Sums up my view on Bush in many ways

[codeorama]

The following article sums up a my view of Bush in many ways. When I read it, I agreed.

Much of the opposition to Bush is the way he comes across and his perceived lack of caring what the other side thinks.

You can judge for yourself.

Gray Matter

Bush's incomprehension of foreign viewpoints.

By William Saletan

Posted Thursday, March 6, 2003, at 9:18 PM PT

If you tuned in to President Bush's Thursday night press conference to understand his point of view on Iraq, you got what you came for. If you tuned in to find out whether he understood yours, tough luck. That was the deal when we traded in Bill Clinton for Bush. We got a president who understood the difference between truth and lying. We gave up one who understood everything in between. The upside is that our president is doing the right thing in Iraq. The downside is that he can't talk anyone else into going along.

Clinton was famous for seeing three sides of a two-sided issue. There was the time he agreed with the congressional majority on the Persian Gulf war but said he shared the concerns of the minority. There was the time he lamented having raised people's taxes too much. And of course, there was the time he pondered the meanings of "is."

Bush suffers no such ambivalence. Everything he knows about foreign policy, he learned in kindergarten: Love your neighbor, stand by your friends, honor your word. Thursday night, a reporter asked whether Bush held a grudge against Saddam Hussein. "I swore to protect and defend the Constitution," said Bush. "I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath. And that's exactly what I am going to do." He described the United Nations the same way: "The fundamental question facing the Security Council is, will its words mean anything?"

Bush has no trouble calling a lie a lie. While French sophisticates parse the adequacy of Iraq's latest ploy, Bush sees Saddam's game as a whole. "These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade," said Bush. As for those who preach peace, the president observed, "Allowing a dangerous dictator to defy the world and harbor weapons of mass murder and terror is not peace at all. It is pretense."

But sometimes, things aren't black and white. Sometimes they're gray. When the governments of France, China, or Mexico don't see things your way, you have to start the process of persuasion by understanding where they're coming from. That's where Clinton was at his best and Bush is at his worst. Four times at his press conference, Bush was asked why other countries weren't seeing things our way. Four times, he had no idea.

Bloomberg News reporter Dick Keil asked Bush why American allies who had seen U.S. intelligence on Iraq didn't agree that the threat was sufficient to require war. Bush replied that other countries agreed with him. Fox News reporter Jim Angle asked why "so many people around the world take a different view." Bush replied that protest was healthy but that it wouldn't change his opinion—as though the question had been about his opinion. ABC News correspondent Terry Moran asked why "so many governments and peoples around the world now not only disagree with you very strongly, but see the U.S. under your leadership as an arrogant power." Bush replied that the world would come around. Finally, Fort Worth Star-Telegram reporter Ron Hutcheson asked Bush about critics who feared war would destabilize the Middle East: "Do you ever worry, maybe in the wee, small hours, that you might be wrong, and they might be right?" Bush didn't budge. "I know we'll prevail," he said. "And out of that disarmament of Saddam will come a better world."

Again and again, Bush was asked to explain why other nations didn't see things his way. Again and again, he changed the subject to himself and his supporters.

At one point, Bush declared that Iraq's failure to disarm "cannot be denied." At another, he said of Saddam's compliance with U.N. resolutions, "It's hard to believe anybody is saying he isn't in defiance of 1441." At no point did Bush grapple with the fact that Iraq's failure to disarm is being denied and that other governments are saying Saddam isn't in defiance of 1441.

"I pray daily," Bush told the press corps. "I pray for guidance and wisdom and strength." Oh, well. Two out of three ain't bad.

[Kilmer17]

The problem with articles like these is that THEY dont see the whole issue.

Quotes like

The downside is that he can't talk anyone else into going along.

ignore the fact that 40+ nations have pledged their support and or troops, that 16 out of 19 NATO nations back Bush and th US.

As in most leftist propoganda, it's hard to call the other side ANYTHING when the ground you are standing on is filled with lies and deceit.

[codeorama]

I see your point and understand, but I personally didn't take the article to mean that no one was on our side... Obviously, the headlines in the news are the big powers, France, Russia, China, Germany... they are all against us. They have the means to stand up to us if they wanted to... out of those 40 countries with us.. I bet England is the only one of significance.

My point is that Bush does not relate well with others, you can't deny that. If he were better at it, If he were better at making others think he cares about their opinion, than we might be in a different situation.

[EagleSteve]

The other side of the coin is also true. The majority of Americans support a war to disarm Iraq and change the regime. The size of the majority only depends on the way the question is asked.

It seems that the majority of people in many other countries in the world are opposed to any war with Iraq, including England. If the UN passes a "war" resolution, then English public support rises to 75%.

So the question should be asked: If no other country's population supports a war, why does the US? Definitely not the persuasiveness of the president and his administration.

The answer is quite obvious: 9/11. When a country sees 3000 of its citizens incinerated in a cowardly attack, your viewpoint changes. Before 9/11, there is no way Bush would have gotten any public support for a war with Iraq.

The next question is why don't those oppossed to war with Iraq understand our viewpoint, especially our so-called allies? We were the ones attacked therefore our beliefs on Islamic terrorism are different.

In that sense, it is a black and white issue. A rogue nation with WMD and ties to all sorts of terrorist organizations that has lsot a war and then defied the truce for 12 years is a definite threat to US security in the post 9/11 world. Bush is right - the US is a battlefield.

I stand behind the president in agreeing that France, Germany, et. al. are not responsible for (nor barely even interested in) the security of the US.

When the safety of my family and my country is involved, I really don't give a rat's a$$ what the French and the rest of them think. Their opinion has no merit, despite what the distinguished Mr. Saletan may believe. I want the president to reduce the long-term threat any way possible. If that means war against Saddam, so be it. I don't care to understand the viewpoints of other countries - it's irrelevant.

What really gets me is that these "important" opinions of the rest of the world are solely based on their national interests, yet Bush gets bashed when he represents our national interests. If what's best for the US is also best for France, then so be it. But if what's best for France is not what's best for the US, then I don't want any Clintonesque *****-footing around on the issue. Our politicians better put our national interests first.

[redman]

I do fault Bush in this area to a degree, not because his position on this issue is wrong, but that he's not a good advocate for it.

He was asked last night whether he was worried about potential negative consequences from war with Iraq, such as increased hatred for America, terrorism, effect on the economy, etc. He essentially dodged the question and simply repeated (if I recall) the litany of reasons as to why Saddam's Iraq was bad. Instead of being convincing, it struck me as being almost defensive, which appears weak.

All he needs to say is, "Yes, I do worry about all of those things because it's my job to be worried about them. They are real and legitimate concerns. However, after carefully consulting with all of the best minds that our government has, I've concluded that the cost of inaction to us dwarfs the cost of action. As horrible as war is, we simply cannot stand by and allow Iraq to continue to develop WMD's."

Do you see how simple that is to do? And yet he seems incapable of doing it? And BTW, I know what I wrote is what he believes. For Bush, this is sincerely a matter of conscience and duty. Why can't he let everyone know that?

[Kilmer17]

I can deny that.

He may not suck up like Clinton, but he's better because he leads by example and from his convictions rather than poll numbers.

Of the 15 members on the Security council, 4 have come out in our favor (US, GB, Bulgaria,Spain) 5 against (Russia, China, France, Germany and Syria) The rest are "up in the air". I would saay that Spain is just as big as the others with the exception of not being run by American hating leaders.

Then look at NATO. 19 nations, 16 of which back the US.

Canada

Czech

Denmark

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Italy

Lux

Nether

Norway

Poland

Port

Spain

UK

US

Add in Australia, New Zealand and the smaller Mid East countries and that's quite a coalition isnt it?

[EagleSteve]

The list looks impressive.

But will Luxembourg's army led the desert charge?

But then again, would France's, if they were with us?

[Kilmer17]

The only time France wants us to go to war is when German soldiers are drinking coffee in Paris.

[fansince62]

what's the man supposed to do? go before the world and say..."look the french are the very ones who have been violating 1441 and other resolutions when it comes to arm sales to the Iraqis; the russians have been selling gyroscopes for Iraqi missles. the germans/french depend upon the oil and have massive investments." he's not going to go on national/global tv and do that. the arm twisting will/is happening in a 1000 little ways behind the scenes....ultimately....we still have to work with these folks when this is all over with.....he did the right thing not to inflame matters any worse than they already have been.

this is more than just Iraq...this is about the proliferation of WMDs among unstable regimes. and yes, it is a significant change in US policy......and it is likely only the beginning.......

[codeorama]

Redman, great points..

I am not a Clinton lover, I just think he was more skilled in these areas... that's all.

Clinton could sell ice to Alaskins... you gotta give him that.. He actually seemed like he cared.

[Golgo-13]

To me, Bush's plain-spoken manner is a big part of his appeal. After putting up with 8 years of Clinton the scheister, it is refeshing to have a leader who you can tell really cares about what he is doing and not just about himself. As elementary as it sounds, it's just a feeling that I get from him that I like. I know that he honestly cares about the American people.

[Golgo-13]

Originally posted by codeorama

Redman, great points..

I am not a Clinton lover, I just think he was more skilled in these areas... that's all.

Clinton could sell ice to Alaskins... you gotta give him that.. He actually seemed like he cared.

Clinton cared/cares about one thing only, himself. Make no mistake about it. Even some of his biggest advocates talk about that but that how in spite of it, he was still "good at what he did." But when push came to shove, I don't think he really cared 2 sh#ts about his "fellow Americans." Unless they happened to be getting polled at the time...

[codeorama]

He's plainspoken, yet still avoids answering the hard questions... So what's the difference?

On one hand, you can alienate most of the people, but speak plainly, on the other hand, you can get others to do what you need them to do, but in your heart, not really care about anyone but yourself..

I don't know Bush or Clinton personally, but I would rather have someone that can convince others to act in our best interests rather than a plain speaker that loves his country yet alienates everyone.

[@DCGoldPants]

Originally posted by codeorama

He's plainspoken, yet still avoids answering the hard questions... So what's the difference?

On one hand, you can alienate most of the people, but speak plainly, on the other hand, you can get others to do what you need them to do, but in your heart, not really care about anyone but yourself..

I don't know Bush or Clinton personally, but I would rather have someone that can convince others to act in our best interests rather than a plain speaker that loves his country yet alienates everyone.

perhaps he didn't know the answers to those questions.

Bush's heart might be in the right place but his speaking ability needs some work. The confused look needs to go.

He stood up for what he believe in last night and that's kind of cool. I do think any of the last dozen Presidents would of done the same though.

[Tarhog]

There are some people in this country who don't recognize leadership when they see it. I can understand why, its been a while since we've had a President (right or wrong as you may view him) who establishes a position based on the information in front of him and his value system and acts unswervingly on it. He doesn't take polls first, he doesn't waffle back and forth based on public or international support. He is leading. You may not agree with him, and think some of the criticism about possibly showing more deference to nations that disagree with us, toning down the rhetoric a bit, etc..is fair. But he is leading, and if you can't at least respect his determination to take a stand and defend it, I can't help you.

[@DCGoldPants]

let me ask people this.

You think he's making these final choices or is he doing what others are telling him to do? Mostly the VP and his Father?

I'm not saying I believe one way or another. I just don't think "Leadership" when I hear him speak. I know that slow pausing is his style of speaking. It was almost like he had a little speaker in his ear and somebody was answering his questions. Of course I don't believe that to be true. Just the style of course.

Make me think about it though.

Are there strings?

[Kilmer17]

Im sure he gets input from all of them, but claiming he's a puppet is no different than claiming Clinton was a puppet of his wife.

[redman]

bufford,

From everything I've read or heard, Bush listens to his advisors and makes the final decision that sets the policy. He leaves specifics up to the experts in a given field. However, he has indeed led the Iraq issue. There was a meeting at Camp David at the beginning of last August in which he came up with the idea that the UN should be challenged to act or else lose its legitimacy. Sure enought he addressed the UN saying hte same thing only six weeks later. That theme was his and his alone.

It's not to say that he doesn't hear the details at all, it's just that he doesn't consider himself quite often to be an expert in a given field so he defers to people who are on the details. Frankly, it's refreshing to see someone with enough humility to know his limits.

You can see the difference when he speaks about a subject that he feels he is a policy expert in, such as education. He's much more confident in his ability to speak extemporaneously than he was, for example, last night about Iraq. To contrast, all too often I got the impression that Gore and Clinton knew enough about most subjects to pass themselves off as experts when in fact their knowledge really in fact wouldn't pass for expertise. But that wouldn't stop them from talking and talking and talking about things as if they were experts.

Again, Bush's sincerity and honesty is refreshing.

[Sarge]

Granted, Bush isn't the most gifted public speaker ever to hold office. It was almost painful to listen to him speak during his first year. But I would much rather have someone in office that is deliberate in manner and guided by faith than a used car salesman that sounded good on TV but ultimately accomplished nothing. Worse than nothing actually. He and his collection of bumbling boobs are directly responsible for the situation we find ourselves in in Korea and Iraq. And they have the balls to say the Bush team doesn't know what it is doing.

[codeorama]

Sometimes, I want to like him, but he's just not a good salesman. Does that mean Clinton is a better person? No, not at all.. I just think that there are many of us who want to believe that the war is for the right reasons, but Bush doesn't really try to convince us... That's why I feel like he doesn't care if we support him or not.. But in reality, he probably is not as skilled of a people person as Clinton... You can question Clinton's sincerity, but you have to admit he was gifted.

[Riggo-toni]

Code,

Your points remind me of why Plato said he was opposed to democracy. He said if one is sick, does he not go to the most skilled physician, rather than the best looking or the best speaking. Yet when people choose a leader, they do not vote for the most skilled leader, rather they choose the best looking man or the smoothest speaker.

Much of our current mess is peaking now because Clinton postponed making any hard decisions. The USS Cole or the Riyadh barracks get bombed, send a couple of missiles at empty buildings. North Korea and Iran are going nuclear. Send them a few bucks to let a couple of inspectors pass by.

Not even Clinton would be able to convince the French or the Syrians on this. Not when the Frogs are making megabucks and face embarassment over their dealings. Did you know Nixon was/is admired by the French. French I have spoken with still reminisce about Jimmy Carter and his "vision," while they write off Reagan as a dumb cowboy - the image that Dubya inherited. Yet Reagan's supposedly simplistic good versus evil approach to foreign policy bankrupted the USSR and led to massive arms reduction agreements. Having lived in Europe, I can tell you that European mentality is all about style, not substance. Socialism feels good, while capitalism is barbaric. Eff that. Give me results.

[Yomar]

Originally posted by riggo-toni

Code,

Your points remind me of why Plato said he was opposed to democracy. He said if one is sick, does he not go to the most skilled physician, rather than the best looking or the best speaking. Yet when people choose a leader, they do not vote for the most skilled leader, rather they choose the best looking man or the smoothest speaker.

Much of our current mess is peaking now because Clinton postponed making any hard decisions. The USS Cole or the Riyadh barracks get bombed, send a couple of missiles at empty buildings. North Korea and Iran are going nuclear. Send them a few bucks to let a couple of inspectors pass by.

Not even Clinton would be able to convince the French or the Syrians on this. Not when the Frogs are making megabucks and face embarassment over their dealings. Did you know Nixon was/is admired by the French. French I have spoken with still reminisce about Jimmy Carter and his "vision," while they write off Reagan as a dumb cowboy - the image that Dubya inherited. Yet Reagan's supposedly simplistic good versus evil approach to foreign policy bankrupted the USSR and led to massive arms reduction agreements. Having lived in Europe, I can tell you that European mentality is all about style, not substance. Socialism feels good, while capitalism is barbaric. Eff that. Give me results.

Now its Clinton didn't do enough, at the time he was being accused of wagging the dog (although in an effort at fairness, the accusations didn't come from Republicans on the Hill, at least not directly).

[redman]

Originally posted by Yomar

Now its Clinton didn't do enough, at the time he was being accused of wagging the dog (although in an effort at fairness, the accusations didn't come from Republicans on the Hill, at least not directly).

Yomar, at the time I was extremely dissatisfied that we didn't seem to be doing much of anything to respond to WTC 1, the Khobar Towers attacks, and the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings. And I was mad as hell that he pulled the inspectors out of Iraq in 1998 with nary a repercussion for Saddam.

The fact is that I could detect absolutely no governing strategy or value to Clinton's foreign policy, and predictably all we were left with was a bunch of disjointed, unorganized flailings at the end of his second term that left our adversaries thinking that we were weak. In many respects, Bush has been left to clean up messes that have been years in the making.

Do I blame everything on Clinton? Of course not. But it's interesting to me that two of the three countries in the "Axis of Evil" were nations with whom Clinton either signed a treaty (N. Korea) or else allowed that country to thwart and then end UNSCOM inspections (Iraq).

[StuckinIA]

Originally posted by Blazers21

The list looks impressive.

But will Luxembourg's army led the desert charge?

But then again, would France's, if they were with us?

I know this was in jest so my response is not an attack on you.

But, when has any other nation, other than perhaps the UK, offered substantial military support?

Of course the contributions are appreciated. What other country aside fom the US is forced to devote so much resource to the military?

[redman]

Originally posted by StuckinIA

But, when has any other nation, other than perhaps the UK, offered substantial military support?

Of course the contributions are appreciated. What other country aside fom the US is forced to devote so much resource to the military?

As phrased you're asking two different questions.

First of all, "substantial military support" for what?

Second, what do you mean by "forced to devote . . ."?