After observing the spectacle of 9-11's first anniversary, is there any doubt as to the truth of this statement? I certainly wouldn't place all (or even most) of the blame for this phenomenon at Bush's feet, but I do think Steyn has a point — Bush seems to have an unfortunate tendancy of not pressing the advantage when he should for the sake of being a nice guy.
The best way to get judges appointed and drilling in the ANWR is to win the Senate in November and that is what Bush is shooting for. He is not King, he is POTUS bound by the Constitution of the United States.
What spectacle? I thought his visiting with family members at ground zero for over an hour, not rushing each one, but really listening to them, did more for his image & his sincerety than any long winded speech could have done. He is a president of the common people, he doesn't use a tragedy to advance himself!! Is that SO wrong???
"After observing the spectacle of 9-11's first anniversary, is there any doubt as to the truth of this statement? I certainly wouldn't place all (or even most) of the blame for this phenomenon at Bush's feet, but I do think Steyn has a point — Bush seems to have an unfortunate tendancy of not pressing the advantage when he should for the sake of being a nice guy."
I still think the problem with Bush is that he doesn't really understand the amount of power he has, and how Truman-like he has to become if he's ever going to get the U-S firmly behind this Iraq thing.
The U.S. is known for many things, patience is not one of them. He gave a great speech, but it was directed to the U.N., not to the U.S. And it included almost nothing in the way of new specific information.
Bush, despite all the tales told about him, will never be a manipulator.
He simply has a little trouble making up his mind. And that trouble shows, despite the wonderful speech.
Bush apparently decided against whipping us up into a war frenzy..because there's only one way he's going to do that..provide specific evidence of the Iraqui connection to 9/11. You can BET there is one, he's just not telling us, and Colin Powell is arguing that the country of Iraq shouldn't suffer for the actions of its leaders, and Ashcroft is arguing not to release the information because the prosecutions might be harmed, that it might endanger the intelligence agencies and on and on. All of these points are valid.
But I think the author here is trying to point out that despite the surprises Bush provided at both speeches last week, he still hasn't hit a "grand slam", to use a baseball analogy,either in the U.S., or at the U.N., in terms of making the case to invade Iraq. It seems more like we're in the fifth inning of a game that began Sept.12,2001,and we're behind 3-1.
That to me, is at least the public perception, if the public really looks into its heart.
I think Bush has to be a little more public about some of the evidence he has..not all of it, just enough of it to convince the world (and the media)...that Sadaam not only is a current threat to the U-S, but has actually used his "weapons of mass destruction" on us already, and is planning to do so again, soon.
There is such a thing as honorable propaganda.
For example, if there's any truth to this West Nile virus/terrorism thing, he might say so. And save some lives in the process. I don't think the whole country would freak out, as some alarmists (Ashcroft) might believe. I don't think too many people would be suprised. And it would help his case..as long as there is CREDIBLE evidence to support the allegation.
It's not that people don't believe Bush, they do. They just need something a little more solid to justify a war.
It's not so much that Bush needs to clarify his reasoning --he did that last week. And it's not really that he has to expand all that much on what he said. He simply has to realize that a lot of people in the U.S.on both sides of the aisle are concerned about the constitution, and civil rights in the wake of 9/11, and he needs to address all that in terms of Iraq.
If he expects Americans to put their lives and their children's lives on the line..he should understand that America needs to know WHY.
Now he can have none of these things. It doesn't matter if he "can" mount his Iraq expedition without permission from Congress-what matters is whether an expeditionary force of the size and potency that we can deliver can conquer and occupy Arabia, while deflecting hostile action on its flanks and while preserving deterrence in the Far East.
Bush constantly speaks of "war", but the nation is not at war, is not preparing to be at war, and is without the means to fight its many enemies to the death if they choose to offer battle.
That last point is important-we have created a situation in which we need the good will of our enemies to prevail. When Operation Oust Saddam steps off, what the F*** will we do if China decides to occupy Taiwan, or allows North Korea to surge? What will we do if both of these things happen?
What will we do if Iran decides to interdict American shipping in the "Persian" Gulf? What will we do if they have Chinese help?
What will we do if Iraq, as Lt. General Van Riper had his red team do in the recent war game, successfully attacks and sinks a carrier? That is what I would do if I were Saddam-take the war to the enemy, and not wait to be killed.
Our forces are insufficient to deal with any one of these contingencies, as Mark Helprin writes in today's WSJ. I think Bush has failed to use the energy and rage of the nation to prepare for war, and that his failure may cost us dearly. Let's hope not.