History Will Prove George W. Bush A Great President
by Bernie Reeves | View comments |
Print This Post
The Obama and Clinton presidential campaigns didn’t get the memo that the war is not the issue that will elevate them to the highest office in the land.
The guy looked at me mystified after I said George W. Bush will be judged one of the best presidents in US history. After all, his opinions are arranged by the mass media, particularly tilted during this national election year as they push with all their hearts for Obama’s ascension to the White House – a task that requires battering poor Bush and every move he makes. Hillary is out, the pundits say (which I doubt), but either way, the thinking goes McCain can’t win if the current regime is discredited.
But consider the facts of the matter. The War in Iraq is not at the top of the problems Americans are worried about. Despite a dozen or more efforts by Harry Reid in the US Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House – including pulling an all-nighter – the country’s elected national officials cannot pull the plug on the Bush war policy. The hapless anti-war coalition just can’t coalesce – mainly because the people deep down understand we have to do something to answer the challenges of the Islamic terrorists. Iraq is as good a place as any to draw a line in the sand, figuratively and literally.
The Obama and Clinton presidential campaigns didn’t get the memo that the war is not the issue that will elevate them to the highest office in the land. They also blather on about the poor economy and the recession that just won’t arrive, forgetting the valiant success Bush achieved to lead us out of the mortgage-backed securities scandal that rocked Wall Street and Main Street only a few weeks ago. Going to war once again, the Bush White House and the Federal Reserve saved the economy – and for most people their IRAs – by acting immediately and decisively.
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and the Bush team first pumped $30 billion into the credit markets to maintain liquidity as the crisis unfolded. Simultaneously, interest rates were knocked down, the first of three reductions in less than a month. It paid off handsomely that under previous Fed chairman Allan Greenspan – and continuing under his replacement Bernanke and the Bush White House – low interest rates helped keep the equity markets somewhat stable by preventing a rush to cash when stocks declined during the crisis.
But as Bush and Bernanke lifted their field glasses there was smoke still billowing over the markets, so another $200 billion was airlifted into the heat of the battle to keep confidence in the markets – and to keep up morale among the less than courageous soldiers who man our frontline economic weapons. Actually, coward is a more accurate term, the sort that will only stick it out if they think they can save their own portfolios.
The coup d’guerre was the operation to save the investment bank Bear Stearns, the one firm that wasn’t going to make it as their previous bad decisions overwhelmed their resources. The Bush/Bernanke team locked their officers up in a room over a weekend with the JP Morgan boys and told them no one was leaving until Morgan agreed to buy Bear – albeit with financing from the Federal Reserve. The trading floors would open Monday morning with this deal done, thus averting another excuse for traders to run down the market.
In the aftermath, unappreciated by the mass media, new plans were announced to engage the securities and credit regulatory entities into a unified body that will act this fast from now on, perhaps avoiding the cyclical financial collapses caused by greedy Wall Street hoods every ten years or so.
Bush has been blamed for just about anything bad that has happened in the world since he took office: 9-11; Hurricane Katrina; a shortage of flu vaccine; spending too much and not spending enough, problems at Veteran’s hospitals etc. ad nasuem and he has responded stoically and rationally each time. Under the microscope of history, cleansed of the smokescreen of media bias, the facts will be clear. He was one great president.
reevesmedia@ncrrbiz.com
http://www.metronc.com
Read more articles by Bernie Reeves
This 9 paragraph monograph contains 2 sentences about the thinking and choices of George Bush, the rest focuses on the deficiencies of everyone else. Those are: "Iraq is as good a place as any to draw a line in the sand, figuratively and literally" and "the Bush White House and the Federal Reserve saved the economy."
With regard to the first statement, 'its as good a place to start as any' was not the argument used to send troops to Iraq. As to the second, I thought only liberals talked like that.
Comment by felix | April 26, 2008
But consider the facts of the matter. The War in Iraq is not at the top of the problems Americans are worried about.
Can you cite data that supports this claim? A casual google search revealed several polls in which the Iraq war was the top concern of Americans.
…he has responded stoically and rationally each time
Staying on vacation in Crawford while an American city drowned was stoic? Pulling military resources out of Afghanistan before the job there was finished in order to pursue a vendetta against Saddam Hussein, who posed no threat to us, was rational? Perhaps you should reread the definitions of these words.
Comment by Dr Kilovolt | April 26, 2008
Okay, I’m convinced. The President’s critics have made their case. The man is a complete and utter fool — and a dangerous one at that.
His shortcomings are almost too many to cite, but we can list the most egregious ones.
● It’s become all too clear that the President has used the war to proscribe civil liberties. The war is just an excuse to silence his critics and deny people their personal freedom. The man is nothing less than a tyrant hell bent on stripping us of all our Constitutional rights in the name of “protecting” the country.
● As far as the prosecution of the war is concerned, he doesn’t have a clue what he’s doing. His policies are chaotic and confused at best, grossly incompetent at worst. We’re losing to a ragtag band of misfits who are cleaning our clock at every turn. There’s only one way this war is going to end, and that’s badly.
● What’s more, the people he’s placed in charge of the war effort are no better. They won’t listen to reason, lack vision, and haven’t the slightest idea what they’re doing. In occupied areas the local population despises them, and the only times they show any military success is when they use overwhelming power to brutalize and destroy. Yes our army is vastly superior to theirs, and in this sense we can clearly “win,” but again what price victory?
● And finally, let’s not forget about his reasons for going to war in the first place. He lied. There’s just no other way to describe it. Just when did “freeing the slaves” become part of our reason for attacking Georgia, or Mississippi, or Alabama for God’s sake? Besides, these people had nothing to do with the assault on Fort Sumter (a one-time episode to be managed; certainly not a reason for going to war!), and never fired a shot at us until we shot at them. We should redeploy our troops now.
I’m speaking of course about Lincoln and the Civil War …
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | April 27, 2008
Nice parry, Phillip. It's just that Iraq was never part of the United States that seceded. It was a sovereign nation on the other side of the planet. Sorry, George Bush is no Abraham Lincoln. Our forefathers, except perhaps Teddy Roosevelt, would be appalled at the state of affairs into which he has led us.
Comment by Dr Kilovolt | April 27, 2008
History always looks a bit different with the passage of time, when silly or purely political statements like "Staying on vacation in Crawford while an American city drowned was stoic, pulling military resources out of Afghanistan before the job there was finished in order to pursue a vendetta against Saddam Hussein, erc." can be seen for what they are.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | April 27, 2008
History always looks a bit different with the passage of time, when silly or purely political statements like "…major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." can be seen for what they are.
Comment by Dr Kilovolt | April 27, 2008
"Silly or purely political statements?" Phil, I was going to say vapid or idiotic. Dr Kilovolt obviously is quoting verbatim from the "Leftist Handbook of Pat Phrases."
Don't these people have an original thought?
Comment by Mountain Man | April 28, 2008
The sad lack of understanding of the American federalist system which assigns different roles and responsibilities to Federal, State and local authorities, coupled with reducing American Middle East policy (in which military action against Iraq was authorized by Congress) to a personal “vendetta”, makes it difficult to take any further “analysis’ from this source seriously. We don’t even have to look to further examples of what “major combat operations” means in military terms, vs. the meaning it is assigned by people who simply want to play with words to bolster a pre-conceived political point they are trying to make. Again, it’s the difference between offering a thoughtful criticism or critique of an action, and just acting in a partisan or political manner.
The parallel between Bush and Lincoln is appropriate, not because Bush faces the same challenges as Lincoln, but because he was vilified by his political enemies with hyperbolic, baseless, manufactured, over-the-top charges that history has shown them to be exactly what they are.
Ronald Reagan was judged by “contemporary history” (meaning the mainstream media and partisan opponents) to be a complete dunce and total failure. Carter, by contrast, was a brilliant nuclear engineer who restored the country’s greatness after Nixon-Ford. It’s only taken a couple of decades of reflection to put the lie to these claims, just as Bush history will treat Bush more kindly than the partisans who denounce him today.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | April 28, 2008
History does perhaps change perception, however in the era of presidential opinion polls which began with FDR, only Jimmy Carter spent as much time in the negatives as GWB and I rate the chance of the latters vindication as equal to the former.
GWB named three countries as the axis of evil and invaded the one that he claimed to have WMD. Much argument has been made about who was right or wrong about Iraq, and little mention is made that it was the other two countries that did have the WMD programs, and while American troops are pinned down in Iraq, Iran may very well join North Korea as nuclear powers.
This while yet another South American country, Paraguay, joins the ranks of Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, in the Castro camp. Meanwhile, Somalia is becoming a failed state and the Islamists seem likely to prevail.
This president leaves a terrible foreign policy legacy in which American credibility and respect in the World is at its nadir and our enemies are advancing.
John McCain had it absolutely right in his recent complaints about US foreign policy recently, in that our "go it alone" policy and disdain for basic good diplomacy have lost us friends and support. That was what Huckabee spoke of in his "bunker mentality" article.
And it has nothing to do with giving in or being weak, and everything to do with prudent diplomacy in the spirit of Ben Franklin or George Shultz. If you enjoy waving red flags at bulls, be prepared to be gored.
Whether Bush invaded Iraq as a personal vendetta is conjectural, but I feel it is consistent with his lack of diplomacy skills and favoring of personal hatreds over prudence. He hated Hussein and I think he wanted to even scores with the man that thumbed his nose at his father.
And the irony is that George Bush Sr. had accomplished everything that Jr. spoke of, he had neutralized Iraq as a significant threat. Junior went in and knocked them off the map and has secured Iran's predominance in the region.
Bush senior had a coallition in Kuwait that included Arab states, even Syria, and broad support from the world. If you look up attitudes towards our country in traditional powerful allies like Turkey and nuclear armed Pakistan, favorability has dipped below 15%.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/524/global-unease-with-major-world-powers-and-leaders
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/30489/us_image_worsens_in_the_arab_world
The Bolton viewpoint, that gained the ascendency in this administration, has lost us friends and hardened our enemies. It has squandered American lives and left us with a defecit and tax burden that will last for generations.
Thank God John McCain and hopefully the rest of the Republican party will come to their senses.
Comment by yonkel | April 29, 2008
"Thank G-d John McCain and hopefully the rest of the Republican party will come to their senses."
What is that hope based on? Hope doesn't effect change all by itself. The Republican party as a whole shows little understanding for why McCain is the presumptive nominee, expends much valuable energy in vituperation on one subject or another, and focuses on abstractions that are at considerable distance from the consequences of day to day actions.
Comment by felix | April 29, 2008
Felix:
McCain won, nuh?, even among Republicans in states with closed primaries like Florida. Thompson was a clear representative of the old guard, and went nowhere. Both Huckabee and McCain were the most centrist - the only two candidates to disapprove of torture, the only two candidates to abandon the ideological warfare and speak a message of unity. Romney tried to reinvent himself and was not believed.
The nature of the American political system is that both parties track the middle to get there 51% and policies change in time. It is a good system. Exceptions like FDR and Reagan happen, but generally if you don't move with popular sentiment you lose elections and you go the way of the Whigs and No Nothings.
That has happened in the last four years to the Republican party who are now 5-10% down in generic polls compared with the Dems. It will continue if Republicans don't acknowledge that environmental concerns are real, that people want health care access to all citizens, and they don't want the shrill voices of the Limbaughs and Coulters who portray anybody that disagrees with them as the devil incarnate, much as Abbe Hoffman was the shrill voice of the Left in the sixties.
The Republicans can elect to be the party of fiscal responsibility, lower expenditures, non interventionist foreign policy, balanced budget,- traditional conservative viewpoints- that lost out to lower taxes and regime changing geopolitics, and can elect a once conservative view of caution and prudence regarding our environment that goes back to TR or they can expect a long sojourn as the minority party.
However, the nature of our great country's politic is that our politicians do move with the times and Reagan is not the face of the future for the GOP, but McCain and Shwarznegger are.
Comment by yonkel | April 29, 2008
Yes, yes, the Republicans are just too conservative, aren't they? They need to be more like the Democrats to win, you see. People want health care, yessir, and you and I have to pay for it. That's the Republican future, more government control.
Limbaugh and Coulter are shrill, but Pelosi and Franken and Jeremiah Wright are reasoned voices. In fact, anyone who disagrees with yonkel is an extremist who "we" don't want.
In fact, if we could just shut down conservatism altogether, the world would be a better place. Anyone who deviates from leftist orthodoxy should be sent to re-education camps.
Conservatives better get with the times, because the oppressive era of Reagan has passed, thankfully.
Comment by Mountain Man | April 29, 2008
“.. in the era of presidential opinion polls which began with FDR, only Jimmy Carter spent as much time in the negatives as GWB and I rate the chance of the latters vindication as equal to the former.”
*** Truman left office with a 23% approval rating I believe, compared to Bush’s low of about 29%. A lot of Truman’s unpopularity was due to the Korean war. And yet, history has treated Truman infinitely better than his contemporaries did. Truman was considered to be a respected elder statesman by the 1960s (a mere decade after he left office). By contrast, Carter is still an embarrassment to the Democrats and the country thirty years after leaving office. Wishes are not analysis.
“GWB named three countries as the axis of evil and invaded the one that he claimed to have WMD.”
*** Korea, verified as a non-nuclear power by Jimmy Carter in the 1990s, was in fact developing nuclear weapons and actually exploded one! Iran, the second tier of the axis of evil, is attempting to do so presently. Iraq in 2003 was judged by the French, Germans, Russians, etc. to be pursuing nuclear weapons (as they had in the 1980s when Israel bombed their reactor), in addition to not accounting for the destruction of bio weapons as the Kuwait War armistice they signed required them to do. The “invasion” of Iraq was actually justified by Bush (with a Congressional vote of support) as an attempt to enforce the UN resolutions on WMD. Germany, France, Russia, etc. did not dispute the nearly universal belief that Iraq had bio weapons; they simply opposed direct action in favor of a 15th resolution condemning Iraq.
Dispute the Bush Administration’s justification for invading Iraq as diminishing US sovereignty by enforcing UN resolutions as the paleos do (a wrongheaded argument I contend, but at least a principled one), but don’t raise straw men arguments about the after-the-fact discovery or absence of WMD in Iraq. [By the way, the US published about 6 months ago translated records captured during the invasion that showed Iraq had broken its bio program into parts that, uncombined were not lethal, but when combined in as little as 14 days could produce massive amounts of bio-agents. I guess it’s irrelevant that a country agreeing to stop one war (Kuwait) in exchange for eliminating its WMD programs — and allowing that elimination to be verified — simply chose to keep its chemical agents in different bins instead of destroying them. As long as they weren’t mixed together, they didn’t exist.]
The axis of evil did exist. Iraq did not live up to the terms of its agreement to end the first Gulf War. So what can we conclude? Bush acted irrationally and pursued a private vendetta against Saddam.
“This president leaves a terrible foreign policy legacy in which American credibility and respect in the World is at its nadir and our enemies are advancing.”
*** France has elected a pro-US president. Germany has elected a pro-US president. Hardly signs that Bush’s policies are so universally disliked.
The countries that dislike us are Communist China, Cuba, Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, Putin’s neo-communist Russia, Iran, Syria, etc. It’s time we stopped worrying about what the “world” thinks of us and start asking why we want to be liked./loved/respected by Iran, Cuba, Chavez, The Chinese, etc.
As for our “enemies advancing”, this is more empty rhetoric. There hasn’t been another attack on the US mainland since 2001. Al Queda in Iraq is collapsing thanks to our “foreign policy”.
If US interests are indeed still threatened by hostile foreign powers, then I think we need to look to the proper source. It isn’t Bush, whom the civilized world has joined in resisting Islamic fascism. It’s a Democrat party and their liberal apologist allies that declare the surge a “defeat” before it is even begun, or the fight against Islamic fascism a “situation to be managed”.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | April 29, 2008
Phil, you left out the recent election in Italy that left a pro-American in charge, and no communists in parliment for the first time in decades.
Comment by Mountain Man | April 29, 2008
MM — Good catch! I forgot about that one. There have been so many such examples …
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | April 29, 2008
Yonkel:
"McCain won, nuh?" He sure did. But that is exactly what I am mystified about. You can explain it terms of political philosophy, but in practical terms, I have never met a McCain supporter. My predictions for this race, were based on what I hear on the news, read in the paper and all over the internet,(including what you read on this site, which strikes me as fairly representative of Republican thinking.) My predictions, which turned out to be off base every time, evolved like this (as time went on and reality proved me wrong):
Giuliani vs a Democrat other than Clinton
Romney vs a Democrat other than Clinton
McCain vs a Democrat other than Clinton
McCain vs Clinton
McCain vs Obama
I never imagined a year ago that my prediction as of May 2008 would be McCain vs Obama. I do understand how Obama got there because I listen to what people say. I do not understand how McCain got where he is, because I listen to what people are saying.
We'll see how it goes. Given my track record the last prediction will be wrong too.
Comment by felix | April 29, 2008
PJ;
Your points re popularity vis a vis Truman are well taken, and I see your source, but you might want to look at the raw data:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/popularity.php
Truman actually hit a Nadir of 22% as did Nixon at 22% and Carter at 28% Bush is at his lowest at 28% this month so still has 7 months to catch them. Also, unless he rises like a Phoenix, and stays below 50 until January he will win the prize for the most time in negative ratings, since 4/05 giving him a full 3 years 8 months in the doghouse which bests Harry.
Anyway, I'll give you the fact that history resurrected Harry although he did give the GOP the presidency for eight years.
As to my "empty rhetoric" What is empty about Paraguay, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela shifting to the Castro camp. Last seen, they were in our hemisphere, and not equatable to the perrenial back and forth shifts from center right to center left in Europe.
The Europeans responded to the dumb economics of their Left wings and bloated unions with little positive sentiment towards the US, check the data. In my prior cited post the countries of Canda, Britian, Germany, France, and Spain give Putin higher marks for leadership than Bush- Putin's being bad and Bush's miserable. Also, a curious study of world opinion of leaders that put the odd couple of Bill Gates and Nelson Mandela at the top for respect, had GWB and Ahmadinijad tangoing on bottom- I'll find you that if you are interested.
The point isnt that the world will end if the Venezuelans don't like us, and they actually do, its the Argentines that can't stand us, but that the key geopolitical entities like Indonesia, Pakistan, and Turkey, don't and that acroos the broad spectrum of countries our ratings have plummetted. We have moved from the hope of the world to the foe of the world.
Africa is an exception, and I'll give GWB that for an enlightened effort against Malaria and HIV, but geopolitically those countries need us more than we need them.
Mountain Man, I don't persist in the your mama is ugly argument. Jeremiah Wright is a jerk as is Michael Moore and I haven't seen Pelosi be particularly nasty, though I might disagree with her politic. I brook no favoritism between nitwits on the extreme and there is enough stupidity around that neither side will corner the market. The ideological wars are tiring, and the people are tired of them. I have friends who are conservative and liberal and I afford them all respect and demand civility. I found that respect in WJB Jr. but if the right wants to hang with Hannity and Limbaugh they will suffer the silent majority of decent peoples verdicts as the left did with the antics of Abbe Hoffman and Co.
We are all Americans and love our country and that is the message Of Mr. McCain and why he stands a better chance of winning then any GOP candidate could. Unless Colin Powell ran.
Comment by yonkel | April 29, 2008
Felix:
The fact that you never met a McCain supporter, speaks to the people who you hang out with. If you never met anybody with a toothache that would not mean that it doesn't exist.
Anyway, now you met a McCainiac.
10-4 on your predictions. I blogged on Election Projection for a year and a half until Scott Elliot shut it down because the liberals hijacked it and Scott is very conservative. I will toot my horn that I was the only one who argued that McCain still breathed. The man has always had higher approvals than disapprovals and the data always showed that people disliked Romney. Giuliani got the dumb bunny award for political strategy.
If he loses it will be because of the war. McCain vs either HRC or BA is now a dead heat:
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history
so it is too close to call.
BTW Scott on http://www.electionprojection.com who does a fantastic job is about finished with his entire predictions and I think he has the Dems taking the presidency by picking off IA, CO, and NM even though he has the GOP hold OH. That is just a point in time so don't bet the farm.
Obama could go South very easy and how he holds against a barrage of negatives will show. I personally think HRC at this point might be the stronger Dem candidate. BO is very liberal and it would have been easy for the Dems if they had nominated a centrist as the country is running 5-10% Dem, but the independents love and respect John McCain as much as the right hates him, and there are more votes in the middle.
It's a great election year. Better than the NCAAs
The Dems should pick up three to four Senate seats and a few congressionals.
Comment by yonkel | April 29, 2008
From 18: "The fact that you never met a McCain supporter, speaks to the people you hang out with." Honnestly Yonkel, that point is a given and doesn't require stating. I will clarify, that I am voting for McCain, and have intended to do so for awhile. Yes this election year is better than the NCAA's. Democrats have a long history of backstabbing and contentious brawling. Republicans have a reputation for being a little more polite and well spoken. But man, when Republicans cannibalize their own, they put the knife and fork on the correct side of the plate, tuck a linen napkin in around the neck, and don't leave until there is no blood left on the plate
Comment by felix | April 30, 2008
Yonkel:
I’ve never been a big fan of popularity polls as a reflection of the intrinsic value of a presidential administration. I’ve seen first hand how these polls are created (a close friend of mine was at NORC at the U. of Chicago when I was a grad student there). I also worked with Bob Beckel and Jody Powell at Cassidy and Associates in Washington, who created/used polls to help bolster a client’s opinion that, in turn, would help affect legislation. Unless a question is entirely open ended (“tell me what you think about issues today”), where a person can both identify the issues and give a response, I’m suspicious of the results. This is not to say that polling can’t be accurate. It can be when a single “yes/no” matter (like, a vote) is at stake. But even here we see widely divergent results between different polls for the same election, or between exit polls and actual results. So even these results are subject to erroneous assumptions and manipulations.
In short, the more the poll reflects an opinion vs. an action like voting, the less likely it is to be a meaningful indicator of the true state of affairs. Polls reflect popular sentiment, and popular sentiment reflects a lot of factors that have nothing to do with measuring the “rightness or wrongness” of an action, presidential leadership in the face of a fundamental threat to the United States, etc. No one wants to fight a war, and if the war goes on for a while, people like it even less. This opinion has nothing to do with whether the war should have been fought in the first place (i.e. its national security implications). It has to do with a variety of factors: the length of the war, perceptions of victory, number of casualties, sacrifices expected of the home front, ability of the administration to articulate a reason for going to/sustaining the war, demagoguery by opponents of the war, etc. It’s for this reason we created a representative republic, not a true democracy, to allow unpopular actions that are necessary to the national interest. These unpopular actions may lead to political consequences like a defeat in the following election. But all this measures is a moment in political history. It has absolutely nothing to say about the intrinsic correctness of the action (i.e. war) itself.
As for your comments about Latin America, I guess my response is … what’s the point here? Chavez is taking Venezuela left. What, exactly, did the US “do” to make this happen? Will a Hillary Clinton administration cause him to abandon Castro because a George Bush administration “caused” him to cozy up to Castro? I think this is a silly line of analysis, and reflects a lack of understanding of the political dynamics of Latin American and US politics. Columbia is being driven into the Leftist camp because Congress will not approve a free trade agreement as a payoff to U.S. organized labor’s interests. If the present government in Columbia falls (which is a possibility), the “lesson” they will learn is that it is foolish to attempt to ally with the US. Going Left is then a reasonable option to them — not because of Bush, but because of Pelosi. I lived in Ecuador — one of the countries you mentioned — when I was younger. There were riots in Guayaquil in 1969 three blocks from my house supporting Castro and his dead buddy Che Guevara. Radicalism in Latin America is nothing new (remember the election of pro-communist Salvadore Allende in Argentina?). To insinuate somehow that what Bush as done in office has somehow ‘resulted’ in certain countries now flirting with Castro is to ignore the political dynamics of that region.
Where you and I seem to differ is your emphasis on the world liking the US without asking the related question, why should we want Iran, Syria, Cuba, Chavez, China, Turkey, etc to like and/or approve of us? We deal with China because we have to. We don’t like or support their political system. We don’t deal with Castro because we don’t have to. We deal with England because we both like and support their political system, regardless of whether Conservatives or Liberals are in power. The point is, it is not a requirement that we be liked to deal with other countries, or have them deal with us. (Chavez still sells us oil. He could sell it all to Europe or Japan. Turkey still trades with us, and even give us some support in our war against terror). It may even be an advantage that we are disliked, and feared. (Lybia unilaterally decided to surrender its nuclear program, which it had hidden from the world, following our invasion of Iraq).
These matters are judged on an individual basis, taking into account why the country’s leaders feel the way they do toward us, not as a blanket general principle that it’s ‘better to be liked, and bad to be disliked’.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | April 30, 2008
Phillip:
I would agree that polls can be deceiving and popularity is not necessarily equatable to quality, though I grant the American public some intelligence in their discernment. I also don't think GWB will get the Truman make over. We can check that out twenty years hence. Look me up in the nursing home.
The Gallup US presidential approvals were excellent polls, in using a very simple question- do you approve or disapprove of President So and So, repeatedly over the last 60 years. The Pew polls I cited on world opinion are not without bias, but the trends are real, and they are downhill, except in Africa, as I mentioned.
The reason why it is important what the people in these countries think is that many of them elect governments. If you take a country like Pakistan with nuclear weapons, a huge army, a relatively big population and GDP, the potential for either help to us or mischief towards us is enormous. They do border Afghanistan.
The fact that only 15% of the Turkish population, a historic low, approves of the US, in a country that fought along side of us in numerous wars and helped us in Gulf 1 and has the potential for enormous mischief in Iraq. That is why Turkey refused access to their bases. That is why Pakistan is disinclined to go after the Taliban.
The Bolton doctrine of "who needs them" goes against a longstanding tradition of prudent diplomacy.
Left wing movements in Latin America are legend but the phenomonon of support for the Castroites and ascendency to publicly elected office is a relatively new and accelerating phenomonon of the last 10 years.
Although there are local reasons for changes, it is the dislike of the US government that can only benefit the Anti-American forces throughout the world.
Bush is not responsible for all the events in Latin America, but he has largely ignored that part of the world for most of his administration and the widespread disapproval of the American government is what drives the policy in these elected governments.
In the Mideast, if you take all those people that disapprove of us, only a small minority will approve of terrorism, and even smaller who will carry it out. But if this is only 0.01% of the population then the difference between 90% vs 10% disliking us in a country like Pakistan with 150 million people might, if my math is correct, be the difference between 1350 terrorists and 150 terrorists.
Bush himself understood this when he sent his former Secretary of Something or Other from TX out to do a mission to determine world view of the US. I remember when she went, but heard nothing about her findings, and I suspect because they were hardly flattering.
I think both Huckabee and McCain realized this. Did you read the Huckabee article that most people only picked up the "bunker mentality" quote on. I was impressed by the Huckster. Similar, McCains recent speach on foreign policy. The man is not a wimp, but he understands that the world is more than the United States of America and it can only benefit us to have friends.
We should care what the world thinks of us because making enemies throughout the world spills American blood and aids our enemies.
Comment by yonkel | April 30, 2008
I will agree with Mr. Reeves to the extent Bush has been a good President and a good man who does not deserve the vilification he's received from the left and, sometimes, the right.
As for saying Iraq is as good as a place to start as any, that is, in fact, an accurate assessment of the war on terror. Radical-Islamic terrorism is not the product of a single country; it is the product of the wider Muslim community. Most Muslim countries have participated either directly and/or indirectly in the spread of terror as a means of attacking the West. So where should we have started in preference to Iraq? Tactical and strategic considerations dictate attacking any one of those countries as more or less complicit is insufficient, and terrorism will not end until it is sufficiently suppressed in all of them simultaneously. Yet, for logistic and political reasons, this is impractical. That leaves attacking them where they will, at least, be forced onto the defensive and out into the open; and drawing terrorists away from the U.S. Iraq was a good starting place to do this because a) our intelligence believed Saddam was pursuing WMDs, b) we had unfinished business there that needed cleaning up before turning our attention elsewhere, c) it represents a base of operations at a critical (logistical) juncture, and d) sends a message to the Saudis and others we are poised where we can take effective action against the very 'source' of Wahabism should that prove necessary. Iran would have cost far more (in both dollars and lives) as a base and Syria is already within striking distance of Israel and our fleet. Although Pakistan, Libya, Indonesia, Philippines, Lebanon and Sudan are/were also likely candidates from a suppression standpoint, they had and have far less strategic and political value. We must get serious about waging this war, recognize this is a transnational enemy, and stop worrying whether attacking this Muslim nation or that one makes more sense or is the more legitimate. They are all of them guilty of either trafficking in terror or abetting it, and are in it up to their collective necks. Imagine we’d fumed and protested this way during WWII, insisting it made no sense attacking first in North Africa instead of hitting the enemy head on in Northern France or Germany. How many more Americans would have died had we directly attacked the Japanese homelands before rolling up their island bases. Africa and the Pacific islands were, in fact, a ‘good place’ for to start in much the same sense. The enemy and ground simply dictate strategy more than we do.
In other areas, including the economy, I give Bush less credit than does Reeves. While Bush has, indeed, done a good job plugging holes in our economic dike, as free-market faithful, we must question whether this does not simply distort and delay an outcome that will make itself felt ultimately. Bush’s heart may be in the right place, but it is not a policy we will likely praise him for later. More likely he is constrained to take this action despite knowing it will detract from his legacy for the simple reason this is an election year, and he is calculating that not doing this will assure a Democrat in the Whitehouse and more seats in Congress.
Bush loses points on his educational and health initiatives; which are nearly as socialistic as things the left advocates. Otherwise and in comparison to others who have held the office, he has done tolerably well. The war and his gutsy response to 9/11 made his legacy; without which we’d probably be less endeared with him. Financially, his legacy is a mixed bag. He took strong yet moderate stances on a number of contentious issues including: stem-cells, oil-drilling, marriage, vouchers, Social Security, and community based initiatives. His response to Katrina was a bit laggard, as he himself admits. Yet, it is no more laggard nor worse than the Presidential responses of FDR, Johnson, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Clinton and his father to similar disasters; and a good deal better than Carter’s handling of Iran, Soviets, Chi-Coms, and Three-Mile Island (the Carter created FEMA actually hampers Presidential latitude somewhat).
Carter was little faster responding to TMI than Bush responding to Katrina. However, nuclear accidents come directly under Presidential mandate, whereas federal response to natural disasters requires a state request for help; which was initially declined. When Carter did respond, he and federal agents made things worse by creating an inflated perception of the seriousness of TMI. We are still feeling the consequence of those mistakes in the form of increased energy dependence. The left, of course, lionizes Carter for having taken ‘decisive’ action at TMI, never acknowledging some of his actions were inappropriate and reluctant. It took Governor Thornburgh two days to decide to evacuate. Yet, Carter is never criticized for not overriding Thornburgh the way Bush is criticized for not overriding Blanco. As it turned out, there was no real need to evacuate, but neither knew it at the time. Carter did help to calm the panic, but went on to reinforce the idea of TMI as a monumental disaster when it was no worse than needing more safeguards. As an ex-Navy nuclear engineering officer, he should have said so, putting TMI in proper perspective. Many of us thought, as an ex-nuke, Carter would fight to save nuclear power from its enemies. Instead, he allowed the media and left to dominate his policy response to TMI, effectively scuttling nuclear for generations.
If life were fair, Katrina would not be held to Bush’s account. If life were fair, Carter would stay out of sight. Yet, life is not always fair and we know Katrina, Iraq, bumps in the economy, and every Bush initiative will be held in contempt by the left for years to come. Legacies are more about what people remember than what we do. Because the MSM still controls most of what people see and remember, and because the left’s hatred of all things conservative is visceral, the Bush legacy is far from assured.
Comment by Bob Stapler | April 30, 2008
Yonkel,
Radical-Muslims hate you and want you dead no matter how you act. You are expecting them to reason the way you do because you have been brought up to respect the values of others and to think all people basically the same. We are to start out with, but there is nothing saying we stay the same. They don't think as you do because they have been immersed in hatred (of infidels and the West) from birth. They have had it hammered into them all infidels are the enemies of Allah, that we persecute Muslims and hate Allah, that Jews are to be especially despised, that Allah wants us either converted, submissive or dead (no other options), and they must not end their jihad against us until we surrender to Islam.
On 9/11, even before the second plane struck, Muslims around the world took to the streets shouting, cheering, and firing guns into the air. Don't you remember that being shown on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS. I do. Since then, Al Jazeera, and the rest of the Muslim press, has floated endless hate stories against the West and conspiracy tales theorizing Bush caused 9/11. Some of these myths did not originate among Muslims, but they get far more traction among Muslims than they get even among home-grown whackos.
Your statistics are completely backwards (and I suspect plucked by someone else out of thin air). Whoever fed you those numbers is either a liar or a hook-line-and-sinker MSM consumer. Only this month a Zogby poll came out showing 85% of all Muslims support al Qaeda's objectives. This poll is not a fluke because other polls taken regularly over the last 6-years reflect much the same result. Much of the remaining 15% only differ to the extent they feel the time is not ripe for direct confrontation and prefer a more subtle conquest. They don't even pretend this is not how they think, they are proud of it!
There are 'moderate' and 'liberal' Muslims, to be sure, but it is they that are the exception. Even here, in the U.S., 'moderate' Muslims fail to come out against terrorism, preferring, instead, to complain of imagined hate crimes and potential victimization that has, so far, not materialized. The question must be asked 'why?', as they'd have as much to loose having escaped Islam's clutches once. None of this has anything to do with us or our policies in the middle-east. It is all about Islam and Islam's only path to survival - world domination.
Comment by Bob Stapler | April 30, 2008
Yonkel:
You still haven’t told me why we need Castro, Syria, Iran, et.al. to like us, hold us in high esteem, think good thoughts about us, etc. You still argue from the general position that it’s bad to have people think badly of you, and good to have people think good of you, without addressing WHO it is thinking these thoughts.
I’m quite happy individually, or as country, to have bad/evil/vile/venal people dislike me, or my country. If Britain, France, Germany, Italy, etc. also felt this way, then I’d be more inclined to consider the criticism because I’ve considered the source. But in point of fact, the anti-US governments of France, Germany and Italy have all been replaced with pro-US governments, all during Bush’s tenure in office. This doesn’t mean they support everything Bush has done. But it is significant — and puts a lie to the ‘everyone hates us because of Bush’s actions’ mantra — that the governments that expressly opposed US Middle East policy have all been voted out of office. Part of this reason may be found in the fact that the people of France figured out that French opposition to Bush wasn’t principled, but like Russia and China was the result of sweetheart deals with Saddam they wanted to protect (or at least not have publicly exposed when Saddam’s regime fell). The German government had its own hidden agenda too, which ultimately was exposed for what it was. Context matters; not just whether someone “likes” us or not.
As for relying on polls (Gallup or otherwise) to measure the worthiness of a policy, I again reiterate that popularity contests tell us nothing about whether the policy action was needed/wise/in our best interests, etc. I hated math as a kid. That doesn’t mean math is a bad thing to study. The passage of time has a way of sorting through the demagoguery, BS, and at times outright stupidity of popular opinion tgo contradict or affirm it, which is why Lincoln is seen as a great president despite being vilified by his contemporaries; why Truman is treated better than he was by the public of the time (which hated the Korean war), why Reagan is seen as near-great despite press accounts of his stupidity, why Carter is still seen as a clown 30 years later, and Bill Clinton will go down in history as a bottom tier president. This simply isn’t an arguable concept.
As for Turkey and Pakistan not liking us, Libya didn’t like us either — and yet they voluntarily surrendered their WMD following the invasion of Iraq. Why? Because although they disliked us, they also feared us, and respected our military and economic capabilities. Again, I’d much rather have the bad people of the world fear my president than love and respect him. Unlike the world’s love for Bill Clinton which resulted in the first WTC bombing, Somalia/Blackhawk Down, the Cole attack, the bombing of our embassies, etc., the world’s supposed “hatred” for Bush has kept our soil terrorist free since the 9/11/2001. This is because Bush couldn’t give a Flying F*** whether Turkey, Pakistan, Cuba, Ecuador, or any other country approves of our fight against Islamo fascism. He’s not going to let the bad guys do to us what they repeatedly did during Clinton’s 8 years, and which culminated in the 9/11 attack on the US.
[I guess we can fault Bush for not understanding the true significance of the power point presentation he was given as the Clinton Administration was denying his transition team space in the White House to prepare for his tenure in office, and thus not recognizing that Clinton knew UBL would attack the US on 9/11. But just compare what Clinton did to keep the US and its embassies from attack after the 1993 WTC bombing, and Bush’s record after 2001. You may not like the policy, but dead people can’t attack our soil; and terrorists fighting our troops in Iraq are not in a position to kill more American civilians. I suppose Bush could have asked UBL why he hated us and tried to dissuade him from a further attck, but I prefer the old fashion way of dealing with thugs and criminals]
We are the leader of the world, especially in the fight against Islamo fascism — which is a generational conflict. It’s incumbent on the leader to lead, as Bush has done, not ask everyone else if they like us. We have genuine consultation with our allies, and open disregard for the thugs who want to do us harm. We didn’t worry if bombing Tokyo would make the people of that city dislike us, and recruit a few more Kamikazes for Tojo. Instead, we recognized that we were in a war (one that began, coincidentally, with an attack on the United States), and we killed the people who fought us. Then, after securing victory, we governed the occupied lands with compassion, until those countries could join the civilized world.
Yonkel — I appreciate the professional way you’ve conducted this debate with me. My hyperbole is not directed toward you personally, but to the philosophical underpinnings of the points you are making, which I contend does not reflect an appreciation for the way the world really works.
I've got to leave this argument now. My wife is scheduled for another biopsy tomorrow, and my ability to reply will be limited. As a cancer surviver, every one of these episodes causes great stress, as you can imagine. Hopefully it's just another false alarm.
Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | April 30, 2008
Phil:
I never said that we need Castro, Syria and Iran to hold us in high esteem, don't understand where you get that. Castro's opinion? The man is half dead anyway. That five Latin American Countries are now in the Castro camp is a different matter. We used to go to war to prevent that.
It wouldn't hurt to have some help from Syria as we did in Gulf 1, but I spoke to our perception throughtought the world, and specifically elucidated how Turkey and Pakistan would make better friends than enemies.
The polls that I cited spoke to public opinion in the whole world and read the stats on Europe or show me something different.
Just because there has been a recent healthy trend away from overplanned and regulated economies in Europe does not mean that US policy and GWB in particular are liked in Europe.
I don't see Merkel or Sarkozy offering to send us any troops in Iraq and they wont. Berlosconi maybe. Yes, they are nominally more pro-American, but the one study I cited had GWB's popularity on par with Putin throughout Europe. Find me a study indicating his popularity, please.
And Spain went left as did Australia, one of our strongest traditional allies. And similar to Australia, Canada is not supportive of our foreign adventures. These were people who stood shoulder to shoulder with us in many wars.
I did very specifically speak about Turkey and Pakistan, two countries with over 200M people, nuclear arms in Pakistan's case and Bin Ladn in house.
It is a very simple point and McCain did grasp it.
We can spend our blood and resources fighting against the terrorists with little support from the people and countries of the world, or with some tact, diplomacy, and humility we can regain the trust and help of a greater share of the world.
Comment by yonkel | April 30, 2008
Phil:
And another point. I am not and have not been talking about governments, but people. What Basheer or Khadafy or Castro is irrelevant and I never implied that, brcause they are dictators, and their people have little power or influence. Also, I wouldn't trust Khadafy's word any more than the Iranians. Turkey and Pakistan are at least semi democracies and what the people think might have major impact and is now in the Northwest provinces.
And, I am sure that GWB does care which way Pakistan goes
Comment by yonkel | April 30, 2008
Phil:
Good luck with your wife, after all my ranting and raving, I just caught your last paragraph and don't want to leave on an unthoughtful note, I enjoyed the conversation.
Comment by yonkel | April 30, 2008
Phil:
From post 20. Allende was elected president of Chile.
Comment by Paul_Bovis | May 1, 2008
Paul:
With only a third of the vote, though. A very inflamatory situation. Think Abraham Lincoln and Van Hinderberg. Thats why I like our current system which favors the 51% and moves the parties to the middle.
Comment by yonkel | May 1, 2008
Paul: Yeah, my mistake. Same continent, fortunately.
Yonkel: Re: your point 26. If your point is that we should be concerned about what the average citizen in a foreign country thinks about us, rather than what their governments think, then I guess, to be blunt, we should care even less. To tailor our foreign policy to the people on the street of a foreign country makes even less sense to me than making US foreign policy to please their governments. Given the state of ignorance of the American people on complex affairs, there's even less reason to build our policies around what the average guy in Pakistan, Turkey, Ecuador, etc. thinks.
If these people and/or their government are a threat to us, we should react to that threat with an appropriate policy. This can include everything from education to military force, depending upon specific circumstances. That's the only way to 'take their opinions into account'. Reacting to the uninformed, ill-informed, self-centered opinions, rants and demands of the common citizen of a foreign nation to actually create US foreign policy makes no sense to me at all. If this is the template for a wise foreign policy, why shouldn't they be pro-actively making their policy based on what I, my neighbor, and the guy down my street think about them?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 1, 2008
To MM @ #14 (and Phil's concurrence):
"you left out the recent election in Italy that left a pro-American in charge, and no communists in parliment (sic) for the first time in decades."
Um, yea. From the Guardian, April 29 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/29/italy1):
"Italy's new parliament met for the first time today with applause for Rome's mayor-elect, Gianni Alemanno, a day after followers celebrated his triumph with straight-arm salutes and fascist-era chants."
[…]
"Silvio Berlusconi, who won a general election earlier this month, welcomed the latest evidence of Italy's leap to the right by declaring: "We are the new Falange". Although he took care to wrap his remark in a classical context, his choice of words appeared to be a nod and a wink to his most extreme supporters.
The original Falange — the word means "phalanx" — was the Spanish fascist party…"
So while you are correct that Berlusconi and Bush are BFF's, and indeed, there aren't any communists in parliament, I'm not so sure you should be touting an Roman government that is greeted by shouts of "Duce! Duce!" This happened once before and the results were not good.
Comment by Chasm | May 2, 2008
Chasm. The Guardian has always been the unbiased source of information I turn to for news and analysis.
It's interesting that when Italy rejects Berlusconi, the Left sees it as a clear-cut repudiation of Bush's foreign policy. And when Italy again embraces Berlusconi, the Left sees it not an example of Italy supporting Bush's foreign policy; it's a crypto-fascist longing for the days of Musolini and Hitler.
When one starts with a p[re-conceived conclusion that Bush is wrong, any evidence pro or con is molded to fit those underlying assumptions. We normally call this propaganda, to cite again from the era of straight-arm salutes, not analysis.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 2, 2008
Phillip, what exactly are you objecting to? I didn't say anything about Bush (well, except that he supports Berlusconi, which is hardly controversial), and I hardly think that the citizens of Italy show either their support or rejection of Bush policies by whom they votes PM or mayor of Rome. MM made the observation that, supposedly because of Bush and his friendship, Italy had scrubbed communists from parliament and was "pro-American" - I simply pointed out that this might be true, but that they had also elected some neo-fascists - hardly and improvement in my opinion (maybe not in yours).
The Guardian was just the first link on my Google search, but if you're claiming that this is propaganda, please provide refutations that Alemanno is a neo-fascist, or that Berlusconi said they were the "new Falange" or that the crowd chanted "Duce! Duce!" It may be true that these three pieces of evidence "mean" little politically, just political theatre if you like, but that isn't all that apparent yet, and indeed judging by the crowd's response, the audience is eating it up. If you can't actually refute my points or put them in better context, than I have to assume your post was an ad hominum smokescreen, and not analysis.
Comment by Chasm | May 2, 2008
Chasm: It was portrayed in the Guardian — the same source that you cited — that the fall of Berlusconi’s government was a repudiation of Bush. Now that Berlusconi has regained power, you cite the Guardian again to show that the significance of Berlusconi’s win is to illustrate that his “followers” are crypto fascists. Berlusconi loses, Bush is repudiated. Berlusconi wins again, Bush is not vindicated; it’s just a neo-fascist revival. That’s propaganda, not analysis.
As for shouts from the “crowd” having political significance, I haven’t seen your condemnation of Obama as a lunatic and a racist because some of his supporters (namely the Reverend Wright and Obama’s fellow parishioners) believe that the US government created AIDS and deliberately infected the Black population, that God (i.e. Jesus) is black, etc. If some nuts in a crowd who allegedly (and I stress allegedly, because after all it’s the Guardian reporting it) shout idiotic things therefore define the Berlusconi government, then we must apply the same standard to all political analysis.
When I see you apply the same standards of analysis to all political events that you’ve selectively applied to this discussion, then I’ll know you’re not just mouthing propaganda under the guise of offering a substantive comment. Of course, I retain the right to then comment on the abject stupidity of applying the Guardian’s standard of analysis for Bush to other politicians, which is a different, but related topic.
You’re a bright guy Chasm. I mean this in all sincerity, from both our public and private exchanges. But if all you have to contribute to the analysis is political tripe, then I’ll call you on it as I have.
PS: In the future, you might want to extend your Google search a bit beyond the Guardian. See http://oreneta.com/kalebeul/2008/04/30/berlusconia-and-the-new-roman-falange/
Berlusconi and the new (Roman) falange
Trevor ap Simon | 2008/4/30 @ 14:26 | (Pre-)Roman, Les bourgeois, Of etymology, Of theatre, Of wars, games and stuff
Mr Clarke blogging at It’s Probably The Pox, My Son links to a typical bit of mendacity, or gross ignorance if you are feeling charitable, from John Hooper at the Guardian:
Silvio Berlusconi, who won a general election earlier this month, welcomed the latest evidence of Italy’s leap to the right by declaring: “We are the new Falange”. Although he took care to wrap his remark in a classical context, his choice of words appeared to be a nod and a wink to his most extreme supporters.
That’s a misleading interpretation of Berlusconi’s actual words: “Siamo la nuova falange romana”. John Hooper tells us this is a reference to the Spanish fascist party which had a strong influence over the new government in the early 1940s:
The original Falange — the word means “phalanx” — was the Spanish fascist party, founded in the 1930s, which supplied Francisco Franco’s dictatorship with its ideological underpinning.
But the original falange was not Spanish, and its meaning in Italy has nothing to do with José Antonio Primo de Rivera, whatever John Hooper may have read in the holy book of Guardian journalists, the English-language Wikipedia:
• As any Italian football hooligan knows (and any British schoolboy probably used to know), the Roman phalanx was the closely-ranked body of highly-disciplined soldiers that according to myth won the empire. (I happen to know this because I used to belong to a gym frequented by a Catalanised Italian chef with SPQR tattooed on one shoulder, AS Roma on the other, and, since we’re on the subject, a vigorous line in anti-Spanish rhetoric.)
• As any Italian intellectual knows, the use of the word falange by Mussolini, who was raised on Marxism & Co, also derived from the utopian communities painted by the French proto-socialist, Charles Fourier. (This explains the strong sympathies expressed by Rome’s new mayor, Gianni Alemanno, and the post-fascist right for Israel and its kibbutzes. Contrary to what Hooper says, Alemanno received considerable although cautious support from the city’s Jewish residents, alarmed by crime, urban degradation and the contrast between the left’s pro-Arab policies and the solid alignment of the right with Zionism.)
So what does this mean for Rome and Italy?
The theory, in order words, is militant, communal republicanism of the kind associated with the Catalan nationalist-socialist “left” in charge of Barcelona. (The latter are also tireless evicters of gypsies. Maybe John Hooper will tell us which new falange they are.)
The practice, however, will be as complete an exhibition of the deadly sins as it always is under Italian governments of right and left–Gregory the Great was Roman and knew his subject.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 2, 2008
Phillip, whether the Guardian portrayed Berlusconi's loss as a repudiation of Bush - I'd bet real money that the real reason was BUSH's WAR, which was and still is, very unpopular in Italy. And Googling "Berlusconi re-election" gives me several articles that paint a much more complicated political relationship between Berlusconi and his countrymen, and absolutely NO indication that his re-election had anything to do with sudden warm and fuzzy feelings for Bush or his war. Berlusconi was VERY unpopular for sending troops to help with our little project, and he was forced to start pulling them out - his successor finished the job - Italy is no longer among the willing. His re-election was centered on his charisma, his wealth, and the fact that his successor did a terrible job with the economy. He sold himself as the leader who could fix the government, and that is why they re-elected him, not some newfound love for Bush.
Your second paragraph is nothing but a giant non-sequitor and deserves no comment.
Your lengthy excerpt is interesting, but agreeing to not persecute Jews does not mean one is not a neo-fascist, it just means he's not anti-semitic, or at least politically smart.
From Freerepublic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2009523/posts
"The new mayor of Rome has promised to purge the Italian capital of 20,000 illegal immigrants and to raze 85 gipsy camps."
and
"Mr Alemanno's election was celebrated by hundreds of supporters chanting "Duce! Duce!" and raising their arms in Mussolini's fascist salute." (which, btw, would make this a second witness to the event)
So maybe this new mayor is a law-and-order guy, nothing wrong with that, except maybe that instead of using the army or police to handle a problem, he has
"no fear of taking things to the piazzas. We have 300,000 martyrs ready to come down from the mountains. Our rifles are always smoking,"
which sounds allot more like a vigilante mob than a police action. According to the article, the new mayor has tried to distance himself from his neo-fascist past, and that may be, but the symbols and language sure sound like dog-whistles to me.
But really, whether he is an actual fascist is beside the point - his platform against immigration is right out of the GOP playbook after all - and I never claimed Berlusconi was a fascist, the point was that MM cited Berlusconi's re-election as a sign of the rehabilitation of Bush's legacy, and that is bunk in that no-one has cited evidence that this is so. True, politics in Italy and Rome especially just took a hard-right hand turn, but that doesn't automatically go to Bush's credit.
Comment by Chasm | May 2, 2008
Bottom line:
"It's interesting that when Italy rejects Berlusconi, the Left sees it as a clear-cut repudiation of Bush's foreign policy. And when Italy again embraces Berlusconi, the Left sees it not an example of Italy supporting Bush's foreign policy; it's a crypto-fascist longing for the days of Musolini and Hitler."
Whether or not the repudiation inherent in his expulsion was "clear-cut," there is ample anecdotal and polling evidence that this is indeed so. The war was HATED in Italy, Berlusconi was forced to draw down troops, and currently Italy has NO force in Iraq, so the war isn't even election issue. So whatever the reasons for returning him to power, sudden popular agreement with American foreign policy does not appear to be one of them. If you have evidence, produce it. If not, how is it that you can make an assumption based on no evidence, and then claim it is 'the Left' that makes erroneous assumptions?
(I'm willing to concede that without a deeper knowledge of Roman politics, Alemanno's walking and quacking notwithstanding, he may not be a duck simply because it's not relevant to our discussion. But I will point out that it's a little odd to cite a person who claims that "Phalange" couldn't really be what we all think it means because it's a Spanish derivative of an Italian word that means "closed ranks of soldiers," especially when he seems to be using that phrase to describe his "300,000 martyrs" ready to come down from the hills and kick some Roma ass.)
Comment by Chasm | May 2, 2008
Chasm: You're willing to believe that voting Berlusconi out of office in 2006 shows (although anecdotally) that the Bush's Middle East policy was hated. But his return to power signifies nothing about Bush and Iraq? The only evidence you’re willing to allow for support or opposition to the Iraq war is a country’s willingness to commit combat troops to Iraq. Even the British, who are our strongest ally — and remain so today — withdrew troops from Basra. This didn’t translate into Britain diminishing its support for the US in Iraq. The Israelis support us too, but haven’t committed troops to Iraq either. We all know the reasons why Israel won’t/can’t send troops to Iraq. Sending troops is a complicated, complex issues which is driven by a variety of factors, and the absence of combat troops doesn’t always translate into a lack of support for a policy. It may, or it may not. But other evidence is required to make this determination.
The proposition that we’ve all been commenting on is that the “world” hates Bush because of his foreign policy. [“The president leaves a terrible foreign policy legacy …” Comments 9 and 13]. I’ve shown you that this is patently not the case. The reasons for French and German opposition to the Iraq war (not to mention Russia and China) had to do with venal self-interest, not political philosophy.
Your tentativeness today about the relationship of Berlusconi’s defeat in 2006 to the claim that this shows that Italy rejected Bush’s war in Iraq is revisionist history. That WAS the reason for his defeat, as reported by the Western press. Now that he’s won office again, Berlusconi’s return says nothing (even anecdotally) about Bush’s foreign policy. If we are supposed to accept the dubious cause-effect relationship in 2006, then we must apply the same logic to 2008. Otherwise, it’s propaganda, not analysis.
I happen to agree that Berlusconi’s defeat in 2006 was not a referendum on Iraq, but rather a response to domestic Italian politics, which tends to change governments about every 25 days (I think they've had about 1000 governments since WWII). Unfortunately, the Left has stated its premise that the world hates us because of Bush’s foreign policy, and has used France, Germany, Italy etc. to “prove” its point. So, I’ll “prove” you guys wrong by pointing to pro-American governments being elected in France, Germany and Italy to replace the anti-American ones.
It’s a phony way to argue a point, but it goes to the crux of this debate. The Left is only willing to accept “other influences” in 2008 to explain Berlusconi’s defeat in 2006. In 2006 the issue was a clear-cut repudiation of Bush. But that line of argument is no longer convenient, since the 2008 election reverses the 2006 election. So now 2006 is no longer clear-cut. The Left chose the analysis in 2006 for Italy (and in 2003 for France and Germany). And this is the one we’re now going to argue, applying the standards they used then to the situation as it is today. Anti-American governments mean the world hates Bush. Pro-American governments mean the world loves Bush.
Again, it’s a stupid way to analyze a complex issue, but it serves its purpose. It illustrates the utter vacuity of the Left’s charge that “The president leaves a terrible foreign policy legacy …”.
As for your concession that John Hooper of the Guardian may have been indulging in the same sort of dishonesty about the term “Phalange” that he, the Guardian, and the Left routinely did in their “Bush is hated by the world analysis”, while I compliment you for not drinking the Kool-aid on this issue and making up your own definitions to fit your analysis, it’s a rather weak admission that your comment 31 was wildly off course.
This is the general problem I have with the Left. They are willing to draw quick, and dubious conclusions when surface issues seem to support their position. But when the facts are contradicted they don’t say they were wrong. They simply allow for the possibility that their earlier comments may not be as solid as they previously stated (without rejecting them, or the assumptions upon which they were based), before moving on to the next absolute opinion-disguised-as-fact.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 3, 2008
Phillip:
I hope your wife's biopsy went well.
Vis a vis recent European policies reflecting on support for American policies:
I cited you poliing data in post 9 indicating worsening appreciation for GWB in Europe. We agree on the limitations of polling data, but I prefer that over conjecture, which is what you are offering. Show me your data. Show me statements from Merkel or Sarkozy supporting the US war effort. Berlosconi perhaps, but you are also ignoring Spain, Canada, and Australia's opposition
I am not an expert on European politics, but did follow Sarkozy's election some and know that the primary issue was his attempt to reform the current economic system as well as his tough line on immigrant crime. I do not believe US foreign policy was an issue.
As a point in fact, a country's willingness to lend support to our effort in Iraq, is the true gage of support, known as putting one's a– on the line. In Gulf 1 53% of all troops were foreign including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Emirates and all the major NATO powers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Gulf_War
In Gulf 2, per the below 2006 citation, foreign troops represented less than 10% of forces and many have since left:
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/01/01/number_of_nations_sending_troops_to_iraq_declining/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News
Israel is a unique and irrelevant analogy, because the US would not want Israel in the effort as it would only inflame more mideast opposition.
Here is what Sarkozy says about Iraq:
http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited/feeds/afx/2007/08/27/afx4055546.html
British withdrawl from Basra absolutely reflects the realities of British politics and public opinion. The way a representative democracy functions is that politicians listen to the people and the war has never been popular:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13508
When you claim that you have refuted the argument that the world "hates" GWB, ( your words, I just showed Data that approval for him was abysmal and declining, slightly below Putin in Europe), how exactly did you refute this, other than by conjecture. Show me the data.
Lastly, my friend, when I see people on IC commence statements with "The Left thinks…" I have learned that what they are addressing is some fantasy of an uber Left lock step conspiracy. The single opinion Left is no more real than the single opinion Right. There are an infinite variety of viewpoints from McCain left, some reasoned, some idiotic.
Just as I would not equate your viewpoint and demeanor in the same category as Pat Robertson and Ann Coulter, be informed, that there are intelligent and thoughtful and differing viewpoints on that side of the room, as there are on the right.
I have posted before the fact that a large percentage of the raison d'etre if not opbsession on IC is a need to constantly put down and denigrate liberals, and to me reflects a lack of confidence in a solid conservative viewpoint. This is the Limbaugh influence, who sees his roll more as fighting off the barbarians than just being another American with a viewpoint.
I hardly think there is any Left position on the ascendence of Berlosconi, and if you find poor logic on the Left, you are absolutely right, and I find it equal on the right. Idealogues rarely are objective.
Comment by yonkel | May 3, 2008
PEJ, you're still committing the same logical error you accuse me and the left of committing - seeing a connection through unsubstantiated analogy. You're probably correct that his defeat in 06 had more behind it than JUST Bush's foreign policy, but keep in mind that at the time, besides just troops in Iraq, the government was busy indicting CIA ops for kidnapping Italian nationals. But tell me why we "must" accept that B was re-elected in a newfound wave of pro-Americanism simply because his earlier defeat rested, in part, on anti-Americanism. It simply does not follow logically that Italians base their PM pick on how they feel about Bush at the moment. Show me some Italian polling that shows a huge upswing in Italian support for the Iraq war, and still more polling that shows that this was a major issue in the campaign, and I'll start listening. From the articles I read last night, in 2006, the war and Bush were major issues - virtually every article from that time mentions Italian war opposition as one reason for opposing the B government. But this time around, the economy and immigration were THE major issues, and B's is, and has always remained a popular and charismatic figure. Not one article mentioned renewed support for America as a reason to restore the Berlusconi government - in fact, several mentioned that Berlusconi specifically promised not send troops back to Iraq during the campaign.
This is how BS Conventional Wisdom is started - "The Italians threw out their PM because they hated the war, so the fact they re-elected him two years later means they love the war now." You don't even seem to think his defeat really had anything to do with Bush (you think it's the Left cherry picking rationale) so how can you turn around and claim it's the reason he was restored, sans even anecdotal evidence? Now, if B had campaigned on the platform "Re-elect me and I'll send our troops back to Iraq," and got re-elected, you'd have a point. Show me POLLING or campaign rhetoric that determines that Iraq was even an issue, and I'll consider conceding. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.
Adding - Here's a page with polling
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/463.php?lb=btvoc&pnt=463&nid=&id=
click on the little icon near the United States and you will see that, as of Dec 2007, Italian's view of the United States was "Mostly Negative" by a margin of 4% - 43/39 - not overwhelmingly negative, but enough to debunk the theory that they voted for Berlusconi because they love them some Bush.
Comment by Chasm | May 3, 2008
Once again, if an anti-US government achieves power, it's evidence that the world hates Bush. If a pro-US government achieves power, other factors are predominant. That's the liberal line.
As for poling data determining anything of substance, look at what I've said before on this issue.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 3, 2008
It's not the liberal line, it's the polling line. Look, no doubt this is a rightward lurch for Italy, and that may be good for Bush, and maybe even good for Italians, but since EVERY ARTICLE at the time of the governments fall at least mentions opposition to the war as a factor, and NOT ONE SINGLE article about his re-election mentions a renewed support for it (and they have no troops there, and won't be sending any now), and ALL the current articles mention the failing economy and immigration as THE major issues that won his re-election, I just don't see how you can claim his re-election is a sign that in 50 years Bush will be hailed as a "Great" president and still call yourself a logical thinker. Give me a concrete example that Bush was even an election issue - I've now asked three times and you just keep repeating your false analogy.
Comment by Chasm | May 3, 2008
PJ :
Is there an official liberal line?
The factors that determine each election are unique and different. When I brought up Australia, Canada, and Spain, it was just to offer some relativity on you bringing up Germany, France, and Italy and I have no idea whether US foreign policy played a huge role, except in Spain, it was an issue and they withdrew their troops.
Now, when I brought up Nicaragua, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Bolivia, maybe I did imply some blame to GWB, but those are rather major shifts to the clear side of our enemies, as opposed to Brazil e.g. with Lula and Argentina, that was just a center left shift which I wouldn't attatch that much significance to similar to the center right shifts in Europe.
Chasm hunted up some very interesting data, which is not totally negative to your viewpoint as there is a small improvement in the European viewpoint to the US from 2007-2008, but only after steep declines from 2000-2005:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/326.php?lb=btvoc&pnt=326&nid=&id=
The latter numbers are pretty astounding, considering that approval of the US in Germany went from 78% to 37% and in France from 62% to 39% from 2000-2005. To argue that this does not affect these countries willingness to help our country defies common sense.
I also found that the link to "Negative Attitudes toward the United States in the Muslim World: Do They Matter" was very interesting and goes over some of the material we are discussing.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/361.php?lb=btvoc&pnt=361&nid=&id=
Some of the data in that piece was interesting, particularly the survey of people in Arab countries, on whether there was support for terrorism, specifically, attacks on civilians, which ranged from 4-14%, terrible numbers, but in contradiction to an earlier post by Mr. Stapler implying that 85% of muslims supported Al Queyedah, which did not seem believable and the citation was not listed.
At any rate, I am glad there are some more positive feelings towards us in Europe and I think with either three candidates assuming the presidency, this trend will hasten, and we can regain the historic position we have always enjoyed in Europe.
Comment by yonkel | May 3, 2008
To break it down even further, your argument "Italians killed the first Berlusconi government because they opposed Bush and the Iraq war, therefore they re-elected him because the now love Bush and his war" is based on the FALSE premise that Italians always elect governments (or vote no confidence) based on their current feelings for the American government.
My argument is, "Italians threw Berlusconi out in 2006, IN PART (but not exclusively), because of Italian opposition to participation in the Iraq war (a premise based on polling). Since that time, Italy has completely removed all it's troops from Iraq. The Iraq war was not an issue in the current election (again, based on the fact they don't have troops in harms way and polling that indicates the economy and immigration were the most important issues). Therefore, the re-election of Berlusconi tells us nothing about how the Italian electorate feels about Bush, and less than nothing about how Bush's legacy will fare over time."
Comment by Chasm | May 3, 2008
Yonkel, I too noticed a slight upswing in recent attitudes toward the US, and was glad to see it. It's too early to guess why that may be, but I do wonder if it has anything to do with the perception that we are about to repudiate Bush and elect a charismatic, progressive leader. Now way to substantiate that idea yet, but I do think other countries envy our open political system and our democracy. I also think that deep down, most of the world wants desperately to love the US. All of this is just gut, and therefore neither germane or substantiated, but interesting nonetheless.
Comment by Chasm | May 3, 2008
Chasm:
I agree. The US has always been the hope of the world.
By progressive, methinks you imply Obama.
I think McCain understands the problem if you read his recent foreign policy speech which was quite critical of recent foreign policy and will return us to the diplomacy of Bush Sr. and return us to the high ground on such issues as treatment of prisoners.
Comment by yonkel | May 3, 2008
Somehow, I doubt that, if there indeed could be some proven correlation between the recent upswing in world opinion for America and our current election season, that the factor would be that John McCain is running. Call me crazy, but given that our plummeting ratings have allot to do with Iraq/Guantanamo/Abu Garib, it doesn't follow that the man most closely linked to Bush and the war would engender the turnaround. I'm not saying that McCain wouldn't be more of a realist than Bush, or that in the end his election won't move public opinion our way - but it seems more reasonable that our collective embrace of a liberal black man for the most powerful position on Earth is more of a reminder of what a open minded and free country we really are. Totally out of my a**, but there you go.
Comment by Chasm | May 3, 2008
Chasm:
No correlation with the upswing and current USA politic at all. I think it is a regression to the mean phenom.
Yes, Obama, I'm sure would go over well in the world, I just have my concerns with him otherwise and this is probably not the forum for that discussion.
I think McCain very notably differed from GWB on the torture issues, which took a lot of guts, being his own party for which he was running for president. McCain and Huckabee were the only two candidates to specifically oppose what they saw as torture in the GOP debates.
Yes, he did compromise those view some in the last Senate vote, in the midst of a very hard campaign that necisitated everybody to swing right, but I have no doubt that harsh interrogation techniques will go with McCain. He has been there and he is attuned to the military. I think it has always been the lawyers, Gonzalez and all, that came up with that deviation from traditional values, and not the military, who know that Geneva protects them.
I've got to take the wife out dancing, so will blog out, here.
Thank you for the discussion.
Comment by yonkel | May 3, 2008
Is there an official liberal line? No, just a predictable liberal mindset.
We've seen it at play here. Link Berlusconi’s political demise in 2006 to Bush. This is the near-universal conclusion of the Left, as reported in such stellar neutral analytical sources as The NY Times and The Guardian. In 2008, when Berlusconi wins, allow for the fact that many other issues were at play. Berlusconi loses, it’s a poor reflection on Bush. Berlusconi wins, it’s got nothing to do with Bush.
Moreover, claim that the world hates Bush because public opinion polls say so, and conclude from this that we must change our foreign policy. Do not question how such polls are constructed, what exactly they measure, and whether what they measure should count in the making of policy. And, for good measure, insist that it’s a one way street. If the people of Pakistan dislike US Middle East policy, offer that as a reason to change this policy. But if the people of the US hate Pakistan’s policy, then counsel against interfering in the sovereign affairs of that nation. World opinion only counts when the world is telling the US what to do. The US is not allowed to tell others what to do.
If world public opinion is an important factor in deciding what our foreign policy should be, then I suggest that we simply ask the Chinese what we should do. They have the most people, so they have the most opinions. [Remember, we’ve been told that it’s not what a government thinks, but what the people think. I’m sure the guy in the rice paddy in Upper Mongolia is giving great thought to what we should do in Iraq as he formulates his opinion that we should now consider in making our policy].
To reiterate one last time. Responsible leaders do not care what the guy on the street in a foreign country thinks about another nation’s foreign policy objectives or actions. We didn’t care if bombing Tokyo in 1942 made the population of Japan hate us. We kept our focus on the larger reason of WHY we were engaged in that policy in the first place.
Whether Bush is universally hated, or loved, is irrelevant to any evaluation of whether the policy choices he has made are the correct ones or not, and therefore whether his policies have been good or bad for the nation, which is after all the subject of this essay.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 3, 2008
And so we see the predictable response to an argument from a conservative: 1) Dismiss polls, journalists, newspapers and logic and instead link to an obscure right wing 'thinker' who simply 'knows' the correct answer. 2) Dismiss a liberals interpretation of an event by claiming his logic has no basis, but then turn around an use the exact same logic to come to the opposite conclusion (ie, "Liberals claim Berlusconi's loss was due to the war, but this is nonsense, completely unsupported by facts. And since his defeat clearly had nothing to do with anti-American sentiment, his re-election MUST be because of pro-American sentiment"). 3) Straw! Bring me more straw! 4) NEVER support your argument with facts, ALWAYS use vague and unprovable anecdotes and analogy and 5) sprinkle with "humerus" depreciations of your opponents intelligence… rinse, repeat ad nausium.
Comment by Chasm | May 3, 2008
I will agree with:
"Whether Bush is universally hated, or loved, IS IRRELEVANT TO ANY EVALUATION OF WHETHER THE POLICY CHOICES HE HAS MADE ARE THE CORRECT ONES OR NOT, and therefore whether his policies have been good or bad for the nation, which is after all the subject of this essay."
which is why I questioned citing Berlusconi's re-election as a sign that "Bush will be remembered as teh Greatest!" in the first place. Given that last paragraph, I really have to wonder why you object to my pointing out that B's re-election tells us nothing about Bush's legacy. Were you just bored, or couldn't stand to see a liberal get the last word?
Going back to the comments that sparked this:
*“This president leaves a terrible foreign policy legacy in which American credibility and respect in the World is at its nadir and our enemies are advancing.”
*** France has elected a pro-US president. Germany has elected a pro-US president. Hardly signs that Bush’s policies are so universally disliked.
The countries that dislike us are Communist China, Cuba, Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, Putin’s neo-communist Russia, Iran, Syria, etc. It’s time we stopped worrying about what the “world” thinks of us and start asking why we want to be liked./loved/respected by Iran, Cuba, Chavez, The Chinese, etc.
As for our “enemies advancing”, this is more empty rhetoric. There hasn’t been another attack on the US mainland since 2001. Al Queda in Iraq is collapsing thanks to our “foreign policy”.
Again, if Bush's ratings are irrelevant to whether he will be judged a success or failure, in what way is the election of "pro-American" world leaders suddenly relevant? Evidence that newly elected presidents/PM's in France, Germany and Italy are "pro-US" is not evidence that Bush is Great. The US does not equal Bush.
And then, if it's time to stop worrying about what the world thinks of us, then why do we have to start worrying about why the countries you cite hate us? I have an answer, but I wonder what your's is.
And I certainly hope China doesn't "hate" us, given that they own our economy and could, if they wanted, destroy the value of our dollar in a heartbeat. You may be right, but it's probably a better idea to try an engage them than antagonize them, at least until we get our own house in order.
And finally, claiming that "Al Queda in Iraq is collapsing thanks to our “foreign policy"" is allot like pouring sugar water all over your floor, going on vacation for two weeks, coming home and spraying the ant colony that has taken root with Raid, and then boasting of a "100% reduction in ants" as a victory.
All in all, a dumb discussion. Bush will not be judged by history, or anyone else of having been a "Great" president, and citing a conservative shift in some foreign governments does not a logical argument make.
Comment by Chasm | May 3, 2008
No Chasm. I've actually participated in polling activities with Jody Powell and Bob Beckel, as I described earlier. And at the University of Chicago I studied under Norman Nie, who founded NORC. I actually know something about the subject (how polls are constructed, how they are skewed depending upon the objective of the poll, etc.)
I base my observations on reality. You posit a bunch of hypotheticals about making national policy (another thing I happen to have some first hand experience in, in addition to my educational background), and ignore the deficiencies I point out about polls.
There's nothing vague or hypothetical about my objections. And there's nothing humorous about persistent ignorance.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 3, 2008
Sure, polling data CAN be skewed, perverted and used to support any idea we want to support… but then we're left with nothing but personal observations and faith… leaving us with no way to bridge gaps in perceived reality. I didn't pose any hypotheticals, I said the election of right-leaning governments by our allies was not a good indication of whether Bush would be judged by history to be "Great." You, in the highlighted paragraph, said essentially the same thing - that Bush will be judged by whether his policies help or hurt the United States in the long term, not on his world-wide polling numbers.
Perhaps my very first comment about fascists was unnecessarily inflammatory and wholly irrelevant (and I've admitted as much), but my in my very next comment (#34) I said, "I hardly think that the citizens of Italy show either their support or rejection of Bush policies by whom they votes PM or mayor of Rome" - how is that substantially different than, "Whether Bush is universally hated, or loved, is irrelevant to any evaluation of whether the policy choices he has made are the correct ones or not, and therefore whether his policies have been good or bad for the nation?"
I think we both agree that the success or failure of Bush will be determined by the American people, not Italy, not France, not Germany, not China. Again, what issue do you have with me personally that you can't even agree that we agree?
Comment by Chasm | May 3, 2008
CORRECTION: your an my statements ARE substantially different, in that I'm arguing the POV of the Italian electorate and you're arguing from the US perspective, but the statements AREN'T contradictory, and do, in fact, form the same conclusion.
Comment by Chasm | May 3, 2008
Repeating Comment 37
The proposition that we’ve all been commenting on is that the “world” hates Bush because of his foreign policy. [“The president leaves a terrible foreign policy legacy …” Comments 9 and 13]. I’ve shown you that this is patently not the case. The reasons for French and German opposition to the Iraq war (not to mention Russia and China) had to do with venal self-interest, not political philosophy.
Your tentativeness today about the relationship of Berlusconi’s defeat in 2006 to the claim that this shows that Italy rejected Bush’s war in Iraq is revisionist history. That WAS the reason for his defeat, as reported by the Western press. Now that he’s won office again, Berlusconi’s return says nothing (even anecdotally) about Bush’s foreign policy. If we are supposed to accept the dubious cause-effect relationship in 2006, then we must apply the same logic to 2008. Otherwise, it’s propaganda, not analysis.
I happen to agree that Berlusconi’s defeat in 2006 was not a referendum on Iraq, but rather a response to domestic Italian politics, which tends to change governments about every 25 days (I think they've had about 1000 governments since WWII). Unfortunately, the Left has stated its premise that the world hates us because of Bush’s foreign policy, and has used France, Germany, Italy etc. to “prove” its point. So, I’ll “prove” you guys wrong by pointing to pro-American governments being elected in France, Germany and Italy to replace the anti-American ones.
It’s a phony way to argue a point, but it goes to the crux of this debate. The Left is only willing to accept “other influences” in 2008 to explain Berlusconi’s defeat in 2006. In 2006 the issue was a clear-cut repudiation of Bush. But that line of argument is no longer convenient, since the 2008 election reverses the 2006 election. So now 2006 is no longer clear-cut. The Left chose the analysis in 2006 for Italy (and in 2003 for France and Germany). And this is the one we’re now going to argue, applying the standards they used then to the situation as it is today. Anti-American governments mean the world hates Bush. Pro-American governments mean the world loves Bush.
Again, it’s a stupid way to analyze a complex issue, but it serves its purpose. It illustrates the utter vacuity of the Left’s charge that “The president leaves a terrible foreign policy legacy …”.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 3, 2008
Bush is the Greatest… let us count the ways:
After going through every comment by every person on this page, here is every positive reason given for Bush's Greatness:
1) The War in Iraq is not at the top of the problems Americans are worried about (Reeves)
2) The country’s elected national officials cannot pull the plug on the Bush war policy (Reeves)
3) People deep down understand we have to do something to answer the challenges of the Islamic terrorists. Iraq is as good a place as any to draw a line in the sand. (Reeves)
4) by acting immediately and decisively, Bush lead us out of the mortgage-backed securities scandal that rocked Wall Street and Main Street only a few weeks ago. The Bush White House and the Federal Reserve saved the economy. (Reeves)
5) Another $200 billion was airlifted into the heat of the battle to keep confidence in the markets (Reeves)
6) The operation to save the investment bank Bear Stearns (Reeves)
7) He has better approval ratings than Truman! (23% to 29%) (PEJ)
8) France has elected a pro-US president. Germany has elected a pro-US president. (PEJ) and Italy! (MM)
9) There hasn’t been another attack on the US mainland since 2001 (PEJ)
10) Al Queda in Iraq is collapsing thanks to our “foreign policy”. (PEJ)
11) Enlightened effort against Malaria and HIV in Africa (yonkel)
12) A good man (Stapler)
13) His gutsy response to 9/11 made his legacy (Stapler)
14) His response to Katrina was just as bad as some of the other presidents responses to disaster (TMI is the only one cited) (Stapler)
15) Libya voluntarily surrendered their WMD following the invasion of Iraq.
16) He’s not going to let the bad guys do to us what they repeatedly did during Clinton’s 8 years, and which culminated in the 9/11 attack on the US
Now, #1 may be true (it's the #2 problem, according to polls Phillip distrusts), but it's not a statistic that's going in the history books, unless the book reads something like, "Although hated by the electorate, the war in Iraq was not not as much on the minds of voters in the 2008 election as the collapsing economy and recession."
#2 says more about Dems ability to get something going in congress, more than Bush's ability to lead.
The first part of #3 may be true, but it doesn't say anything about Bush. The second part claims too, but is refuted by the 83% of Americans who believe the war was a mistake. Bzzzt.
It's way too early to determine whether Bush's actions have "saved the economy," so we'll have to put that in the 'undetermined' column.
Number's 5 & 6, again may be true depending on how things work out, but it is a little wierd that right-wing free marketeers get such hard-ons when the Fed's bail out failing markets. We'll give you those, just in case history books are written by former Bear Stearns analysts.
#7 shows no casual relationship between final poll numbers and inverse historical rehabilitation. It's a good thought to hold in hope in your hearts, but no go.
The logical inconsistencies of #8 have been thoroughly hashed out - suffice to say - the election of Merkel, Sarkozy and Berlusconi will not be mentioned in our grandchildren's history books as evidence of Bush's wonderfulness.
#9 is true.
#10 ignores that AQI didn't exist before our 'foreign policy.'
#11 is, happily, also true.
#12 is an opinion, and #13, while true, doesn't really explain how that 'legacy' will be of service to his reputation.
#14, again, is nothing to brag about. #15 is sort-of true, although Clinton is the President that got Kadaffi to the table in the first place.
#16 is made relevant merely by the inclusion of the word, "repeatedly," as if ignoring warnings about AQ and plans to hit us hard weren't enough.
So, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, after days of debate from the leading Intellectual Conservatives, we have THE GREAT ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE GREAT PRESIDENT BUSH:
He lead a taxpayer bailout of some of his Wall St buddies, he lead a high profile campaign against AIDS and malaria, and he didn't let anyone attack us after that first attack!
Those are some true achievements, which someday, will fill all of one paragraph in the history that is the Bush Legacy! Hail Bush!
In closing, I'd just like to point out that Felix, in the very first comment, said exactly the same thing (except the AIDS).
Comment by Chasm | May 3, 2008
Hopeless
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 3, 2008