If you read Tom Friedman, then you've had the opportunity to watch the progression of his disillusionment with the handling of the Iraqi war. If my recollection is correct, two or three months ago he castigated the Bush Administration as "incompetent" and ideologically blinded in their handling of the war. He further opinioned that the cause may already be lost. George Will, Posner and other conservative commentators have also begun the process of reviewing their statements in a "why we were wrong" mode.
I would think that instead of discussing the perceived historical shortcomings of "the Democrats," and how that might predict Kerry's performance, as you did in a previous post, you might want to thoughtfully address the very obvious shortcomings of the Bush Administration and what their incompetence and their unrealistic and ideological inflexibility has cost this country of ours. And what it might cost us with "four more years." Friedman and others have been forthright enough to do so, and I'd think that would set a fine example for those who still wholeheartedly support the Iraqi adventure.
As you'll recall, I was not terribly upset with the election of Bush, although I didn't vote for him. I am, however, terribly upset with him now. From the exaggeration of the wmd threats in Iraq, to the staging of the pulldown of the statute of Saddam by an Army psychological operations colonel, to the ineptitude of the handling of the post invasion administration of Iraq and to the construction of 14 permanent military bases in Iraq, this administration has engaged in or ratified acts that were deceptive and which all point to some truth that we are not allowed to share. When the scope and aftershocks are as broad as they are with these questions, misleading the voting public is greatly undemocratic.
I do agree, however, that among many other questions, a paramount issue is the question is who we want to lead the war on terror for the next four years.
I'd like someone that understands that throwing money at the military is not the answer but rather a part of the problem. It's a part of the problem because so many of our minds and energies are wasted in special interest pursuits that simply empower or profit highly placed military personnel or companies when they should be "working smarter." For that reason I'd like someone in office who DIDN'T favor every military spending bill that came down the pike with a bunch of pork barrel riders on it.
I'd like someone that understands that the world is a complex place full of cultures that share different values; many of them repugnant to our own. Someone that understands that not all people crave equality for women, equal rights for minorities, material wealth over spiritual sacrifice or who desire the help of strangers to set their "hive" straight. And who knows that you cannot enter another culture's house and try to take charge because that will inevitably unify the people who live there in radical and violent opposition to your rule. In other words, someone with a common sense, an understanding of the power of the average man and a sense of history.
I'd like someone who can motivate change by calling on our best impulses, not someone who uses fear, envy, and distrust to achieve his ends. I'd like someone with a long view of the future, not someone who plays at a checker level in a chess match. I'd like someone who can inspire the thoughtful admiration of the world's leaders, not simply their fear. I'd like someone who could convince the world to be our allies, not someone who is forced to "buy" a few allies.
And I'd certainly like someone who understands that the war on terror is not a war against nation states, but rather a war against ideas. Read the book by Anonymous.
By any of the standards that I see as important, I don't want George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Wofowitz or Rumsfeld. I'm ready to try another frog cause the last one just pissed in my hand.
It's interesting to me that if anyone had predicted the actual current state of post-Iraqi affairs a year of so ago, they'd have suffered the wrath of the Bush and war supporters. They'd have been called "Bush haters," or "wishing for the worst liberals," or even "anti-American." I know because I did and I was.
You were among those who initially were wildly enthusiastic about our invasion of Iraq and the prospects for a successful outcome. At this far later date, I'd think that you'd have reassed some of your assumptions and beliefs. |
