It seems that Bush is still planning to "stay the course" in Iraq, despite the findings of the Iraq Study Group.
According to a report from the McClatchy newspapers Washington bureau, Bush has taken to comparing himself to Harry Truman, who was unpopular when he left office but later won praise for his job as president.
However, I suspect it was Truman's basic integrity -- not his handling of the Korean War -- that brought about his rehabilitation. Bush doesn't have integrity to fall back on.
History is not going to be kind to a president who used the excuse of an attack on the United States to start an unnecessary war against a country that wasn't involved. Not only has the U.S. invasion left Iraq in shambles, it has diverted our military from actions that would make our country safer and left us unable to respond effectively to other threats.
The McClatchy article also notes that members of Congress are frustrated with Bush's refusal to face reality on Iraq. It quotes incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Bush:
He is tepid in what he talks about doing. Someone has to get the message to this man that there have to be significant changes.
Over on Balkinization, Marty Lederman has a great response to Reid: Someone? How about Congress "getting him the message," Senator Reid, by actually requiring him to act?
Lederman suggests that Congress could put some of the Iraq Study Group recommendations into a bill and pass it. Even if Bush vetoes it, and even if Congress doesn't have the votes to override the veto, the issue would be on the table.
Some of the comments to Lederman's post suggest that Congress go for a resolution -- since a resolution can't be vetoed -- showing no confidence in the president because of his Iraq policy.
This idea has lots of merit. It's way past time that Congress asserted itself. If we're going to restore our democracy and improve our relationship with the rest of the world, Congress has to act. Bush is going to "stay the course" no matter how much of our country he destroys in the process.
7 comments:
That's right. Unlike Truman, George W. Bush is not a racist or anti-Semite who considered joining the KKK.
I don't know if Bush is personally a racist, but the policies of his administration certainly don't benefit minorities. And whatever Truman's personal beliefs on race (and I don't know if your characterization is correct), it was under his administration that the military was integrated.
Of course, my main point was not to praise Truman -- in fact, I don't think he'd make my personal list of great presidents -- but rather to point out that Bush doesn't have a prayer of being admired in retrospect. Right now he's competing with the likes of Warren Harding for worst president ever.
And I must ask: why are you so afraid to use your name when you make comments? You know who we are -- why not use your name?
Truman's flirtation with the KKK is well-documented, as are his racist and anti-Semitic statements. (ADL claims that Truman actually donned a hood and robe, but quit the KKK after he heard an anti-Catholic tirade.)
My wife is a minority. She's done quite well during the Bush administration. I would venture that most minorities are doing well under Bush.
Few in 1951 or 1952 thought that Truman had a prayer of being admired in retrospect. (And there are many of us who see little to admire in Truman today. After dropping the bombs that ended World War II, he did little of consequence.)
Bush has to be admired for finally striking back at the Islamofascists after Clinton (my choice for second worst president after Carter) and Gore ignored them for eight years. Al Qaeda could have been a memory by 1998 if Clinton had taken action. Unfortunately, instead of pursuing bad guys, he pursued bad girls.
"And I must ask: why are you so afraid to use your name when you make comments? You know who we are -- why not use your name?"
This is your blog and you set it up to allow anonymous comments. If you don't like anonymous comments, you can fix that in just a few seconds.
It's pretty obvious that we're not going to agree on best and worst presidents, or even on what the right strategy is for keeping the country safe. We could list names back and forth, but there's not much point. I can list a lot of figures out of history who did great things but held reprehensible views. Human beings are flawed. Most have good qualities and bad ones. The worst flaws show up in those who put in a job for which they are manifestly unqualified. Bush is a walking example of just how dangerous that can be.
But given that you approve of Bush's foreign policy, Mr. "I'm not going to tell you my name unless you make me," I certainly hope you're serving in the armed forces right now.
Nancy:
"But given that you approve of Bush's foreign policy, Mr. 'I'm not going to tell you my name unless you make me,' I certainly hope you're serving in the armed forces right now."
That's such a lame and dishonest argument. The approval of the mission in Iraq is down to about 29 percent or so. If we figure that there are 200 million Americans 18 or over, that would amount to 58 million Americans over 18 who support the effort in Iraq. Your argument would be that everyone who supports that effort should be in the military right now if they can serve. Let's say that just 20 percent are eligible to serve. That's 11.6 million, which is 8 times the number of men and women currently serving in the military.
If that does not illustrate the weakness of your argument, consider this: President Clinton deployed the military over 40 times during the eight years he "served" as president. Your bio doesn't mention that you served in the military, so I assume you were not serving during the Clinton years. Using your argument, we must conclude that you opposed each and every deployment of U.S. troops by Clinton. Is that correct?
For the record, I served in the military for fours years, but am no longer eligible to reenlist. However, I can, and do, support the troops. I wish you and other liberals would enlist in that effort.
I'd just like to see more people who think the Iraq War was a good idea actually fighting it. And for the record, I supported the action in Afghanistan -- one of the biggest problems of the Iraq War is that it sucked resources away from finishing the job in Afghanistan.
I do appreciate your military service and that of all the troops. I just regret that so many of our military adventures misuse those who are willing -- even eager -- to serve the country. I have friends who are currently in the service and I worry about them.
For the record, I have not been in the military. There were very few roles for women in the military when I was young enough to join -- a situation that has changed for the better in recent years. And I must admit that growing up in the Vietnam era made me suspicious of the wars my government chooses to fight. (Lyndon Johnson would make my best all time president list if it wasn't for that stupid war.)
"I'd just like to see more people who think the Iraq War was a good idea actually fighting it."
The vast majority of those in Iraq DO support the mission.
"And for the record, I supported the action in Afghanistan -- one of the biggest problems of the Iraq War is that it sucked resources away from finishing the job in Afghanistan."
That statement is both false and an insult to the men and women serving in Afghanistan.
"There were very few roles for women in the military when I was young enough to join -- a situation that has changed for the better in recent years."
Lame excuse. There have been plenty of roles for women in the military for decades. My last two OICs were women. They would be roughly 55 today.
Since you did not serve, we must conclude that you opposed each and every of the 40+ cases in which Clinton deployment our troops.
Post a Comment