Can you imagine Bush calling for the US being humble today? I’m not sure journalists could report it with a straight face.
Here’s an old editorial, from before 9/11, that ponders whether Bush will side with the Rumsfeld group who wants to go to war with Saddam or with the Colin Powell group who believes the US “needs to work toward fostering peace rather than settling scores.” Guess we know who won.
Sitting on a plane yesterday with several soldiers coming home from Iraq, I now can’t help but wonder if they wished Bush had chosen the humble path.
Bush, the ‘Gladiator’ president?
Divisions within the Bush administration are starting to remind us of the movie, “Gladiator.”
As in the movie, the New York Times reports that two camps are emerging within the Bush administration. There are those around Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his assistant Paul Wolfowitz, who want a more war-like policy. They want to overthrow Saddam Hussein and otherwise re-ignite Cold War/Clintonian belligerency.
Absurdly, the Times identifies this position as “ideologically conservative.” How can a policy originated and carried out by Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson be so described? All these people favored big government at home and abroad.
[…]
On the other side, meanwhile, stands Secretary of State Colin Powell and his colleagues, who are urging a relaxation of sanctions against Iraq and an outright repeal of most other sanctions. They are free traders, cautious about military intervention and generally aware that the world has changed since the Cold War and so should U.S. foreign policy.
>
Did you ask them? Opinions are mixed, no doubt…but many soldiers are proud of what they’ve accomplished in Iraq and more are OK with it – sure, most didn’t want to go but when you sign up you better realize that you might have to. I know a few guys that have been in Iraq and in general the attitude is that they have a job to do and are doing it – no more, no less. I know that’s how I viewed my service – just get the job done and try to stay alive, nothing new there.
Today’s conservatives seem to reject both meanings of that label. They don’t have a limited view of the role of government, nor are they reluctant to embrace change. They’ve certainly taken advantage of majorities in both house of Congress to make some major changes to the amount of power government can wield as it keeps watch over its flock of sheep.
I can’t believe the author of that article dared to put Bush’s name in with the likes of Wilson and FDR, much less lump them into the same category.
Joe, If you served in Iraq, I’m glad you made it home OK. I have talked with several people after a National Guard stint in Iraq and they seem unanimous. It wasn’t fun, they had little faith in the C in C, and it was only getting worse. They had no purpose or mission there. And all the Iraqis hate the Americans.
The only way a foreigner can go around in Iraq is accompanied by the US military, otherwise they face kidnapping or murder. I just heard about how the Baghdad morgue doubled it’s toll to 1440 deaths last month, double last month which had doubled the previous month. No one knows the good guys from the bad, they all wear Police uniforms now.
The public infrastructure is totally shot. Hospitals are out of medicines. Streets are not being repaired. And after three elections, there still isn’t a functioning government.
So where are the mixed opinions? Who is coming home with stories of what a great job they have done? Who, indeed, has even served in Iraq is saying anything positive about the American involvement?
In a democracy it’s not about what the troops want.