And don't believe the polls. I've been to nearly 20 states recently, and I've found that 95 percent of the country wants to see Iraq dealt with without a war.
I'm not so sure that 95% wants the situation to be resolved without war even if there is a good peaceful way to disarm Iraq. I am just about certain that its a lot less then 95% that finds accepting Saddam with nukes to be preferable to a war in Iraq.
I would not have angered all of Europe by trashing the Kyoto global warming treaty without offering an
alternative.
In a sense he did offer an alternative. That of having no international treaty to deal with the potential problem of global warming. That seems a better alternative to me then Kyoto.
I would not have alienated the entire Russian national security elite by telling the Russians that we were ripping up the ABM treaty and that they would just have to get used to it.
I might not have violated the treaty but it was not violated. I definitly would have withdrawn from it (as allowed for by the treaty) probably before Bush did. You can argue about SDI being in the strategic interests of the US or not (I obviously think it is) but if it is (and Bush thinks so) then there is no reason to let the Russian national security elite set US security policy.
I would not have proposed one radical tax cut on top of another on the eve of a huge, costly nation-building marathon abroad.
I probably would have, but Bush did not. Neither tax cut was huge or radical. The 2nd was mostly just a speeding up of the first one except for the addition of deducting dividend income. I would have prefered a tax cut that was larger and more radical (a complete rework of the tax system rather then tinkering with the old one).
I would, though, have rallied the nation for real energy conservation and initiated a Manhattan Project for alternative energies so I would not find myself with $2.25-per-gallon gasoline on the eve of this war
I would not have. For the most part I think such things should be left to the market.
I would have told the Palestinians that until they stop suicide bombing and get a more serious leadership, we're not dealing with them, but I would also have told the Israelis that every new or expanded settlement they built would cost them $100 million in U.S. aid.
I might support the idea of quietly pressuring Israel to stop expanding the settlements but I would not have made such an explict link, certainly not publically.
Maybe you can force peace talks on the two parties but you can't really force peace on them, at least not without conquering the region and putting down any resistance with Stalin like brutality. We can nudge and encourage but they have to want peace before there will be peace.
And I would have told the Arabs: "While we'll deal with the Iraqi threat, we have no imperial designs on your countries. We are not on a crusade - but we will not sit idle if you tolerate extremists in your midst who imperil our democracy."
I think the Bush administration has been saying somethin along these lines.
But if you look underneath, you discover that this table has only one leg. His bold vision on Iraq is not supported by boldness in other areas.
The tax cut, pulling out of the ABM treaty, not supporting Kytoto... are examples of boldness in support of Bush's agenda. Perhaps Friedman wanted boldness in supporting the Friedman agenda...
Tim |
