January 20, 2004
In Defense of the President
I’m not exactly a supporter of President Bush and the policies he has implemented. He invaded a country with shaky evidence and little regard to world and public opinion, he’s alienated the United States from the rest of the world, He’s given promises that he clearly and unapologetically broke in funding programs such as Aids research, he’s disregarded many environmental policies from the beginning of his term, His economic policy was practically non-existent until much late in the game, and he panders to the people in hopes to win votes. A lot of charachter flaw going on in a man who bragged about bringing dignity back to the whitehouse.
Having said that, I get really irate at a lot of people who start going into a tirade over President Bush. Many people are spewing out words about war and economy but they don't do any research. They join their friends and borrow their opinions. It has become very popular to oppose President Bush and if I had to guess, only half of the people who have a negative word against the man have really examined their opinion of him.
The war protests over the last year seemed unfocused and disorganized. More people showed up to be on Television than had a genuine heartfelt opinion of how the President was handling the war and cared to stop it.
I don't think George W. Bush has bad subversive motives for the United States. I don't believe he is trying to pull over a fast one on the country that I think he is proud to be the president of. In truth, I think the man does what he thinks is the right thing to do for his country. I just don't believe he’s been right in many of his policies to lead America on.
I would suggest it's a tough job to do and if you don't agree with his administration, then work on a viable means to vote him out. However, the character assassination has hit new lows in the last few years for all the political parties involved. Maybe it's time to take a look at the process and decide if it is built on disagreement more than agreement.
In the current form, great things will likely never be accomplished until a compromise is reached.
Posted by Beau Wade at January 20, 2004 08:38 PMi agree with you on many points, but i take issue with the statement that more people showed up to be on TV than to protest the war. i was and am an opponent of the Bush administration’s handling of the iraq war, and i know many people who went to protests to protest, not to be on tv. tv is an effective publicity tool for protestors, and, to the extent that it might help the cause, we actively pursued tv time, but the cause was stopping the war, not having fun with tv.
that said, i appreciate the comment that bush isnt trying to pull a fast one. Molly Ivins does a great job of analyzing this problematic undertanding of bush in a recent article in watchdog magazine MOTHER JONES.
Posted by: mdon860 at January 20, 2004 11:46 PMI love the change from “Saddam has weapons of mass destruction” to “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities”. I guess it depends on what the meaning of “has” is.
I sincerely wonder how many Bush sympathizers actually think in their heart of hearts that Bush had any intention of NOT invading Iraq from Day One. To think otherwise is analogous to those people who think that Bill Clinton actually beleived that a BJ doesn’t count as sex. Many liberals will defend Clinton’s argument, but in their heart of hearts they know he was lying just to cloud the issue and to avoid having a mea culpa on the record. How many Bush supporters think in the same self-deceiving way about Bush’s stated war intentions?
The Bush administration prides itself on its decisiveness, on its ability to stick with a policy no matter what the cost (and, IMHO, this is often a good thing, especially when compared to the caving that the Clinton White House was so often prone to). It only makes sense that the reason the invasion occurred is related to this “stick to your decisions” philosophy. I mean, we all now know that he actually started the war without any WMD evidence, international support, or even without a whole lot of domestic support. Compare the situation to that in 1991 just before the 1st Persian Gulf war and you’ll see what I mean - this President didn’t have anything like the backing his father had, yet he went forward anyway. We all know (now) that there was no imminent threat, no pressing need to invade Iraq today as opposed to two years from now or five years from now. He invaded Iraq because that was the plan. I can only attribute this to his dogged commitment to sticking to his plans, no matter how lame brained they are.
Is it so hard for Bush supporters to admit that the WMD issue was merely a false pretext for what the administration thought was a just war? I mean, the Bush administration is pretty much admitting it nowadays insofar as they no longer overtly insist that Saddam had WMDs.
I wonder how many Bush supporters think, in their heart of hearts: “Yeah, so he lied about the WMDs. No biggie, it was a political necessity. He had to lie about the WMDs in order to get enough support for the invasion. Sometimes lying to the American people is necessary to acheive important goals.”
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at January 21, 2004 03:01 PM
