A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
January 19, 2005To George, on his InauguralDear Mr. President, In reference to your recent statement alleging an electoral mandate to conduct the war in Iraq, I have but one word in response: Bunk! I am centrist registered Democrat. As such I speak only for myself. I cannot nor would I presume to speak for any other political centrists, moderates, swing voters, Reagan Dems... you get the picture. That out of the way, let me state in unambiguous terms my opinion that the Iraq invasion and occupation, foisted upon this nation via a Bush administration campaign of willful ignorance and outright deception, is nothing less than an unmitigated disaster. And a disaster it will remain irregardless the outcome of US orchestrated elections, troop withdrawals, support from puppet Arab regimes.. you name it. I supported the action in Afghanistan. Though I could quibble with some of the tactics and regional strategy implemented in that ongoing struggle, it was and remains on the whole a just campaign in the just cause of combating global terrorism. The Afghan conflict is not, nor should it be, anti-Islamic. But it is justly and justifiably anti-fanatic. Not so the Iraq debacle. It is instead the ill conceived, ideologically driven bastard of an unholy alliance between our own brand of home grown religious fanatics and the equally delusional Straussian neo-cons. It is the worst kind of foreign policy imaginable. One where the realization of arcane socio-political theory combined with twisted theology displaces the balanced rational evaluation so critical to a sound geo-political decision process. It's policy more familiar to mid 20th century Fascism or Bolshevism than 21st century liberal democracy. In such a scenario as this there can be no middle ground. The zealous, self-righteous nature of the process puts it out of the reach of any real consensus. Centrism is by nature a pragmatic approach. But there has been nothing practical or reasoned about Bush's reckless Iraq adventure. In hindsight it's now clear that the invasion was largely a foregone conclusion, even before 9/11. All pretense at continuing the containment of Saddam in coordination with our allies and the UN was just that. Once 9/11 provided needed cover, the American people and the world were railroaded into accepting this initial gambit in a grand strategy to ostensibly stabilize the volatile Middle East, bolster the security of Israel, and help ensure a ongoing ready supply of oil. Now in the midst what has spiraled into a full blown middle eastern quagmire, this despite the dismissive pre-conflict assurances from the neo-cons and their allies that it would be a veritable walk-over, we have mounting indications that a further misguided adventure into neighboring Iran is in the offing, it's advocates apparently emboldened by Bush's razor thin margin of victory. This in spite of the fact that our military is currently stretched to the functional limit and public support for the Iraq war, never solid to begin with, is now sagging. Astounding. The Iraqi elections will, apparently, be held this month; though at what level of participation and by whom remains to be seen. What is sure is the resultant vindication that will be trumpeted by Bush and his lackeys. Baloney. Even if the poll were to be judged fair and broadly representative - a huge if, to flaunt it as justification for this snafu is tantamount to leaping blindly but willingly off a cliff and then touting the wisdom of such reckless stupidity as evidenced by the fact you survived with only a broken back and a skull fracture. Hurray for our side! And the list goes on. Saddam was brutalizing his people: Given the at least tens of thousands of civilians killed and many more horribly maimed both mentally and physically thus far, Saddam would've been challenged indeed to match the brutality of Bush's meat grinder over the same period. We're fighting them over there so we don't have to here: It's almost embarrassing to even consider the validity of this one. To hear apparently sane people (though, admittedly, they all likely voted for Bush; so..) parrot this fallacy speaks to the level of ignorance and outright denial among far too many Americans. But it's now a case of justification become mantra among war supporters, so here goes. Put down that comic book, sit up straight and listen closely. There was NO significant cooperation or collaboration between Saddam and Islamic terrorist groups before the invasion. The invasion and occupation has instead inflamed anti-American feeling in the Islamic world, as well as elsewhere, and served as a recruiting boon to these terror groups, our true enemies. At the same time we have weakened many of our most valuable foreign alliances by ramming this fiasco though unilaterally. The coalition of the willing is a joke. A very bad joke. Yes, we are in fact less safe as a direct result of Bush's bull-headed ill-informed foolishness. John Kerry, though late in coming around was absolutely correct. This war is a distraction from, not part of, the war on terror. End of story. WMDs: Never mind. This war is not about oil: Oh really. George Bush has largely been a miserable failure and an unrepentant fool as President. He does deserve some credit for leadership immediately post 9/11 in combating terror groups and uniting the country. But he gambled this all away with the Iraq adventure. His domestic policies, well to the right politically of most Americans, have on the whole matched the war. Reckless and mostly feckless. Now as his second term begins all signs are that the myopic, simplistic incompetence as well as the appointments and policy initiatives motivated by dogmatic, impractical ideology will remain the norm. And this is a tragic shame. Where, at this crossroads in human history, a unifying leader of all America and the world could be the agent of real and lasting positive change, George Bush instead has been a divider and a reactionary and he has steered us all off the solid path of global progress laid by his predecessor. He has done so willfully, gleefully and with the misguided and frightening belief that he is doing the work of his god. Perhaps he indeed sees himself as sewing seeds for the second coming. But by this lunacy he in fact only serves to sew the dark seeds of another more ancient mythological being, Chaos. Therefore, on George's inaugural, this centrist will join with millions of Americans left, right and center in protesting the worst Presidency in at least my middle-aged lifetime. I will do so because, though I believe Bush did win the election, even democracies can make mistakes. Indeed, no one or no thing is perfect. Fifty two percent of the electorate just made a grave mistake. It was their right to do so and I'll fight for that right. But I'll also exercise mine in peacefully protesting the disaster they chose to revisit upon us all. I hope to see you there. PEACE Posted by Ringmaster at January 19, 2005 11:49 AMComments
Until the current President took office, I considered Jimmy Carter to be the worst president of my lifetime. I tend to think that George W. Bush has not plunged to the depths of Carter yet, but since he has four more years, it's quite possible he'll reach that level. Partisans will of course deny that a President of their party is the worst, so I propose this game: rank order the presidents within your lifetime by greatness, but only within party. Here's my shot. Republicans Best to Worst Ronald Reagan Democrats Best to Worst Bill Clinton The conventional choice would be to put JFK at the head of the Democrats. I have some reservations about him, and I think his position is inflated by his martyrdom. Posted by: rickheller at January 19, 2005 01:34 PMWhile I agree with some of descriptions here, on the whole I find it to be over the top so stridently as to veer towards polemic.So I personally disavow any association with the notion that it represents anything like a centrist consensus. I'm especially unpersuaded by the idea that Iraq is a "distraction" to the war on terror. If one were to say that prior to the invasion of Iraq, it MIGHT have been possible to oppose global fundamentalistic islamic terrorism, i'd grant that this was arguable. But now, today, it's the major front in the war. And I continue to look askance at any argument that relies on arguing that oil supply was a central part of our rationale for invasion at the same time as it ignores anything about national security. Posted by: bk at January 19, 2005 02:07 PMThe Ringmaster has a unique style which is "over the big top" but the content of his post is within the left-center boundary of centrist opinion. He did disavow speaking for anyone but himself at the beginning of his post. I do not agree that Iraq has become THE major front in the war on terror. The war on terror, at least as originally articulated by President Bush, was a war on terror of "global reach" We did not declare war on Basque separtists or Tamil Tigers who did not threaten the United States. Thus, while the Iraqi insurgents are terrorizing Iraqis, they have not launched terror attacks outside the borders of Iraq. They might in the future, in in the unlikely event they gain power, but they are not doing so now. The central front in the war on terror remains the Afghan-Pakistan border, where Osama bin Laden is hiding. I see no evidence that Osama is on the run or otherwise so highly pressured that he cannot plan further terror attacks of global reach. Rick, I have to challenge your views on Reagan. Twenty years ago this man wanted to override so many policies in the US both domestically and internationally that he was the man to hate. Now after his death the Teflon Pres. seems to have done everything right. Rick - Sorry. Ringmaster goes far beyond "polemic," and leaves even "screed" in his rear-view mirror. Reread it - he makes no argument worth the effort of refuting. It would have been more honest and way more practical for him to write "I hate Bush" a couple of thousand times with no spacing and no punctuation. Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got a comic book to get back to. Posted by: Literally Retarded at January 19, 2005 05:15 PMI'd compare W more to Woodrow Wilson. (Assuming I can't get everyone here to agree he is the spawn of Satan :-} Wilson had been governor of New Jersey. I would agree that Ringmaster's "essay" is over the top. It's too early to gauge GW's position in history. Even if it takes 3 years more and Iraq becomes a relatively stable democracy folks will likely look back on GW's effort positively. Now, in looking at Republic presidents I'm reading "Theodore Rex" and I find some interesting historical parallels to now. Among them: Democrats divided. Democrats not able to identify decent candidate for the '04 election. Business scandal and a cry for greater regulation. Energetic President trying some bold initiatives. Of course there are several striking differences including: TR threatened the "Big Stick" but generally didn't use it. Even swinging it raised the hackles of the left but it generally improved his overall standing as a president (and of course, it didn't sacrifice any American lives.) In restrospect GW might have been wise to continue to swing the stick at Iraq but not use it. The "quick, easily justified war" in Afghanistan might have been all the war America needed and/or wanted One last point, that Administration (TR's) was credited with successfully establishing democratic governments in too previously invaded states: Phillipines and Cuba. So you can see why we may need to wait awhile to judge the success of our intervention in Iraq. Posted by: Chris at January 19, 2005 07:08 PMIt's policy more familiar to mid 20th century Fascism or Bolshevism than 21st century liberal democracy. Sorry, I stopped reading at that point. Posted by: Todd Pearson at January 19, 2005 11:14 PMYou sir, are an idiot. Posted by: John at January 20, 2005 12:22 AMI'm just going to draw up a lawn chair and watch the show. Posted by: Tully at January 20, 2005 12:56 AM"Over the top", perhaps. Idiotic, I doubt. I think what the population en masse has yet to realize is that GW has no intentions of utilizing his seat behind that desk for anything but his own personal gains. He will remould the policy (both foreign and domestic) of this country to suit is own far-right ideals. I will say that he is no better or worse than a far-left president would be, but let's not live under any illusions here. The man is incompitent, proud of said incompitence, unwilling to mitigate said incompitence... and the electorate, in giving him permission to preside over us under those prinicples, was wrong. Finally, Literally Retarded, if all that essay says to you is "ihatebushihatebushihatebush..." and so on, well, what of it? Is it not his right to hate Bush, and to express that feeling in a forum such as this? Further, given what we all know of the situation, would you not grant that he has at least some reason, perhaps maybe not a reason he has illustrated to your satisfaction, but some reason to feel the way he does? You cannot say that he hasn't obviously given some thought to his opinion. Posted by: Adam at January 20, 2005 03:41 AMAdam - You are absolutely right. I cannot say that he didn't give some thought to his opinion. I just said that he didn't give any thought to his post. Posted by: Literally Retarded at January 20, 2005 06:36 AMI think what the population en masse has yet to realize is that GW has no intentions of utilizing his seat behind that desk for anything but his own personal gains. Yeah, about 51 or 52% of Americans have "failed to realize" that your opinion is objective fact, Adam. This is the sort of statement that I find especially discouraging, in essence a short circuit to discourse. In other words, such a statement is just a flame tossed by a troll. Here's an idea: Posit malice last. Never attribute to evil or malice anything that can be as easily explained by ignorance or lack of competence. People who've grown to hate Bush believe he is evil, and simply cannot fathom that the majority of Americans, even those who acknowledge his faults, don't believe he is driven by greed, malice, or other venal intents. I think this is one big reason why Bush got re-elected...those who opposed him amped up the rhetoric that he was evil instead of acknowledging his likeability and earnestness when focusing on his questionable competence. Many voted for Bush in part out of a sense of an opportunity to spite unreasonable Bush haters. This is what the population of Bush haters en masse has yet to realize. Posted by: bk at January 20, 2005 09:32 AMYup, an evil incompetent idiotic genius, who just somehow keeps managing to beat the Democrats. Yup yup. True Confessions: A Democrat Likes George, by Lanny Davis (link requires registration) It was 1965, I believe — my junior year, his sophomore. We were making our usual sarcastic commentaries on those who walked by us. A little nasty perhaps, but always with a touch of humor. On this occasion, however, someone we all believed to be gay walked by, although the word we used in those days was "queer." Someone, I'm sorry to say, snidely used that word as he walked by. George heard it and, most uncharacteristically, snapped: "Shut up." Then he said, in words I can remember almost verbatim: "Why don't you try walking in his shoes for a while and see how it feels before you make a comment like that?" Yup. A heartless fundie far-righter, willing to mold the nation to fit his own heartless fundie far-right ideals. An absolutely evil man. Yup yup. Somebody toss me another beer. Posted by: Tully at January 20, 2005 11:06 AMOne point, "a mandate" does not require the acceptance of every single person in the nation. A person could have a mandate and still have many individuals who oppose them just as passionately as Ringmaster opposes GW. Now I wouldn't exactly call 52% a mandate, myself, but it's also not a rebuke either. Contrary, to what the Left would like to believe.... enough Americans seem to feel that the President has the country headed in the right direction that they were willing to put him back in office again. Whether or not this ultimately prooves to be a "grave mistake" will be a judgement that history makes. I'm sure Alfred Landons supporters fealt just as deeply that the country made a "grave mistake" putting FDR back in office in '36. Many fealt that electing FDR was a threat to the Consititution, the American System of Government, the safety of the nation and even the world. The screed we read above could have been written word for word by one of them. I'll even go as far as saying that FDR's critics raised some legitimate (if overblown) concerns.... just as I believe GWB's critics have. Still I think (hope) that history will ultimately show that those of us who put GWB back in office, just like those who elected FDR back in '36 made the right choice.... and the critics were wrong. What, I just read in your post above was a rant/vent and that can be very usefull for relieving ones own stress....but it's absolutely counterproductive for rational discourse. What you've just done is a figurative drawing of horns and a tail on GWB. It might feel good for you....but it also voids any ability you might have once had to persuade the 52% of us who voted for GWB of any merits that might exist in your arguements. You do realize you've done that, don't you? Posted by: cengel at January 20, 2005 12:18 PMHe has a man date? (Sorry, just couldn't resist it.) Posted by: Bob J Young at January 20, 2005 03:27 PMBob, that was PRICELESS! Posted by: Chris at January 20, 2005 03:37 PMTo the other Chris; LOL, Bob! A mandate from the people automatically goes to the winner of an election, by definition. You win, you get the job, it's a mandate to lead. Past that it's all rhetoric. Posted by: Tully at January 20, 2005 11:09 PMChris, Sorry, I normaly post here as cengel. I guess I just got distracted and posted under my first name instead. Posted by: cengel at January 21, 2005 11:10 AMThe comparison above of George W. Bush's intevention in Iraq with Theodore Roosevelt's intervention in the Phillipines and Cuba during the McKinley administration is apt, though I see more negative similarities than positive ones. Historians generally agree that the Spanish-American War was initiated under false pretenses. Spain, no matter how brutal it was in its domination of Cuba, was not responsible for the sinking of the Maine--an issue with a faulty boiler was. Yet just as Roosevelt and McKinley had William Randolph's press to aid in their propaganda effort, Bush and Cheney had Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel. Whatever the successes in the Philippines and Cuba(100 years after U.S. intervention and Cuba still doesn't have a democracy), the Spanish-American War should be seen as what it was, a flagrant act of U.S. imperialism. We controlled the Philippines for more than 40 years despite that we "liberated" it from Spain. It makes you wonder how long we'll be in Iraq Posted by: nicrivera at January 21, 2005 11:07 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
