Quote:
Originally posted by Publius
OK here you go. First, I voted for Bush because I had high hopes that he would turn out to be to sort of president that I had hoped he would be, and I hate Al Gore. Second, I think most people (not all) were glad Bush was the man in office come 9/11, I sure know I was. Here he had a great opportunity to do awesome things in this country at home and abroad. In my opinion, going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do, and he did it well.
It wasn't until Bush started bungling foreign policy over Iraq that I started to become critical of his administration. I tried defending him for awhile, but as events unfolded I finally had to admit he was making some huge mistakes. Now I've been to Europe and the Middle East to talk with people there over US foreign policy and it is amazing how fast there sympathy and support over 9/11 turned to animosity and hatred over Iraq. Most of them (including the French) still love Americans and America, what they don’t like (like many of us) is our leadership. The first step to repairing US foreign policy is getting rid of George Bush, because it is the president who dictates this country’s foreign policy stance. (Personally I think the president should be limited to foreign policy and leave domestic policy concerns to the Congress who by its nature is much more representative of the American people.)
Now, I personally don’t see how being critical of our administration hurts our troops abroad. If anything being critical at home works to insure that their lives will not be senselessly wasted when a little diplomacy could have been used.
|
I'll start with your last statement first. Being critical of the administration is perfectly acceptable but it should be done in constructive rather than destructive ways. Let's say a husband and wife go to an auto dealer to buy a car. If their goal is to get the best deal possible, should they get into a screaming match on the showroom floor and disclose their dividing points to the salesman? Of course not. Why then is it appropriate to do so in the face of an enemy who wants to kill our citizens? Exposing and fomenting divisiveness rallies the enemy. People are so quick to point out that Bush hasn't used diplomacy in world affairs yet have no concern that our politicians refuse to use it here at home.
Now, onto your first point. I too voted for George Bush. Not because I had great hope for him. Not because I agreed with him. And certainly not because I thought he was well suited for the job. I wanted McCain. Gore was simply unacceptable so that, realistically, left George Bush.
I was surprised he handled 9/11 as well as he did. I was even more surprised by the restraint he showed in the days, months, and years after it. People seem to forget that he didn't invade Afghanistan and Iraq on 9/12. The US went to Afghanist in October 2001. We didn't go into Iraq until March of 2003. People claim there was no diplomacy prior to the invasion of Iraq. There were UN resolutions, meetings with just about every ally we've ever had, and plenty of alternatives given to Hussein before the invasion took place. Could it have been done better? Absolutely. Were there reasons to go into Iraq also absolutely. Everyone points to WMDs as the only reason. The simple fact is we (the United States) created a reputation over the last 30 years of not getting their hands dirty. Of there being no consequence to those who commit or support terrorist acts. Afghanistan and Iraq were answers to that image. Would countries supporting terrorism have taken the US seriously if their only reaction to terrorism was a successful invasion of Afghanistan? Of course not. Iraq proved that we would risk lives and reputation in the war on terror. Is it an accident that other countries that never would have worked with us before have come forward (Pakistan, Libya, hell even Iran has opened up a bit with regard to nuclear inspections)? Not a chance they would have looked at Afghanistan as an example.
And I will close with a reiteration of the statement I made to Superbelt, anyone who can only find one or two examples of "good" from a man who has served nearly four years as our leader isn't trying very hard.