4 posts tagged “george bush”

Fox News Channel farewells a former colleague. These are some of the people who knew him best, talking about Snow’s honour, decency, strength in his faith, generosity of spirit, and the love of his family. Brett Baer got teary in recalling Tony Snow’s caring, when Baer’s son faced open-heart surgery. Former president George Bush and former first lady Barbara Bush also offered their tributes in this clip.

   The John Walter Weyland quotation that Brett Baer read is, ‘The True Gentleman is the man whose conduct proceeds from good will and an acute sense of propriety, and whose self-control is equal to all emergencies; who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty, the obscure man of his obscurity, or any man of his inferiority or deformity; who is himself humbled if necessity compels him to humble another; who does not flatter wealth, cringe before power, or boast of his own possessions or achievements; who speaks with frankness but always with sincerity and sympathy; whose deed follows his word; who thinks of the rights and feelings of others, rather than his own; and who appears well in any company, a man with whom honor is sacred and virtue safe.’
   He is right: this describes Tony Snow.
   Fifty-three is too young. My own mother passed around the same age from cancer, so I know full well the effect this will have on his widow and children. My thoughts and prayers go to the Snow family.

Whether you support the war in Iraq or you don’t—and here in New Zealand we have the luxury to criticize the United States—David Horowitz’s recollection (video found originally on Humbled Infidel’s blog) of why the US went in certainly correlates with my own. It’s why I have always held back attacking President George W. Bush, because faced with what he had in front of him, I cannot honestly say I would not have done the same thing. As Horowitz reveals, neither would Al Gore, who supported Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ speech in 2002.
   The end of this video (cut short) goes into the rationale for war surrounding UN Security Council resolution 1441, which PM Tony Blair managed to sell to Parliament—but which, I always felt, the US was less successful at doing. There are legal arguments there based on the UN Charter but it was always about 1441. 
   This is one of the problems I tend to have with the US Democratic Party, for all my own left-leaning tendencies. Right now, for example, constituents are begging the super-delegates that they should not select who will best beat Sen. John McCain and the Republicans, but who represents their position. The fact this question has even arisen is disturbing: as representatives of the people of course one should represent the citizens. The minute you do not, you do not have a democracy: it is a quest for power among élites ignoring the citizenry, the sort of thing people were getting away from when the US was founded. 
   I am not saying that the GOP wouldn’t look after its own, but given that they have fielded men like Sen. Bob Dole—who from a marketing perspective was a tough sell against President Clinton—it seems that it might be more willing to represent its base than look at seizing power. The 42nd president gifted them the Monica Lewinsky situation, which hurt the Democrats. I would say that they never forgave the GOP or Kenneth Starr who were steadfast in their condemnation and investigation. That power-hungriness from the Democrats is very apparent in the way the Bush administration has been undermined in the last eight years.

   I say if one opposes the war, then there are ways to do it without resorting to revisionism. I might not agree with our PM, Helen Clark, on her courses of action, but at least she took a position based on the facts before her and said ‘No’ to going in to Iraq. She has never gone and revised history, and simply held firm on her principles. She has good support for it because most New Zealanders opposed the war and carried out her job (on that occasion) as a servant and representative of the people.
   The consequences of Resolution 1441 were always clear but the means of acting upon them were less so because of the way the UN Charter is written, and that ambiguity effectively gave some countries a chance of opting out. Our PM took it, as did the leaders of many other nations. It is respectful, even if she later made a gaffe about how she did not think a Gore presidency would have gone to war. (As Horowitz reminds us, that is probably an incorrect position.) They believed that an extra resolution was needed before war; the US, UK, Australia and others did not.
   The Democratic Party and the anti-war movement probably think that this is all too tough to sell to the public, so they engage in other tactics, shaming US troops or the administration and pressuring those who have short memories to join their cause. I am not saying that what they have uncovered is all untrue—of course I accept there are dodgy dealings surrounding the war and I even accept some misconduct—but they’d earn my respect if they didn’t flip-flop or cover up the truth. Sen. Clinton, who voted for the war, who voted for the increase in expenditure alongside Sen. John Kerry, is one of those very high-profile politicians who has changed depending on the trade winds of public opinion.
   Of course a senator or a future president must be representative but she must also stand on truth. ‘I was wrong to have supported the war because …’ would have been a good start. ‘Now the American people are telling me that it is time to withdraw our troops.
   ‘My support was founded on the belief that resolution 1441 was inviolable. It was not, and we have carried out the due punishment needed on Saddam Hussein’s régime.’
   There are millions of ways to spin it, especially ways to do it without demoralizing the young men and women serving in Iraq—and I am not even a politician.
   This would also mean she’d have to go against her husband’s attacks on Kosovo, which also did not have that additional Security Council resolution but was a preemptive strike by the US. George W. Bush is not alone, just that the media give him more grief over it.
   But a mea culpa is not flip-flopping and it is not pandering. It is being honest, something the Beltway sees very rarely.
   What concerns me, however, is that the road to war is a serious matter. It should not be so easily bent because the decision should be founded on principle—and if those principles existed after resolution 1441 was broken then they exist today. Congress voted for the war, with bipartisan support. There needs to be a far bigger shift for any US representative to say no to the war now—so what is it?
   A poor entry strategy, a poor exit strategy, the belief that the US’s only task was to oust Saddam Hussein, the belief that the parameters of the original declaration of war have been fulfilled—what? Certainly Sen. Clinton needs to tell us.
   She has said that she would not have voted for the war if she knew there were no WMDs. But as Horowitz points out, the existence of WMDs was not the basis for war. Did Sen. Clinton “misspeak” again?
   There is a popular notion that that was what resolution 1441 was all about and we all remember Sec. Powell’s Powerpoint presentations to the UN.
   But unless Sen. Clinton has misremembered this incident as well, resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002 was about Iraq’s non-compliance with conditions laid down by the international community over disarmament, which included WMDs, but they were not the core issue.
   When Iraq lied about what it did with its WMDs, which the international community confirmed it had as late as 1998, the US took a hard line.
   Iraq itself never offered an explanation on the discrepancy between its claims and tests by the inspectors.
   That was one legal justification for the US and the UK, and, skipping over a few issues, the war began.
   I sure wish the US politicians would just tell the truth about the vote at that time because they should have a better understanding of it, having been there—rather than let people like me catch them out.
   This is another reason to not dislike Bush: he said he would stay the course, so he did. The majority of Americans voted for him in 2004 (regardless of whether one is counting the electoral college or the popular vote) and knew this full well. And while I think some of his spending has sent that US deficit soaring, he has stayed firm on his belief in his tax cuts. He seems content because he thinks he is protecting the Constitution and that he needs to continue his strategy. Maybe that is the Bush world-view. (He saw how his Dad got burned on the ‘No new taxes’ and learned from it. He saw how his Dad lost the support of the right wing of the GOP and learned from it. And he saw how he was criticized for being too smart when he ran for Congress—which is where the folksy public image comes from. Welcome to Bushland.)
   Had the war successfully concluded people would praise him on his steadfastness.
   For if a leader bends based on the trade winds, then will she bend based on pressure from other sovereign nations? If Saudi Arabia put pressure to bear on the US, would Sen. Clinton cave in? If a communist nation put pressure on Sen. Obama, would he? Or, for that matter, how far will Sen. McCain bend to foreign pressure? 
   We cannot turn back the clock now and see how the message could have been better communicated to the US. We should know, from the Horowitz video, why the US went in and understand who is now lying to the American public: that is important. For all his failings in everything from the Patriot Act (which I am no fan of, and it has restricted the movement of people who could benefit the US) to the Alberto González judicial appointments, I do not think it was President Bush. I have never called him a bare-faced liar.
   The next presidential election is a chance to address those failings. The economy can be fixed but what is in dire need of repair are the values to which not only Americans want moral leadership, but most of us in the western world. Get the values right, get the truth right, and the rest will follow.
   At the end of the day I care not if the president is a Democrat or a Republican, and I have no say in it anyway, as long as our common values are restored and preserved, and the leader is truthful. And that the decision for staying the course or withdrawing is also founded on truth.

I had an interesting conversation with an American, where he slagged off G. W. Bush (seems like a regular pastime) and how those who voted for him were dumbasses. Then he tells me that the United States has 52 states.
   Now, maybe I am not an American, but I count the stars on the flag and they total 50, and I was always raised at school with the idea there were 50. Alaska and Hawai’i joined the union in 1959. Before that, there were, ooh, 50 minus 2 equals 48.
   Unless it is preemptive counting and Iraq and Afghanistan make up the other two? Or Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
   Mind you, I didn’t know where Wanganui was on the map till someone showed me five or six years ago.
   ‘Hey man, do you know where the Victoria Falls are?’
   ‘Somewhere near Taupo, aren’t they?’

From Dox²’s blog, a transcript of President George W. Bush’s latest speech on the war on terror. Whether you agree with the man or not, I think it makes interesting reading, especially since this gets little air time in New Zealand while so many hop on to the anti-Bush bandwagon. Slightly edited from the original for clarity.

Some in America don’t believe we’re at war, and that’s their right. I know we are, and therefore, will spend my time as the President doing the best I can to educate people about the perils of the world in which we live, and that we have an active strategy in dealing with it.
   First, the enemy. These folks aren’t isolated folks, you know, they just kind of randomly show up. They have an objective. They believe as strongly in their ideology as I believe in ours. They believe that they have a obligation to spread a point of view that says, for example, if you don’t worship the way we tell you to worship, there will be a consequence; just like I believe we have an obligation to defend a point of view that says, what matters is the right for you to choose your religion, and you’re free to do so in the United States of America.
   They believe that they can use—they have no value for human life, see. That’s what distinguishes them from us in another way. They will kill a Muslim, a child, or a woman in a moment’s notice to achieve a political objective. They are dangerous people that need to be confronted.
   And that’s why, since September the 11th, our policy has been to find them and defeat them overseas so we don’t have to face them here at home again. Now, that is a strong—a short-term strategy, because the long-term strategy has got to be one that marginalizes these extremists and radicals by promoting an alternative ideology—I like to say, an ideology based on light; an ideology that promotes hope; an ideology when, given a chance, has worked every time to lift people’s spirits. And that’s the ideology based upon liberty, the chance for people to live in a free and open society.
   And it’s hard work. And this war is on a multiple of fronts. One front is Afghanistan. And the front that is consuming the American people right now is Iraq. And I fully understand how tough it is on our psyche. I fully understand that when you watch the violence on TV every night, people are saying, is it worth it? Can we accomplish an objective? Well, first, I want to tell you, yes, we can accomplish and win this fight in Iraq. And secondly, I want to tell you, we must, for the sake of our children and our grandchildren.
   You know, I was very optimistic at the end of ’05 when 12 million Iraqis went to the polls. I know it seems like a decade ago. It wasn’t all that long ago that, when given a chance, 12 million people voted. I wasn’t surprised, but I was pleased—let me put it to you that way. I wasn’t surprised because one of the principles on which I make decisions is that I believe in the universality of freedom. I believe that freedom belongs to every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth. As a matter of fact, to take it a step further, I believe it is a gift from an Almighty to every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth. And therefore, I wasn’t surprised when people, when given the chance, said, I want to be free. I was pleased that 12 million defied the car bombers and killers to vote.
   Our policy at that point in time was to get our force posture in such a position, is that we would train the Iraqis so they would take the fight to those who would stop the advance of democracy, and that we’d be in a position to keep the territorial integrity in place, and chase down the extremists. That was our policy. We didn’t get there in 2006 because a thinking enemy—in this case, we believe al-Qaeda, the same people that attacked us in America—incited serious sectarian violence by blowing up a holy religious site of the Shia. And then there was this wave of reprisal.
   And I had a decision to make. Some of Steve’s colleagues—good, decent, patriotic people—believed the best thing for the United States to do at that point was to step back and to kind of let the violence burn out in the capital of Iraq. I thought long and hard about that. I was deeply concerned that violence in the capital would spill out into the countryside. I was deeply concerned that one of the objectives of al-Qaeda—and by the way, al-Qaeda is doing most of the spectacular bombings, trying to incite sectarian violence. The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is the crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims, trying to stop the advance of a system based upon liberty.
   And I was concerned that the chaos would more enable them to—more likely enable them to achieve their stated objective, which is to drive us out of Iraq so they could have a safe-haven from which to launch their ideological campaign and launch attacks against America. That’s what they have said. The killers who came to America have said, with clarity, ‘We want you out of Iraq so we can have a safe-haven from which to attack again.’
   I think it’s important for the Commander-in-Chief to listen carefully to what the enemy says. They thrive on chaos. They like the turmoil. It enables them to more likely achieve their objectives. What they can’t stand is the advance of an alternative ideology that will end up marginalizing them.
   So I looked at consequences of stepping back—the consequences not only for Iraq, but the consequences for an important neighbourhood for the security of the United States of America. What would the Iranians think about America if we stepped back in the face of this extremist challenge? What would other extremists think? What would al-Qaeda be able to do? They’d be able to recruit better and raise more money from which to launch their objectives. Failure in Iraq would have serious consequences for the security of your children and your grandchildren.
   And so I made the decision, rather than pulling out of the capital, to send more troops in the capital, all aimed at providing security, so that an alternative system could grow. I listened to the commanders that would be running the operation—in this case, the main man is a man named Gen David Petraeus—a smart, capable man, who gives me his candid advice. His advice: ‘Mr President,’ is, ‘we must change the mission to provide security for the people in the capital city of Iraq, as well as in Anbar province, in order for the progress that the 12 million people who voted can be made.’ That’s why we’ve done what we’ve done.
   And we just started. He got all the troops there a couple of weeks ago. He asked for 20,000-some troops, and I said, ‘If that’s what you need, Commander, that’s what you got.’ And they just showed up. And they’re now beginning operations in full.
   And in Washington, you got people saying, stop. And here’s my attitude about this—and I understand there’s a debate, and there ought to be a debate in our democracy, and I welcome it. I welcome a good, honest debate about the consequences of failure, the consequences of success in this war. But I believe that it’s in this nation’s interest to give the commander a chance to fully implement his operations. And I believe Congress ought to wait for Gen Petraeus to come back and give his assessment of the strategy that he’s putting in place before they make any decisions. That’s what the American people expect. They expect for military people to come back and tell us how the military operations are going.
   And that’s the way I’m going to play it, as the Commander-in-Chief. I’ll be glad to discuss different options—the truth of the matter is, I felt like we could be in a different position at the end of 2005. I believe we can be in a different position in a while, and that would be to have enough troops there to guard the territorial integrity of that country, enough troops there to make sure that al-Qaeda doesn’t gain safe haven from which to be able to launch further attacks against the United States of America, enough troops to be embedded and to help train the Iraqis to do their job.
   But we couldn’t get there without additional troops. And now I call upon the United States Congress to give Gen David Petraeus a chance to come back and tell us whether his strategy is working. And then we can work together on a way forward.
   In the meantime, the Iraqis have got to do more work. This coming week I’ll be presenting to the Congress a list of some of the accomplishments and some of the shortfalls of their political process. They’ve asked us to report on 18 different benchmarks. That’s what the Congress said in this last supplemental spending bill; they said, come back here in mid-July and give us an interim report as to whether or not any progress is being made in Iraq. And that’s what we’ll be doing. So at the end of this week you’ll see a progress report on what’s been happening in Iraq—and then in September, a final report on the benchmarks that I accepted and that Congress passed.
   And so that’s the challenge facing the country. And it’s a necessary—in my judgement, it’s necessary work. I wouldn’t ask a mother or a Dad—I wouldn’t put their son in harm’s way if I didn’t believe this was necessary for the security of the United States and peace of the world. And I strongly believe it. And I strongly believe we will prevail. And I strongly believe that democracy will trump totalitarianism every time. That’s what I believe. And those are the belief systems on which I’m making decisions that I believe will yield the peace.
   You know, it’s really interesting in my position—I obviously have a unique view of things at times. And one of the most interesting views that I’ve been able to—of history that I’ve been able to really focus on is our relationship with Japan. I’ve told this story a lot because I find it to be very ironic.
   When my Dad was a young guy, right out of high school, he joined the United States Navy, became a Navy torpedo bomber pilot and fought the Japanese. They were the sworn enemy of the United States of America. And he, like a lot of other young people, gave it their all. And a lot of people died on both sides of the war. As a matter of fact, it was—the Japanese, as you rightly know, was the last major attack on the United States, prior to September the 11th, 2001. Some 60 years later, I’m at the table, talking about the peace with the Japanese Prime Minister, Prime Minister Koizumi.
   I find that to be an inspiring story and a hopeful story. It’s a story about the ability of liberty to transform enemies into allies. It’s a story about the ability for those who fought to become partners in peace. Prime Minister Koizumi, and now Prime Minister Abe, are close friends of mine in the international arena. We talk about the spread of democracy in the troubled part of the world because we both have seen the effects of democracy in our own relationship.
   I’ve got great faith in the power of liberty to transform the world for the sake of peace. And the fundamental question facing our country is, will we keep that faith?