Posted on 08/04/2003 9:16:27 PM PDT by Pokey78
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:05:46 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I like Bush for his handling of the war, but I am also queasy about his handling of domestic issues. Numbers #1 and #2 are immigration and education. The fact that, rather than eliminate the federal education ministry, he let Kennedy write his education bill has disturbed me. I am disturbed at his early intention to open the borders and his failure to effectively seal the border. Every time another trailer load of Mexicans die making the trip, I am reminded that the border is still unsealed.
So, this is not the second coming. But I am in agreement with the need to confront our enemies, and bring them down one by one. On a number of issues he has behaved as I would have hoped, which after the nightmare of the nineties, and the near-miss with Gore, is as good as it gets, I guess.
Let me pose this for your consideration.
Suppose the Bush administration really is sitting on all the information that's been gathered by our forces on the ground, as well as testimony by defectors, by who knows how many prisoners detained at Guantanamo, and other clandestine sources which were tapped in the search for WMDs.
Now, I'll change the scenario only slightly from that usually presented. Instead of holding back public release of photos and specimens taken from mobile weapons labs and undergound nuclear facilities to maximize domestic political impact (which, incidentally, would likely launch an investigation larger than Watergate and the OKC bombing combined were the Bush folks to attempt such a thing), the administration plain doesn't have anything more tangible than a rusty old certrifuge buried in someone's back yard and a couple of outdated documents on how to concoct a cocktail of bio-chem agents to shoot at an enemy.
So what does the administration do to save face, since the world is getting a bit restless during the postwar/nation-building era in Iraq?
Simple.
It lets the word out, through the hired guns at various think-tanks and PR firms, as well as through hangers-on in talk radio and internet forums and blogs -- which would include certain posters on Free Republic, no doubt -- that the Dims are painting themselves into a corner, that when criticism about lack of evidence of WMDs reaches a crescendo, the trap will spring shut and all the malcontents will have egg on their collective faces.
Except the trap never springs shut, because the WMDs have been long destroyed. But the desired political result is still achieved, as the dim-witted Democrats have gone overboard in charging that the Bush people were laying a trap for them by witholding the information that WMDs were not discovered, allowing such partisans as Howard Dean just enough rope to strangle themselves by.
Now, we all know that Saddam Hussein's most trusted advisors would lie to his face in order to save their hides.
Is it inconceivable that certain well-placed functionaries in any American administration -- perhaps people like Francis Fukiyama, even -- might spread a little disinformation in furtherance of the war effort?
Think about it.
I'm thinking about this and it is not logical (sorry).
As long as the search for WMDs continues, it is impossible to conclude anything. That is, Bush could say that no WMDs have been discovered yet, but he cannot say that there are no WMDs.
It is also possible that WMDs have already been discovered, but it will, of course, take time to make sure that they are indeed WMDs and if they are, what was the exact nature of these WMDs, who engineered them and funded their development, and how were they to be deployed, etc., etc., etc.
This kind of investigation takes time, you see. A thorough and complete analysis is the only proper way to handle things like this. There will be lots of questions from the international press corps and "we don't know yet" is not an acceptable answer.
You wouldn't want Bush to rush out to the public with incomplete information, would you?
Think about it.
AT What Price Posted by nathanbedford to Burkeman1 On News/Activism 08/05/2003 3:25 AM EDT #29 of 53 Bush has also signed into law a campaign finance reform bill that most conservatives view as blatantly unconstitutional, endorsed an education bill written by Ted Kennedy and initiated more trade protectionism by any president since Nixon. But against these, Bush continually plays his trump card: the war against terrorism. And just as Nixon played the anticommunist card in terms of the Vietnam War, it has been enough to keep most Republican voters under control -- so far.
This paragraph contains, I believe, the graveman of the piece.
I would also note that Bartlett, who is generally sound, accepts that Bush is an honolrable man, as I do. This implies that when Bush throws $15B down the rat hole in Africa for example, he does it out of compassion, not calculation. Rove might be pleased but he is not the Rasputin, merely the beneficiary.
So Bush is a true believer and what you see is what you get. A far better buy than we got with either Clinton or Nixon. In short, I do not believe Bush is a triangulator in thrall to Rove or any other Dick Morris-like Svengali. But that is of small comfort compared to the historic mischief done by the creation of another entitlement program.
I believe this because I consider Bush to be the genuine product of an epiphany, a true believer. He is not guided by a political philosophy, at least not primarily so, but by a religious experience.
Next in order of influence on him is a sense of honor. This comes from the family. No one can read the letters of George Sr. publilshed in his book without coming away with the conviction that at core this is a family which puts great store in this old fashioned precept. They practice it, they expect others to rely on it and they expect it in return. This is why loyalty is such a high value in both administrations and why it played no part in Clinton's.
Only after these considerations, is our President affected by political considerations or, better put, does he act out of inherent political philosophy.
This utterly alien and unfathamable to all liberals and even a little suprising to many in this forum, especially libertarians, among whom you might count yourself one. This does not make George Bush more palatable necessarilly to paleo-cons, neo-cons or libertarians, but perhaps more understandable.
A related factor, I would judge, is the president's moral confidence. Where with Bill Clinton, all or much was shading and nuance, with George W. Bush, there is brightness and darkness, and rarely, save at sunup or sundown, do the twain ever meet. The Bush worldview is based in no small measure on religion: GWB is a staunch believer. The ever-growing number of secularists who populate the United States don't like lectures delivered ostensibly in the name of a deity who hasn't put in any personal appearances lately. http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/958323/posts
He's one of the leading lights of the neo-conservatives. Finding an article written by him is like the vault opening to reveal another time-capsule message from Hari Seldon.
It seems there is a spot of trouble now over the reliability of intelligence reports, but it's not a major problem, certainly nothing approaching the scale of a Seldon crisis.
Be careful, Fukuyama is telling us, take corrective action where necessary, and carry on otherwise.
It's entirely possible that a lot of his most dangerous weapons are gone because they were destroyed during the time GWB was talking about invading Iraq. I always thought that was what was happening, that GWB kept saying "destroy that weapon" so that when he finally went in, which he was going to do, whatever happened, Iraq would not have as much stuff for defending itself.
There's no "might" about it, he had an entire year during which we dillied and dallied. He had enough time to bury centrifiges and MiG jet fighters in the sand. If the poisons are still in the country they're well-buried, you can be sure of that.
Not so, Pres. Bush mentioned freeing the Iraqis from Sadaam many times in speeches and statements during the run-up to war. It may not have been the most important reason, since he was still trying to hew somewhat to the UN resolutions, but it was always there.
I thought this was a very intersting article, and Fukayama makes a VERY important point when he says that if there turn out to be no WMDs, that it WON'T be a failure of Bush's policies since Clinton has already stated publicly that the Bush folks had the same intelligence that his admin. had. It will be difficult (but not impossible given the mainstream media) for the Nine to turn this into an anti-Bush thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.