I'm glad Bush is finally fighting back. Some have argued that Bush's approval ratings in polls have declined because he hasn't, until now, resonded vigorously enough to the accusations that his administration manipulated intelligence to sell the Iraq war.
I guess I just figured most Americans would dismiss these arguments for the Left-wing nonsense that they are. But perhaps not.
Gasoline prices have been falling recently. So, that could help Bush recover some of his popularity. And the American economy keeps expanding at about 3 to 4 percent, with unemployment at 5 percent. And Iraqis are going to go to the polls for the third time this year to elect their first permanent parliament.
So, what's the problem? Would the American people prefer a Jimmy Carter-like foreign policy and a Jimmy Carter-like economic malaise instead? Or the do-nothing attitude of Bill Clinton?
I don't think the problem is nostalgia for Clinton or Carter. It's more a perception that the war in Iraq is dragging on and on with no end in sight. The steady drumbeat of "bomb of the day" reporting is taking it's toll.
If we had a WWII-style war where progress could be measured in territory gained and lost, with a traditional "front line" from whch to measure our advance, it would be easier for the average person (and journalist) to understand. As it is, this war requries much analysis and in-depth reporting. Most of the msm aren't doing it, and the average person doesn't get much beyond the "bomb of the day" news that I refered to earlier. Add to this an anti-Bush agenda/bias in most of the media, and our current situation is little surprise.
Worst of all, I often detect a "what do I care?" attitude towards democracy in the ME. At it's worst, it devolves into a "they aren't capable of democracy" sort of thinking. Strange, but these are often the same sort who sport "Free Tibet" bumber stickers.
But of course, "freeing Tibet" is cheap morality. The issue of Tibet will never come up in the UN, there will never be economic sanctions, and no troops will ever be sent, either directly to war or to sit on a border somewhere. It's much harder to be in favor of a policy that requires hard choices, one of which will be that good troops will be killed.
So the President fights back. Will it do him much good? I doubt it... I think Tom is right that Mr Bush's legacy is linked closely to that of his project in Iraq. After all, a strong economy didn't help the Democrats so much in 2000.
I really have no sympathy, though, with your whining about the msm. Where were the msm in the years 2001 to 2003 when most Americans believed in Saddam's involvement in 9/11? Where were the hard questions about the administrations' utter disregard for homeland security in summer 2001? Why, four years later, is Bush not asked every day why he hasn't yet "smoked out" Bin Laden? Why was he allowed to proclaim "mission accomplished" when it was so obviously "mission barely started"?
As for "bomb of the day" reporting, I don't recall much complaint from the right when it was cruise missiles falling on Baghdad. The bombs, of course, are not irrelevant. They are a daily reminder of how big an opportunity the invasion of Iraq was to Al Qaeda after their reverses in Afghanistan. And besides- what does right or wrong have to do with it? The msm is the market, they're selling the public what it wants, there is no public service obligation. This is life in a capitalist utopia. You voted for it.
By the way, freeing Tibet would not be cheap morality, it would be an extremely expensive bit of morality entailing no discernible reward by way of security or access to valuable commodities for the liberator. In fact, quite the reverse. That's why it will never happen. Lets stop pretending that the war in Iraq was about anything other than self interest, the pretence of some noble mission is one of the more nonsensical bits of hypocrisy we've had to put up with in the last couple of years.
Whistlin Bob,
There's nothing wrong with considering the national interest when it comes to making foreign policy choices. Since liberal democracies are based on the idea that governments should protect the human rights of those they govern, it's easy to understand why a democracy might see it to be in its national interest to expand the number of democracies around the world.
That's not to say that democracies can't be inconsisent in their foreign policies and can't support dictatorships. They do; they have.
But the Iraq war demonstrates that a foreign policy can simultaneously advance a democracy's national interests and advance the cause of human rights at the same time. They need not be mutually exclusive. And some voters might have supported the Iraq war based on the human rights issue while others supported it based on the national interest issue.
Hi Bob
What interests me most is your take on self interest. Your thinking here is fascinating, and confirms what I've suspected about liberals; they are in favor of intervention that gains the US nothing in the way of self-interest because it makes them feel good about themselves, and they are against interventions which they perceive them as being in our self-interest (security, economic) because it gains us something. Thus invading Haiti was good, Iraq bad (an oversimplification I know, but it makes the point).
Where were the msm in the years 2001 to 2003 when most Americans believed in Saddam's involvement in 9/11?
trying to tell us that Saddam wasn't involved, if I remember right. Sorry it didn't work
Where were the hard questions about the administrations' utter disregard for homeland security in summer 2001?
They knew perfectly well that if they slammed Bush he'd bring up Clinton's equally miserable record. And we all know that Gore wouldn't have done any better if he had won. Come on, Bob. If you want to slam Bush for inaction on protecting our borders since, then, fine. Heck, I'll probably agree with you! But before 9/11?
Why, four years later, is Bush not asked every day why he hasn't yet "smoked out" Bin Laden?
Because everyone in the press seems to have ADD.
Why was he allowed to proclaim "mission accomplished" when it was so obviously "mission barely started"?
Because it did seem that the fighting was over, and no, it wasn't obvious. I really gets me how people on the left pretend that they predicted Iraq perfectly. But, er, where was the "Battle of Baghdad" that was supposed to occur? You know, the one that would resemble Stalingrad? Not to mention the many thousands of American deaths that would occur during those initial weeks - just like the predictions before the Gulf War.
I see no parallel between a fixation on the latest IED, which is a symptom of refusing to conduct good analysis, and cruize missiles in the early stages of the war. But I'll let that one pass for now.
All this said, however, we can agree that Bush's legacy it tied to Iraq, and that one speech will change little.
But hey, welcome back. bty, do you have your own blog?
Mark & Tom,
Thank you for your replies. I more or less expect a slating when I come on here; it's more interesting to discuss with people you don't agree with than those you do. You guys are at least willing to argue your case rather than bandy insults which is more common and always seems fairly pointless to me...
Mark- yes, fair enough, nations always act in self interest, that's never going to stop. And I agree that there can indeed be convergence of interest, acting in self interest may often benefit the common good at the same time (for example, US involvement in WW2). But your human rights argument presupposes an improvement in human rights for Iraqis. We haven't seen that yet. The nascent democracy may well deliver this; on the other hand a government of kurd nationalists partnering Iranian allies, along with our old friend Mr Chalabi doesn't sound so promising to me.
Tom- it's a long time since anyone has called my thoughts fascinating- I should probably have stopped reading there! I am not against "interventions" (are you uncomfortable with the word "war"?) because they may be profitable to the US. I'm against this one because I don't believe it will gain anything much at all for anyone. I think it has been a distraction from preventing terrorism, not a part of it. I'm far from convinced that we will end up with a more stable and democratic Middle East in ten years time than we had ten years ago. I do not believe that Al Qaeda is any weaker as a consequence of the invasion of Iraq. Therefore I do not believe that the bloodshed of these past two and a half years is justified.
As for your other comments- in summer 2001 there were a number of warnings about what was going to happen. Nothing was done. This is Bush's responsibility- Clinton's record has nothing to do with it.
"The press have ADD" Agreed! (I think that's 2 things!)
"it did seem that the fighting was over" That was the whole problem- they saw a war and that was it- not a clue what to do next. If the mission was really to bring stability and democracy to Iraq you would have expected at least some semblance of a plan. With or without an insurgency it was clear much remained to be done.
IED's and missiles? It's the old media thing- you know: "if it bleeds it leads" Explosions and drama make news, good analysis does not.
I don't have my own blog; I don't get the time (this is the first chance I've had to reply and I'm now way behind the discussion). Besides- there are a lot of people blogging out there, I prefer to offer some dialogue. Thank you for being hospitable here.
Commenting by HaloScan
