Sam Stone: it’s quite possible to talk about quagmires without having a solution. That’s kind of the point. What’s understood when you’re talking about quagmires is that we’ve arrived at the point we’re at because of Bush policies. No one could have a better solution because the Bush administration doesn’t have a solution for one to be better than. Why are we in Iraq? How much longer will we be there? What do we intend to accomplish before leaving, and how do we expect to accomplish it?
The Democrats’ argument is that this has been mishandled from the getgo, and that changing the president (to a Democrat) would help us to fix Iraq better. Consider zigaretten’s above analogy about criticizing the Morgenthau plan: it sure helped us avoid making a terrible mistake in Germany. But imagine if Roosevelt had said of his critics, “I will not be deterred!” What a disaster that would have been! I hope that the chorus of voices opposing the missteps that the Bush administration has been taking will help the United States to move in a better direction in Iraq. Whether Rove and Bush agree: dissenting opinions are important.
As to whether you should criticize a president while he’s overseas, well… if that rule’s been thrown out the window, then it’s been thrown out the window. Maybe it was a little outdated anyway. I mean, if a president was overseas seventy years ago, he didn’t have quite the same instant and total access to the media as he does today. Whether the president is in Uganda or Vladivostock or Parsippany makes no difference; there always seems to be someone able to broadcast his latest moves from wherever he is. Anyway, when President Wilson was in Europe, didn’t Senator Lodge make a hash out of Wilson’s programs back at home?
You’re comparing Krugman to Limbaugh? I can’t figure this out: are you trying to elevate Limbaugh or attack the New York Times?
Well, the Bush administration was opposed to letting the French and others help in the beginning, but now that all the reconstruction plums have been promised to American corporations (mostly donors to the Bush campaign,) they’ve changed their tune. The other day the Bush administration suggested that NATO should help out in Iraq. NATO, as you might imagine, balked. Go figure, huh?
Religion. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world.
And intersting theory, but why then were the 19 hijackers basically from Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Niether of those countries could be considered to have anywhere near the “'poorest, most disadvantaged peoples”.
What exactly is the point of comparing Iraq, which was NOT any kind of imminent threat to the U.S., to WWII, where there was a direct attack on the U.S., and Afghanistan, where the reigning government was supporting and harboring the person responsible for the 9/11 attack? It’s just apples and oranges. If you want a more accurate comparison, use Vietnam.
Yes, wars that are justified by real events tend to enjoy more support at home than wars that are justified by lies. Does that surprise you? And no, money isn’t the ONLY reason. There’s also this little problem of people dying.
Well yes, John, you’re correct obviously. And for what it’s worth, I knew that all along. My goal was to illustrate how “fashionable philosophies” can permeate long (seemingly unconnected) distances simply because there is a conduit available for certain persons to exploit the common ground of “feeling exploited”. In the 1960’s, Indonesia suffered the same sort of manipulative processes then too - the difference being that back then it was Communism that was the philosophy which was perceived as being the universal salvation.
Well, you know, at the risk of appearing controversial, I have a suspicion that the 9/11 attack was, at the very least, designed as much as a publicity event for local Middle East consumption as it was for Americans, and the Western World in general.
I would add, also, that our good man Collounsbury has often referred to Iraq as being a future “Egypt on the Euphrates” - and he does so in the most disparaging manner. My understanding is that Egypt’s literacy rate has been steadily falling this past decade, and it is, for all intensive purposes, an economic basket case with a nasty bit of work for a government which is propped up by US aid. This, in turn, buys a US (and Isreali) friendly goverment in Egypt, which I believe is very, VERY unpopular amongst the activists in the region. The same, it seems, applies to the Saudi Goverment too - albeit their wealth is at least oil doped - but Coll assures us that after you move away from the oil doped economy of Saudi Arabia, the citizens of that country have actually been going backwards in the last 2 decades in terms of net GDP per capita. This is a shared reservoir of discontentment which has been hijacked by the fundamentalists and it also explains the Riyadh bombings a month ago. All is not sweet in Egypt and Saudi Arabia it appears. There is much injustice in both countries. There were massive terrorist attacks near the Pyramids in the late 90’s as well. I honestly believe it’s all linked.
– Politics today involves constant attacks on the President
Yes
– Republicans and Democrats both do it
Yes
– It wasn’t this way 50 years ago
I do not feel qualified to judge one way or the other but it did happen 30 years ago during Vietnam.
– The constant attacks on the President are bad for the country
Not as bad as you seem to think but, let us admit they are bad in some measure: who bears the blame? The blame goes directly and squarely to the leader who started a war without the support and against the wishes of a great part of the population. The president is the servant of the people and not the other way around.
Quite some several months before the invasion of Iraq I predicted it would not happen and I based my reasoning on the basis that the president would not be so stupid as to launch the invasion without overwhelming support at home and internationally as that would cause major divisions at home and have major consequences in international relations. Well, I was wrong and President Bush did what I predicted he could not be so stupid to do. It is not the obligation of all Americans to support their president when they believe he is doing wrong, it is the obligation of the president to implement policies which have major support or to be a leader and convince and gain support for his policies. But accusing people who disagree with the leader of sympathising with the enamy and of being unpatriotic is not the way of a free country. That is what they do in China but it should not be what the US does.
Those who disagree with the president should continue to voice their disagreement and if that causes problems the blame goes squarely to the president who went to war without enough support and who could not convince those opposed to the war to change their minds. He should have foreseen the consequences of his actions. It is no good to say “we are in this mess so let’s forget how we got here and everybody support me blindly”. It may sound OK in China or Cuba but not in America.
I disagree in two ways. The majority of the country and and the majority of Congress did support the war, although there was strong, principled opposition as well.
However, the style of constant criticism is separate from the problems of the Iraq war. Bush was criticized long before the war for a hodgepodge of other items. Some were substantial, others were matters of form. E.g., he was criticized for cutting taxes (even by those who voted for the tax cut), for garbled speaking (“Bushisms”), for being dumb and ignorant, for mispronunciation of “nuclear”, for underage drinking by his daughters, for being controlled by Cheney or by Rove, for being in bed with Big Oil.
But they are highly localised, internal US issues by and large.
What can’t be denied is that few countries on earth have as much influence (both intended and unintended) as the United States of America.
Accordingly, from a global viewpoint, the rest of the world is quite concerned about the USA in regards to her international conduct. Internal US discussions are simply viewed as an largely unimportant insular form of inconsequential entertainment.
I can’t believe how thin skinned some of you guys are. You act as though politics was first invented a few years ago in order to harrass Bush. Have you never read about the malicious political mud linging that went on even at the birth of this great country? There is nothing new about the attacks on Bush. Suck it up and move on!
We’re still waiting for a cite from Sam, or his only supporter here, december (how’s that feel, btw?) as to which criticisms they believe are politically motivated bashing instead of genuine concerns over the goals, plans, and morality of this war in particular or the direction of Bush’s policies in general.
It’s certainly convenient to be able to dismiss criticism as “bashing”, but that makes it even easier to dismiss the dismissal, doesn’t it, guys? The OP uses the words “political football”, “partisan bickering”, “carping”, “handwringing” just to name a few. That simply shows a failure to attempt to understand views that differ from one’s own; by no means does it convince anyone who isn’t already convinced.
Thanks and kudos to all who point out that this is necessary and healthy in a democracy, although it’s as dangerous as the OP supposes in an authoritarian society. Citizens have serious responsibilities in a democracy, and unquestioning acquiescence to the politicians we hire, like the OP apparently demands, is not one of them.
It’s true that criticism of the president has been much more intense lately than it’s been in more recent years. Politicians and the media were easier on the first Bush, Reagan, Carter and Ford than they were on Clinton and the second Bush. Even Nixon got an easier ride, and we can all agree that he did something truly heinous.
Shrill criticism of the president comes and goes. I don’t think it’s been this severe in the memory of anyone alive today, but it’s been bad in the past. It seems like it’s been getting progressively worse since I can remember. For the record, I only really started paying attention around the end of Reagan’s first term. I don’t know why it’s gotten so severe, but there’s no question that it has. The Congressional Republicans of the mid-1990s were just frightening, and the media has gotten more invasive about politicians’ personal lives than it previously had been. The Congressional Republicans have, for the most part, let up; even toward the end of Clinton’s second term they weren’t quite as bad as they were in 1995. The media hasn’t given up on personal lives, though. In some ways it’s a good thing. Media attention drummed out a dangerous person like Senator Packwood, and cast light on the problem of sexual harassment. But it also focused on Gary Hart and Bill Clinton, casting light on private lives. This, we don’t need.
I think we’ve about reached saturation. Some conservatives cry out about every criticism of Bush being politically motivated and destructive. They’re crying wolf, anymore. I don’t know how much more of that people will be willing to take. I think the persecution card has already lost much of its luster. I suspect that there’s an undercurrent growing among Americans that’s crying out, “Shut up and govern, y’big babies! If you can’t hack criticism, then you’re in the wrong line of work. Trumpet your successes but also admit your mistakes. Keep it on the level. We know bullshit when we hear it.” Or maybe I’m just dreaming. I can dream, can’t I? Mr. Ashcroft, please?
This is a nasty time for politicians, and the rift between the parties is not healthy. The rift in the House is particularly troublesome; bipartisan coöperation there hasn’t been so uncommon in a long time. But over time this will fade. Either that or a bloody civil war will break out, stopping only when all the members of one party have been brutally murdered and dropped into mass graves. We’ll see.
I agree completely. The public is tolerant of a certain amount of mindless political bickering. But it’s a fine line and if you cross it, it backfires. I don’t know what that line is, and I don’t think anyone does. Flirt with it at your own peril.
John, I’m not so sure it even backfires, just that it alienates many people from the process entirely. Did the Republicans experience a backfire for trying to destroy Clinton?
But that is not the way to look at it. the fact is that by going to war under these conditions he was gaining the strongest opposition from a wide segment of the US population and of the countries of the world. OTOH, had he chosen to wait and not go to war, he would have pissed off a tiny fraction of people and countries and to a tiny extent. In other words, a great amount of the support he has comes from him being who he is and he would still have it had he chosen a different path. Choosing not to go to war would have been far less controversial. He chose to go to war and created the controversy.
Governing is finding what works best for most people. You may get support of 90% of the people to screw the other 10% but don’t expect the other 10% to take it lying down. Such policies may be legally legal but result in huge divisions which carry a high price. Look at Venezuela.
Well, that may be true for many people and many presidents. Clinton was also criticised by some people no matter what he did. It is not my case though. I do not recall criticising Bush except on two major issues: the invasion of Iraq and the treatment of the prisoners in Guantanamo. I do not recall ever criticising him for cutting taxes or for being a poor speaker (which he is), for what his daughters may have done or for being in bed with big oil. I remember defending the process which resulted in him being elected. So, in my case, I do not think it is a matter of being partisan but rather that I have some serious problems with a president who has decided to not respect human rights or international law.
My opinion only, of course, but I was against the war and believe that the reasons given for it were suspect.
However, we are there now. The worst thing we could do is to leave the Iraqis without a working government and an infrastructure which is a disaster.
What concerns me now are plans (or rumors of plans) to use Iraqi oil to pay for the reconstruction. Especially since they also have a comittment to pay repatriatons to Kuwait for their 1991 attack.
I thought we were going to be preserving Iraqi oil for the Iraqi people, not using it to repair the considerable damage we caused when we attacked. It isn’t very fair to impoverish a nation for many years to clean up a mess we caused.
