posted
Having intently listened to President Bush's interview this morning with Tim Russert I remain confused about the President's convictions.
President Bush repeatedly stated he will run on his convictions and that the role the U.S. plays in the world is going to be a primary issue he will be asking voters to consider in this years election. My confusion on this primary issue is - are we stretching our traditional leanings for hegemony to the point that they cross that blurred line that separates hegemon from empire?
When the word 'empire' is used to describe U.S. foriegn activities, Americans react as if some of the most obsene language (or even exposed breasts) have hit the public airwaves unregulated. We do not want to rule the world through guns, billy sticks and empirical taxation, but through a consensus of the rightness that makes up the foundations for our attempt to govern freedom. The kinder, gentler term would be hegemony.
That said, two things left me in a quandry from this interview:
First - I am far from convinced that our recent foriegn actions keep us from being accurately compared to empires. IMHO, only in a very narrow definition of consensus is the action in Iraq seen as a world order action. It bothers me tremendously and, as a primary platform issue, it will get a lot of my attention as I determine my position for the upcoming election.
Second - I grow very weary of the 'Aw, Shucks' response to questions that point out inconsistencies, changes or possible distortions of the truth. If I was at a poker table with President Bush the 'Aw Shucks', 'Gee', 'Gosh Darnit', etc. good ole boy comments would be an immediate tip that the probability of a bluff was very strong.
Unfortunately, I believe the President is sincere. However, I fight being insulted by answers, quips and comments that can only be accepted as truth if I refused to acknowledge that the recent past happened. So far this concept of the 'current truth' is not my cup of tea. We'll see what happens as more campaign issues for each candidate get thorough exposure.
Have fun with this one - I'll probably lurk for a bit...
Posts: 46 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, you can't raise an excellent issue like this and then just lurk!!!
Okay, I was amused by Bush & Cheney's road show comments on TV yesterday. Basically, they both said (in effect, I paraphrase somewhat, but accurately) "We went after Saddam because at a minimum he COULD have built weapons of mass destruction." (emphasis mine)
In other words, the original justification for war might've been wrong, but it would've been right some time in the future, for sure.
I have several takes on this:
1) Our previous president was derided for wondering about the definition of "is" in relation to sexual misconduct. Result: humiliation and a tarnished reputation for him and an intern. Damaged relationship with his wife. America becomes the butt of a few jokes.
Our current president is on the verge of saying "well, it depends on the definition of 'imminent threat.' Result: death, tarnished reputation of America as a bully and empirilist. Mild amusement at our expense tranformed into fear that we are not rational.
Given my druthers, I'd rather have a philanderer than an emperor. I think America can handle being the butt of a few jokes, frankly. It's going to happen anyway. I'd rather they be about where our president puts his penis than where he puts our soldiers.
2) Cheney and Bush are unravelling over this issue. The plain truth is becoming more and more obvious -- that they DID decide to punish Iraq long before they found a plausible excuse that would justify their intended actions. They deliberately misread the intelligence reports because it was an opportunity their greedy little minds couldn't pass up. They silenced voices of dissent (including Colin Powell in the early stages of the decision-making). We know from other important endeavors -- like NASA's management prior to each of the shuttle disasters, that such a culture leads to filtering out all non-conforming information or views. And so we are committed before we have a chance to review the evidence. What's really needed is a management review, not a review of our intelligence gathering capabilities.
3) There are whole raft of nations who "could develop WMDs." If this is justification for a war against Iraq, it is justification for lots of other wars. Some of them not so implausible either. So...maybe the world's nervousness about us is warranted afterall. We may not be the benevolent spreaders of Democracy we like to think we are.
4) The final revelation is coming soon. You watch. Someone in the administration will slip up soon and reveal that the reason we KNOW Saddam had WMDs is that WE GAVE THEM TO HIM!!! And, that some of the same people who have first hand knowledge of the prior WMD program that we set up for Saddam are now top-level persons in the current administration.
Frankly, this could bring down the administration if they don't get out in front of it. That means they ARE going to try to get out in front of it. And that means mistakes and unintentional revelations are just around the corner.
Rember folks you heard it here first -- unless you heard it somewhere else before now.
Also, I would like to reiterate my prior prediction that George Bush will be charged with war crimes by a world body in the near future.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
