U.S.A?
Those who supported the war should answer that question now in light of more and more discoveries and admissions being made today enabling everyone to see things in a better light.
The other question is whether the U.S. is doing enough to install democracy in Iraq by first bringing the country back to at least first the conditions it was in during the regime of Saddam, then further improvement of the economic social developmental state of the country, and simultaneously the introduction of the best features of enlightened democratic rule by Iraqis over themselves.
My own impression is still as regards the necessity of the war that it was an irrational and insane war on the part of Bush and his colleagues.
As regards the work of restoration and reconstruction and installation of self-rule by Iraqis over themselves, too slow and too little.
In the meantime, keep those hands of U.S. business interests from the oil fields of Iraq.
Request to Sam: Please answer my questions, rationally and sanely
Just for the record, that is not what I said or implied by my post. Not sure if you meant that, Chaos, but I just didn’t want to let that possibly ambiguous statement stand.
Bush '04 Fund-Raising Cites War on Terrorism
What’s your point, that Bush deserves a free ride until 9/11/04, or whenever he gets around to allowing himself to be nominated ? Who came up with that rule, Ashcroft ?
Sam, there are those who would argue (and I’m one of them) that the ultimate end-game for the War on Terror is to actually fix what allows terrorist philosophies to manifest themselves - which in my opinion - is almost always caused by immense divides in living standards, often going hand in hand with palpable inequities too.
Obviously, the causes and manifestations of terrorist activity changes from country to country, from continent to continent. From Sri Lanka and the Tamil Tigers to Chechnya and the rebel fighters there. Or the IRA and Northern Ireland. Or Lebabnon and the Hezbollah and the Druze and the Christians etc.
The list is long… very long.
The War on Terror in many respects is viewed by the non Western World as just another effort to prop up Western lifestyles and security at the expense of the non Western World. Now, obviously this is a callous and cynical perception, but it’s one which DOES play very well in the local press in those countries where the ground is fertile. Think Indonesia for instance. An awful, awful lot of anti Western rhetoric coming out of that place you could swear has simply been cut and pasted straight out of Middle Eastern newspapers. And yet, what does the Middle East have to do with Indonesia, honestly?
My point here is this… the real goal, say 20 years or more down the line, is to help the poorest, the most disadvantaged peoples on this earth to implement the civil functions, and in particular, the quality education necessary for those countries to really embark upon a true Captain Comeback in regards to catching up with the Western World.
Sadly, this is a really, really long haul. It requires a sustained altruistic commitment on the part of the entire Western World which is beyond cheap polticial positioning for an entire generation or more.
Man, that’s gonna be tough. Can you see how tough that’s gonna be? Even after 4 months there are already certain divides opening up within US political circles as to what to do with just Iraq alone - let alone the seemingly countless other countries on this planet which could do with immense foreign investment as well.
I’m sorry if that seemed somewhat of a major digression there, but you know, it’s all kinda linked. The War on Terror, it seems to me, is actually a case of trying to fix the symptoms long, long after the causes have institutionalised themselves.
This isn’t reason to despair of course - merely it should act as a reminder what the true end game should be - namely, we have to be rid of the immense inequities which exist in this world - they do no one any good in the long term.
– Politics today involves constant attacks on the President
– Republicans and Democrats both do it
– It wasn’t this way 50 years ago
– The constant attacks on the President are bad for the country
– The constant attacks may be poor political strategy
Along with others, it seems to me that it is not all that fair to say that President Bush should be given a free ride in out present embryolio with Iraq because Roosevelt got a free ride in WWII, for not the least of reasons: I don’t remember WWII (other than a trip to Mexico to celebrate VE Day and German POWs mowing our lawn at Fort Sam Houston).
I do however remember Korea, especially the Korean War as brought to you by the Columbus Dispatch and the Chicago Tribune. I particularly remember the editorial cartoons which showed President Truman with the UN globe symbol portrayed as a spider web. Korea, not a war started by the US, not a war with the level of public support generated by the attack on Pearl Harbor, was no free pass for President Truman–he lost the 1952 election to President Eisenhower whose principal campaign promise was to go to Korea and ( implicitly) end a foolish war that was unacceptably costly in American lives and treasure. When it came to criticism of the President’s policies General MacArthur was hardly a shrinking violet either, nor was Bob Taft (senior senator from Ohio and presidential aspirant) and the whole Republican apparatus.
On a larger scale, how can we call ourselves a democracy, representative or direct, if free and open discussion is not permitted, even encouraged. It is only in Ann Coulter’s, Joe McCarthy"s and What-his-name Savage’s world that the course of democracy is made sure by shouting down dissent. Why would any one even ask the question?
Criticism may not be good for the present administration, or any other administration, past or future, but it sure as Hell is good for the country.
I would take the comments by blowero and sailor a step further and say that the reason there is so much criticism about Iraq is because a substantial number of people deep down inside are feeling that this war wasn’t really immediately necessary.
I don’t think the absence of an Iraqi attack on America is the reason for the criticism. I think the reason is that beforehand everybody with a decent IQ, including pro-wars, saw that the Administration was selling the “we must act now to eliminate the threat” case on questionable arguments. And today we know that the Iraqi army put up little resistance and wasn’t much of a threat. Those who supported the war simply felt that, based on his history and possible future scenarios, the time was come for the guy to go. Those who criticized felt that there were enough time left to pursue other courses of action. Now the criticizers basically argue that “you should have seen it (the problems) coming” and “it’s because you didn’t lissen to us in the first place that we are facing these problems (insert money, mess, casualties)”.
After 9/11, few questioned attacking Afghanistan, and few have questioned it since. Prior to Pearl Harbor a majority wanted America to stay out of the war, they were mute afterwards. One example, look at the current debate over the 4 billion dollars per month cost of occupation. What is the current size of the military budget, 3 - 3,5 percent? Mid WWII the size was 43%. But few were concerned with the money issue then, except Congress of course.
I did not say that criticism of the president is wrong. Constructive criticism is fine. If you don’t agree with the direction of the rebuilding efforts, you should speak up. I agree with Collounsbury, that you should write your representative if you believe that things should be done differently.
What I’m talking about is just opportunistic sniping whenever an opportunity presents itself. Like all the general carping from the Democratic presidential candidates about how badly the reconstruction is going. Christ, it’s been what, 10 weeks? What’s doubly annoying is that I haven’t heard a single alternative proposal from any of them. They’re not saying, “Hey, I’ve got a plan I think people should follow instead of yours”. They’re just screaming about quagmires and wringing their hands when every American gets shot.
Another example would be the shitstorm that broke out when Bush said, “Bring 'em on”. Look: the prime threat to the U.S. occupation right now appears to be from guerillas that are trying to break the will of the U.S. and get them to leave. To combat that, Bush decides to show he has a little spine, and he gets picked apart for it. You’d think some of these people criticising him might privately think, “Well, that was a stupid way to put it, but now that it’s said we had better show a little unity to support what he’s trying to do.”
Just a little strategic restraint, that’s all. Rather than full-bore criticism of everything, all the time.
And lest you think this is just a partisan thing, I thought the same of Clinton. And you know, even five years ago there was a principle that was adhered to - you can criticise the president all you you want at home, but when he goes abroad to negotiate or represent the U.S., you back him up. Both sides used to follow that unwritten law. Now that doesn’t seem to happen, either. And I think it was Republicans who broke that rule when they criticised Clinton while he was overseas.
Sam, I trust that you are sufficiently sophisticated to know that what is going on here has little to do with principles and every thing to do with the realities of politics, that is, with the acquisition and retention of power, not for the sake of having power, but because of the things power can get. It ought to be clear by now that the cabal that surrounds the President has been out to secure power ever since Gulf One with the objective of establishing American (American Business) hegemony over Middle Eastern oil. It ought to be clear by now that Iraq was never an imminent threat to any vital US interest except, and here is the rub, the vital US interest in controlling Iraqi oil. It is only in this context that this whole thing makes sense.
As far as suppressing brutal tyranny is concerned, I suspect that if Genghis Kahn were willing to play ball with the Oil Patch, this administration would be perfectly happy with that brutal tyrant, as we were perfectly happy with Samosa, Batiste, the guy with the name I can’t spell in Peru (Penochet?), and any number of other brutal tyrants as long as they played ball with US Business.
That is not to say that those opposed to the present administration are Simon pure altruists–they just have different constituencies and different objectives.
Well, in all fairness, we weren’t concerned about an invasion by conventional Iraqi forces.
Anyhow…
In a free country, the people should be free to criticize their leadership. The President is old enough and smart enough that he should be able to articulate the reason for his actions.
That said, there is a diference betweem criticism and petty bickering and fingerpointing.
For example:
“Why should we invade Iraq when Sadaam has shown no aggression towords the US and has shown no evidence of WMDs?” is a reasonible question. It is a simple mind that gets angry because they are asked a dificult question.
on the other hand:
“Look! We are in a quagmire! Just like Vietnam! We should never have gone to Iraq! Itoldyouso!!!” is not productive.
Maybe there WAS criticism like this during WWII. I don’t recall reading about it, but maybe it was there.
Why has the political atmosphere gotten so poisoned with endless partisan carping? Who benefits from consistent, harsh criticism of the President? NGOs benefit.
People who believe the President is an extreme menace will be more willing to donate money to special interest groups opposing him. E.g., President Clinton and Hillary Clinton were profitable targets for the National Rifle Assn. President Bush and John Ashcroft can be demonized to help the ACLU and PAW raise money.
Media also benefit from harshm partisan criticism. These controversies give them something to report. What would NYTimes columnist Paul Krugman write about if he didn’t have George Bush to kick around? Could Rush Limbaugh be the #1 radio host without the Clintons?
Hey, I had an alternate plan – let the inspectors continue doing their job. That plan was rejected. Now I’m supposed to clean up the resulting mess?
Hell, I’ve even seen cleanup suggestions (such as let France help), but the Bushies have shot them down. The Administration seems to want help as long as it’s a precise echo of their own thinking. If Bush didn’t need the endorsement of anyone else before the war, why should he need lockstep agreement now?
As far as the constant criticism… these stories are developing stories in progress. In progress over a number of days and weeks, maybe even months. Yes, it seems that every time you turn around, you’re reading something about Bush lied this or the CIA fucked up that. But I don’t think it’s fair to call this line of thought “pot shots”; rather, it’s a constant barrage along very similar lines.
I wasn’t alive for the Watergate scandal, but I have a hard time believing that the media and the Dems stored up their chips for one giant attack on Nixon.
P.S. Totally off topic – I know that you’re supposed to put the colon inside a closing quotation mark. What’s the role for a semi-colon?
On Preview: december, who benefited from consistent, harsh criticism of Nixon?
You’ve forgotten about Roosevelt’s first plan for the “rebuilding” of Germany. It was called the “Morgenthau Plan” after Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, but it was actually written by a Soviet Agent named Harry Dexter White.
The Morgenthau Plan was so bad it was actually first leaked to the world by Joseph Goebbels who absolutely loved it for its propaganda value. It called for the dismantling of all German industry and the reduction of Germany to a pastoral, agricultural state. Unemployment wouldn’t be a problem because German POWs would be shipped to Allied nations for use as slave labor. It was a disaster.
There was considerable criticism when the plan leaked with fortunate results:
In this case, criticism (and a lot of it) quickly persuaded Roosevelt to abandon what was unquestionably a rather ill-conceived idea.
